Even if all cabinet ministers read 57-page judgment of High Court Judge Dato Lau Bee Lan, it does not mean that they will all understand fully the nuance and arguments of the Judgment (as not all ministers have the legal background to facilitate them to do so). And even if they do – and even privately agree with its correctness in law – it does not mean they will support the judgment if big brother UMNO takes a position against it.

According to Nazri, if indicative of UMNO’s stance, his party has already determined that, to its constituency, Islam is so intrinsically intertwined with their cultural/racial identity that it is of the utmost paramount importance in their psyche. “They become so protective because Malay and Islam cannot be separate,” Nazri pointed out. The word “protective” implies that it holds the top priority position in their worldview, so that the moment the controversy were not settled privately and brought into public domain by the high profile court case, the ruling party has determined (rightly or wrongly) that the majority of its constituency) will not countenance and accept any compromise to concede to the Herald’s challenge (whether actual or an appearance of it) of the revered place of supremacy that the Official Religion holds in their psyche. (Hence it would have been better if Herald did not bring a legal action in the first place but had proceeded low profile to negotiate/seek compromise via dialogue with the authorities on the issue. However since it didn’t, the time is well passed for that now.

[I read Nazri as saying, the Herald’s Cause may in fact not be an actual challenge by facts or even by law to Islam – but it suffices if there is an “appearance” or or perception of such by his conservative constituents].
Which is why Nazri said “I may look liberal but my constituents are not…Actually, in my opinion, I prefer to let it be” (I read “it” to be status quo before ban). “If everyone prays to Allah, they’ll all be Muslim. It’s a good ploy for Muslims to convert non-Muslims” he quipped.”
When he said his constituents were not liberal it meant that they were sensitive, and hence after the court action, interfaith negotiation/dialogue becomes impossible due to intervention of pride.
The excerpts are taken from The MalaysianInsider Jan 18. On the basis of what Nazri said, there appears little prospects that the government will give in to the Herald in toto of what it wants according to the terms of the High Court’s decision. The reason for that appears “political” and not legal. No one is talking of logic here. It is about senstivities ie (read emotions).

This is obvious as Nazri, a lawyer by training, has not given any single legal argument about why the Lau BL’s decision is wrong in law or facts or misapplied. According to The MalaysianInsider “Nazri did not reply when asked if he had read for himself the written grounds of judgment by High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan which was released last week”. This is consistent with the view that he and his party/the govt look more to the political implications and imperatives than legalities – and the way Herald decision by Lau Be Lan provokes negatively emotional sensitivities (amongst his constitutency) rather than its appeal to intrinsic logic or law) that explains why the government cannot compromise by withdrawing its appeal.

He has also said “we must respect the system. So I’m using the court system to appeal the court decision” – in other words, one gets the impression that the govt seeks recourse from the appellate courts based on political than legal imperatives. Put another way, recourse to appellate court to secure legal legitimacy for a political imperative.

Against such a background, it is highly unlikely that Herald will eventually get all that it wants. At best it gets the compromise (East-West) compromise offered by Nazri as an olive branch; at worst not even that.

”Actually, in my opinion, I prefer to let it be….If everyone prays to Allah, they’ll all be Muslim. It’s a good ploy for Muslims to convert non-Muslims” quipped Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz per TheMalaysianInsider report of 18th Jan.

By quipping that Non Muslims could also stand a chance of being converted by use of the common word, Nazri obliquely admits that even (personally) he may not believe that the use of the word by Herald would proselytize Malay/Muslims (prohibited by our Federal Constitution). The ban by Foreign Minister Hamid in 2007 is after all misconceived. It is misconceived in facts – because there is no evidence that all the while since time immemorial running to the ban the use of the word in Malay version of the bible has converted – or used to proselytize – any Malay/Muslim. It is also misconceived in law because the Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 restricting the use of the word “Allah” for non-Muslims – based on which the ban is ostensibly justified – is only applicable in 10 states of Peninsular to the exclusion of Federal territories, Penang, Malacca Sabah/Sarawak. This is not even considering point 1 of the 20 and 18 point agreements with Sabah & Sarawak respectively that makes clear “…the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.” It is also not considering the gist of what Justice Lau Bee Lan ruled : that even if the Constitution prohibits ‘proselytization’ of Malay/Muslim, it also upholds freedom of religion for Non Muslims who are not prohibited from religious expressions/pursuits that do not infringe the constitutional ‘proselytization’ prohibition!
From the time of the ban until the present appeal against High Court’s decision it is obvious that the ban was invoked and defended not on factual or legal basis but political considerations. The political considerations are deductible from Nazri’s remarks discussed in my posting #26 above.

