Why doesn’t Parliament table new legislation on the matter making it clear to non-Muslims that once converted to Muslims, they can only do a reverse conversion only by meeting the statutory requirements of this new statute?

Of course this path towards Islamization (or call it what you may) is not accessible without first resolving what seems to be a ‘conflict’ between syariah and civil law and the Constitution on the issue of ‘religious freedom’.

Habeas corpus can then be suspended if one puts oneself or comes within the scope of the Act.

After all that is the role of statutes – to rid any inherent ambiguities in the law.

“Why make another bad law?
The root of the problems is the article in the Constitution that says Malays=Muslim” HJ Angus

Why make another ‘bad’ law? A law is bad when there are inherent ambiguities which lend themselves to conflicting interpretations by our courts. These ambiguities are cleared by way of amendments to the law earlier passed by the country’s highest legislature i.e. Parliament.

If the law makers are reluctant to amend that law, maintaining their original view that there is nothing inherently wrong with the law, that the problem is with the civil courts which choose not to take over jurisdiction of the matter and the syariah courts which refuse to exercise their discretion in the matter, then the only other way would be to introduce a new statue which specifically deals with the issues – and the issue of habeas corpus.

The problem is with the politicians – not the law makers, not even with our judges both civil and syariah. Religion in Malaysia has been so politicized that judges are reluctant, almost afraid to be liberal in their interpretation of the law for fear that they will be seen as working against their political masters. There is no real separation of powers and the country is under the grip of executive tyranny.

As for the issue of Malays=Muslims, Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution 1957 deals with definitions and, I respectfully submit, is not meant in the form it appears to restrict the religious freedom of any one race. If at all, it works the same way as a legal presumption that all Malays are Muslims until proven otherwise.

Years later, someone came along and chose to show his ingenuity in using the language of Article 160(2), unfortunate as it is, to prevent the spread of religious dogma among the Malays that is not Islamic – and for political reasons one might add.

“There is a fear that the Malay rulers will lose their influence but I think the last PM did that during his term.”

The Malay Rulers are symbols and even as constitutional symbols they are doing badly. They cannot lose what they do not have.

Wa happened to my reply to your post earlier??

“The root of the problems is the article in the Constitution that says
Malays=Muslim”

Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution is on ‘definitions’ and, I respectfully submit, that its exclusive nature has been used by politicians to prevent Muslims from converting.

This is a good example of vested interests working to protect themselves.

“It was mentioned in the alJareeza documentary that if religious freedom was allowed for the Malays, they would be finished as a race.” HJ Angus

This is a logical extension of Article 160(2). Who can disagree?

“Limbo has now been declared a non-doctrine by the Pope.”

Yeah. “Let’s limbo some more” goes the song by Chubby Checker. As for the Pope I am not a Catholic and he can limbo or not limbo as much as he wants. I got no problem with that. My problem is when somebody wants to limbo with me, and somebody else is stopping him or her.

“Then you will have malay muslims, malay buddhist, malay hindu and many more. ”

Malays like the Javanese and the Balinese were Hindus before Islam reached its shores and won converts. Many Javanese and Balinese are still Hindus. Indonesia should be admired for practicing religious freedom – although there have been religious persecution of Christians in parts of Indonesia but these mostly involve Chinese Indonesians. The mass killings in 1997/8 were more due to hatred for the Chinese – a racial issue rather than a religious one.

Aljazeera is right when it says Malays as a race would be finished if religious freedom were allowed in Malaysia.

The definition of a Malay can be found in Article 160(2) of our Constitution. But it appears in the section dealing with ‘definitions’ along with other terms. Unfortunately, its exclusive nature has been exploited by our politicians to justify their policies of discrimination – and needless to say, suppression and oppression.

That’s not surprising because we are a nation of jokers!