Unscientific Malaysia

The Nut Graph is running a novel special feature called MP Watch: Eye on Parliament.

In this feature, they attempt to get all 222 Members of Parliament (MP) to answer a list of six questions.

Image via Wikipedia

Naturally, we are much more interested in this one question:

Do you think Malaysia should be a secular or an Islamic state? Why?

So where do our MPs stand? Let’s take a look at the first ten answers (we will list ten answers each week). [All emphasis ours]:

Loke Siew Fook (DAP-Rasah)

The status quo of the basic framework of the Federal Constitution, which is secular in nature, must be upheld. The status of Islam as the official religion of the federation will never be questioned.

However, separation of the state and religion is fundamental in any democracy. The country’s governance must be based on the written constitution. In short, any theocratic form of government is not suitable and is unacceptable in a multiracial society such as Malaysia.

Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin (PAS-Bukit Gantang)

Malaysia should be a baldatun tayyibatun wa rabbun ghafoor (a state which is virtuous and forgiven by the almighty God). Whatever its name, it must have those qualities and philosophy.

Chor Chee Heung (MCA-Alor Star)

The present status of Malaysia is good enough. According to the interpretation of our constitution and highest court, Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as its official religion. Loosely it can also be called an Islamic state since Islam is its official religion.

M Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat)

The framers of the Federal Constitution [considered] Malaysia a secular country. The social contract we entered [into] when Malaysia was formed in 1957 was based on secular principles.

We must bear in mind that Malaysia is a multiracial country. Hence Malaysia should be a secular country, where the justice, freedom and equality pursued by the people is based on and is compatible with the principles of democracy, and not an Islamic state.

Image by owaief89 via Flickr

Mohd Shafie Apdal (UMNO-Semporna)

The Federal Constitution clearly sets out the position of Islam as the state’s religion. At the same time, it ensures the religious freedoms of non-Muslims. Ironically, the constitution also provides for those of no particular religious belief, i.e. secularists. I see no need whatsoever to change this.

[More quotes after the jump]

Zuraida Kamaruddin (PKR-Ampang)

There are five million Muslims living in France. These migrant Muslims are adjusting to life in France, and France as a country is slowly changing to accommodate this change in demography. What is interesting is, why have these migrants left their Islamic countries to settle down in secular France?

Many of these migrant Muslims come from North Africa. France as an advanced democratic country is like heaven [because it] provide[s] a better life for these war- and famine-stricken people.

The question in Malaysia should be, how is the government fulfilling its obligation to the rakyat in the context of the social contract? Why did 21,066 Malaysian citizens opt to change their citizenship to Singaporean from 2000 to 2009? I believe a substantial number among them are Muslims.

R Sivarasa (PKR-Subang)

Neither. We in Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) uphold the Federal Constitution. With Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, which says that Islam shall be the religion of the federation, it is also difficult to categorically say that Malaysia is a secular state. It all depends on what meaning you give the word “secular”; there are a range of meanings in which the word is used, all quite different.

Hamim Samuri (UMNO-Ledang)

Malaysia telah diisytihar sebagai negara Islam dan terbukti tidak pun menindas atau menafikan rakyat bukan Islam. Negara ini lebih terkenal sebagai negara Islam dan kita lebih disenangi oleh semua negara Islam di dunia yang luas pasaran ekonominya.

Dzulkefly Ahmad (PAS-Kuala Selangor)

Let me begin by asserting that I’m an Islamist democrat. Like a social democrat in the DAP, who believes and advances social democracy in its political advocacy, I believe in advocating Islam as a social and political order; besides being a religious conviction per se, within the ambit of parliamentary democracy.

In a multi-party a la-Westminster parliamentary democracy, all contending parties have their right to advocate, compete and seek for electoral mandate in an electoral process that should provide for a free and fair political contestation on a more or less level playing field.

Viewed from this perspective, I must emphatically say that I’m least bothered whether Malaysia should be or is a secular or an Islamic state. I’m least concerned as to whether you call this country secular or Islamic. What matters to me is the provision of equal opportunities. [This includes] free and fair elections where every contesting party or coalition is accessible to the electorate.

That is critical and vital for a democrat rather than [to] be engaged in the endless worthless polemic of whether this country is secular or Islamic. If the entire electorate decides democratically that the country is secular, Islamic or otherwise, so be it. The ability to accept the majority’s decision, based on a functional democracy, is a democrat’s defining criterion.

As an Islamist democrat, I stand to defend others their right to advocate political convictions and I expect to be accorded the same right. As democrats, we are expected to accept the outcome of the political contestation and not take extra-parliamentary actions to subvert and undermine the state and its institutions.

Being part of the Pakatan Rakyat, PAS and other component parties are striving to achieve a truly democratic and functional democratic state, wherein rule of law and the federal constitution are upheld, and an open, transparent and accountable government is put in place.

This is more important, and a critical prerequisite in establishing a strong foundation for nation rebuilding, and securing a level playing field for everyone and every contending political party.

Azmi Khalid (UMNO-Padang Besar)

The present system is ok as it is enshrined in the constitution (one should study Malaysian history to understand how it evolves).

So what can we conclude so far?

All Barisan Nasional MPs are okay with the current system (a bastardised hybrid system), and they even proudly call Malaysia an Islamic state (Alor Setar and Ledang).

But why should we be surprised? BN leaders, in an attempt to appease the Malay crowd, have repeatedly claimed Malaysia as an Islamic state (it is not).

Semporna MP, sadly, do not even know the meaning of “secularism” (separation of state and religion), equating it with “atheism” (not believing in gods). With this inaccurately negative image, it will be hard to convince the public on the need of a secular state.

Stay tuned for next week as we list ten more MPs and their answers to the question.