1. It has come to the attention of PPMM that there has
been some misconception and/or misunderstanding as to the actual decision
delivered by the Honorable Court of Appeal on the aforestated matter. PPMM
being a body having the duty to keep all members of the public correctly
informed as to the development of legal matters of this nature, takes it upon
itself duty bound to make a statement as follows.
2. The subject matter before the Honorable Court of
Appeal was pertaining to the legality of the condition imposed by the minister
prohibiting the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the specific publication of “Herald
– The Catholic Weekly”. This matter came before the Court on the application of
Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur (The Archbishop) by way of
Judicial review, which is a specie of actions to be brought before court in
challenging the legality of ministerial and/ or administrative decisions.
3. It was the Archbishop who complained in that
application to the then High Court that the Minister was wrong in imposing the
said condition which amongst others infringed the Archbishop’s purported
guaranteed rights under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, and that the
minister’s reliance amongst others on the existence of the anti propagation
laws under article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution would also be furthering
that infringement.
4. In the light of that background, the Honorable Court
of Appeal in determining whether the High Court was correct or otherwise in its
decision, was duty bound to examine the complaint of the Archbishop under
Article 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.
5. Hence, a careful reading of all the three judgments of
the Honorable Court of Appeal will show that the Court had ventilated, studied
and considered the application of all the relevant provisions of the Federal
Constitution as well as the related provisions of all the necessary statutes in
coming up with the decision to answer the complaint of the Archbishop in his application for Judicial Review of the
Minister’s conditions imposed.
6. It is very clear from the decision of the Honorable
Court of Appeal, that what they decided was specifically with regards to the
legality of the imposition of the condition by the minister in which the
unanimous decision of the Honorable Court of Appeal is “that the minister has
not acted in any manner or way that merit judicial interference on his impugned
decision”, which simply means that the Archbishop was prohibited from using the
word ‘Allah’ in “Herald – The Catholic Weekly” publication.
7. Therefore, PPMM would wish to go on record to stress
that as far as this Honorable Court of Appeal’s decision is concerned, PPMM is
of the view that the decision goes as far as prohibiting the Archbishop from
using the word “Allah” in “Herald – The Catholic Weekly” publication, and
nothing beyond that.
8. PPMM is also of the view, that it would be a
misconception on the part of any sections of the public, locally and/or
internationally to deem that the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeal has
in any way put out a blanket prohibition on any section of the non Muslim
community of Malaysia from using the word “Allah”. However, a careful reading
of the said judgments will also show that all members of the Malaysian
community were allowed to use the word “Allah” in the sense of the Qur’anic/
Islamic reference to God, which is as pronounced in Surah Al Ikhlas, (“Purity”)
(Chapter 112) as follows: “Say: He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, the
Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none Like
unto Him.”.
9. In conclusion, PPMM would humbly call for all sections
of the public to read and understand the judgments of the Honorable Court of
Appeal in the sense in which it was given, and also not to make unnecessary and
unwarranted remarks which may lead to confusion and/or bordering contempt.
1 comment:
Simple - it violates my constitutional freedom of religion. End of Line.
Post a Comment