In a nutshell these are political considerations relating to Ketuanan Melayu, the raison de etre of UMNO forged and strengthened during 22 years of Tun Dr Mahathir’s rule. The conservative segment of UMNO’s traditional vote bank still upholds this tenet and ideology. Right wing Umno warlords on whom top party’s officials depend on for political survival within the party still champion it, thinking its best for the protection of their vested patronage interest in groveling at the gravy train – even though these very same top officials know that from the results of the May 8th 12 General Election, the ground – especially Malay ground – has shifted more to the Middle, and that Ketuanan Rakyat is an idea that has come, giving the Opposition that carries its banner unprecedented victory depriving the BN 2/3 parliamentary majority and 5 states! Hence the need for BN to “re-invent“ with “1 Malaysia”, a diametrically opposite concept/ideology and the tentative steps to revise BTN’s curriculum, enroll 30% of Non Malays in RMC, new economic policy to water down some aspects of NEP that thwart foreigners and investors. UMNO cannot just jettison Ketuanan or NEP because such a drastic about-face turn – after more than 22 years of indoctrination of this ideology – will, in its determination, spell open rebellion within the party and possibly en masse desertion by its traditional vote bank.

(Continuing from preceding posting).

As UMNO/BN gets ready for the next general election, Umno is forced by the controversy to face the dilemma whether it is prepared to lose the votes of the non-Muslims and of other BN component parties and also the support of East Malaysian Christians by not giving in to Herald’s position or by giving in, lose a portion of its traditional Malay/Muslim votes.

To take either extreme position is high stake and risky. Hence Nazri comes out with the compromise based on political imperatives – lift the ban in East Malaysia, maintain it in Peninsular, never mind the internal inconsistencies of logic and law that such a compromise engenders.

But even a compromise like that is risky and high stake. There is no telling that both sides of the Herald controversy will be appeased : it may satisfy no side!

A satisfactory solution is elusive because the Herald is after all basing its claims and fighting its battle on considerations of logic, law and constitutional position whereas the ruling establishment, the political considerations as Nazri said, “Those people not in politics, they can say anything. But people like me, I depend on my voters.” (There is difficulty in forging compromise when contening parties proceed to stake their claim on different platform and premsies].

That’s why Nazri blames Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam for instituting a court action and plunging UMNO/BN into a dilemma which it would be happy avert, to compromise in quieter and less publicised circumstances; that’s why other BN component parties are quiet on this controversy because they know the entire UMNO/BN coalition faces this dilemma and instead of pouring fuel to fire, left it to their leader UMNO to resolve it; Thats why the Opposition and DAP in particular advocates “Middle Malaysia” because thats the way in the future to go which UMNO/BN caught in the quagmire and controversy of its own doing is lagging behind in this race towards the goal of the “Middle”!

Thats why it is also true that if the controversy is not easily resolvable – and protracts – it may well, be on balance, produce a more favourable impact on the Opposition as regards its electoral chances, especially when PAS in officially backing Herald has painted UMNO counterpart as more extreme from the Middle on this issue of Religion.

However the boon to the Opposition is not altogether good news, because if the controversy is not easily resolvable – and protracts – it also means those whose vested interests lie in maintaining political status quo will have plenty opportunities of stoking fire around this sensitive issue to cause unrest and disharmony hoping to disrupt the ballot process before or its outcome. Already it has started with arson attacks on churches.

They will do so if they make the determination that the party they support which they hope will maintain power forever is on a losing streak faced with an unresolvable dilemma and no win situation. So the situation could (but not necessarily) turn dangerous. Much depends on majority of Malaysians to act calm and level headed, and not emotional about the issue.

One would tilt more on the side of traditional Malay voter bank upholding “Ketuanan” to support the ban if it is felt, and assumed, that Christian “Chinese, Indians, Kadazan, Murut, Bajau, Sulu, Iban, Bidayuh, Dayak” in East Malaysia, though unhappy with govt’s stand will still give their unstinting support to BN come next election because of the “lollies” and development largesse like motor boats and other material benefits distributed to them. This assumption is of course dicey because the two things important to many a voter are (1) money/material benefits (2) religion too! So the assumption can proceed only if it is felt that loss of support of majority East Malaysian Christian Chinese, Indians, Kadazan, Murut, Bajau, Sulu, Iban, Bidayuh, Dayak” can be compensated by retention of votes from the thousands of muslim voters brought in via Projek M.