reduced and recycled

Well, thank Bukan Islam Liberal for bringing this letter to my attention. It begs some examination, if not clarification. The letter referred to was published in Malaysiakini and picked up, no doubt, for its particular flavour. The link to the original letter is here. Unsurprisingly, the letter is an exercise in selective reading - of the news, of course. I think it bears examination in several parts.

Firstly,

His insistence in calling the demonstrators “a mob” surely belies his prejudices when, on all accounts, none of the photographs in the media attest to this being the case.

The word “mob” means, amongst others, a “large, disorderly crowd or throng”. I believe Ms Fatimah is taking offense with the word “mob”, though I don’t see how the crowds demonstrating at Penang were ‘orderly’ in any sense of the word. Perhaps she takes offense at the characterisation of the… ‘demonstration’… as ‘irrational’. If so, then perhaps she believes the demonstration to be rational.

Let’s see: if I were to conduct a debate or argument rationally, it must follow that if any debate is to be had, I must firstly know what my opponent proposes to argue. I cannot debate, let alone rationally, if I don’t know what the opponent wants to say. That seems logical, doesn’t it? A demonstration is an exercise in “saying your piece”. It is “one-way”. If I choose to ignore what my opponent is saying, then I’m not debating, I’m merely pushing forward my point of view. There is, therefore, no debate. If there is no debate, how can I therefore debate rationally? It seems irrational. The demonstration is irrational. (As all demonstrations are, I’ve been thinking.)

Also, if Cik Fatimah profers a small argument: the demonstration cannot be a mob, i.e. irrational, because the news media have not taken photographs proving that demonstration was irrational. Is she talking about official media or unofficial media? Anyway, the demonstration (if she prefers) was only reported in local dailies, without pictures; but according to Cik Fatimah, testimony of the crowd’s ‘unruliness’ must be accompanied by photographic evidence (what a standard of proof!). Or else, we should disregard an opinion piece from the Star, a report published by the Sun, another opinion piece from the Malaysian Bar (who have some photographs!), and a blog post from Lucia Lai (who also has pictures!).

The above cannot be believed, mind, because they all have agendas! Or at least, that’s what I think Cik Fatimah is saying… either that or she does acknowledge there are pictures, but none of which show signs of a ‘mob’. I must say, the Police couldn’t have been thinking right when they disallowed the forum to continue, on grounds that they couldn’t ‘guarantee the safety of those attending the forum’… how quaint.

I say: look again.

Secondly,

Article 11’s aim in having this roadshow is to collect signatures for its petition which will then be presented to the government. The roadshow is not about having a dialogue. Now, if it is a genuine dialogue and discussion, should not the communique on this be one agreed upon by all concerned?

I find this quite strange. Firstly, the collection of signatures can easily be interpreted as seeking a conscensus which will then form the basis of a dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. Clearly this is not only rational, it is very pragmatic; there is no “monolithic” entity called “non-Muslim”, though the Islamic characterisation of such a monolithic bloc exists. Non-muslims are, in reality, composed of Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, etc. Ignoring this fact smacks of a bit of blindness, and clearly of a perception of ‘non-Muslims’ that is stunted.

Secondly, the forum could be interpreted as a primer to encourage people of non-Muslim faiths to dialogue and to become aware of the possible threats of an increasingly Islamicised Malaysia. The agenda isn’t religion but freedom of religion. It’s a human rights issue, not a religious issue, as one can clearly see if one should only look at the 13 NGOs that make up this ‘Article 11′ group.

That Cik Fatimah chose the more insidious, and negative interpretation of the whole event, speaks only of her state of mind, if not prejudices.

Thirdly,

Clearly Article 11 is stage managing this whole thing to register its own view on the pretext of it being for the “silent majority (that) has been silent for too long”. So much for democracy and transparency.

No, I don’t think it’s clearly that at all. Cik Fatimah draws a conclusion that is only supported by suspicion and more suspicion. To make citizens aware of their rights under the Constitution, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is most laudable - MOST laudable. It encourages the demos to understand what it is they stand for, what it is that is said, believed and asserted on their behalf. To refuse to educate citizens on their rights is tantamount to refusing said citizens the opportunity to make an informed decision about where they feel their nation should be going. Declaring Article 11 forums undemocratic is like saying voting in elections is undemocratic. That’s preposterous.

And I have not heard, read or seen any indication that these forums are closed off to ‘certain’ people. As far as I know, all are invited, even those who wish to invite themselves (as two hecklers, apparently, did). How is that being opaque? How is that being undemocratic?

Lastly,

Martin Jalleh protests that “the forum was not about opposing the syariah” but is not Article 11 saying that amendment to the Constitution was “ill conceived” and that review powers be given to the civil courts over Shariah Court decisions?

I’ll have to agree with Cik Fatimah here. However one looks at it, Article 11 is clearly interfering or, at least, objecting to the application of Shariah Court decisions in all aspects of a Muslim’s life, insofar as Islam is concerned. It is, however, a question of priorities, and in this Cik Fatimah seems to fail to see the larger issues at stake (or maybe she does…). Allowing Shariah Courts to make decisions on all aspects of a Muslim’s life can, and has, clashed with a citizen’s fundamental, basic right to his/her freedom to practice their religion.

It is a question of whether we should impede or cease our tumble down the slippery slope toward a theocracy trumping secular democracy. It is a question about whether we should allow a clear, distinct separation of mosque (in this instance) and state. It is this question, I believe, that Cik Fatimah refuses to confront in deriding the Article 11 group. It is ultimately this question, I believe, that Article 11 asks of all of us as Malaysians.

It is a question that will determine how Malaysians see themselves in the future.