eatingchaos

who are the article 11?
Article 11 comprises of 13 NGOs:

1. All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
   
2. Bar Council Malaysia
   
3. Catholic Lawyers Society
   
4. Interfaith Spiritual Fellowship
   
5. Malaysian Civil Liberties Society, Protem Committee (MCLS)
   
6. Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism & Sikhism (MCCBCHS)
   
7. National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
   
8. Pure Life Society
   
9. Sisters In Islam (SIS)
   
10. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
    
11. Vivekananda Youth Movement, Seremban
    
12. Women's Aid Organization (WAO)
    
13. Women's Development Collective (WDC)

why was article 11 coalition formed?
In April 2004, the civil High Court in Kuala Lumpur granted custody of 2 young boys aged 2 and 4 years to their Hindu mother. The judge imposed one condition - she was not to expose her sons to her Hindu faith. The 2 boys were previously, without her knowledge or consent, converted to Islam by her estranged husband, himself a recent convert to Islam. The same court has earlier dismissed an application by the Hindu mother for a declaration that the conversion of the 2 young children to Islam violated her parental right to co-determine the religious upbringing of the children. The reasoning of the court was that it had no jurisdiction, as the children were now Muslim and the correctness or otherwise of their conversion was a matter for the Syariah Court.

what are the objectives of article 11?

1. for the government and judiciary to uphold the supremacy of the Federal Constitution;
   
2. for the government to ensure governance in accordance with the Federal Constitution and premised on the universal values of all Malaysian peoples;
   
3. for the government to reaffirm that Malaysia shall not become a theocratic state;
   
4. for the government to recognise the proper position of the judiciary within the Constitutional framework, as an independent and equal arm of Government

how did the government react to this call?

• PM: Stop debate on religious issues
  
• Media advised against raising religious issues
  
• Article 11: Stop the forums

a ban on talking about our own rights. this, in a "democratic" country that malaysia is. have we reached a stage where we malaysians are such an intolerant bunch that it has become too sensitive for us to get together to talk about our own rights? have we? if yes, there are very dark days ahead, and every single one of us mykad holders should fear for the social health and direction of this country.

there is also a media blackout, and the no mainstream paper would publish a press statement by article 11. well guess what, i'm going to publish it, and i'm going to publish it before the government's fingers stretches out to shut us bloggers up.

Press Statement : Article 11 Unrelated to Inter-Faith Commission
A press statement by Article 11, a coalition of Malaysian NGOs committed to upholding the fundamental rights of all Malaysians regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

Article 11 is very concerned that the Prime Minister’s statement reported in today’s press, calling for a halt to Article 11’s public forums, is based on the widespread but mistaken belief that the coalition’s activities are aimed at reviving the initiative to establish an Inter-Faith Commission (IFC).

Article 11 would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the forums, entitled “Federal Constitution: Protection for All”, are in no way related with the IFC initiative. Rather, Article 11’s forums focus on the rights that the Federal Constitution, as the supreme law of Malaysia, guarantees to each citizen. The forums are also intended to highlight the concerns of civil society resulting from the plight of various individuals who are unable to obtain legal redress and who therefore suffer as a result of the current jurisdictional uncertainty in the courts. There is no discussion about the IFC in Article 11’s public forums or other activities.

Article 11 will seek a meeting with the Prime Minister to request further information about his concerns regarding the coalition’s activities and to provide clarification on the misconception that links Article 11 with the IFC.

Article 11 takes note of the Prime Minister’s concerns. The coalition members will meet soon and will carefully consider his advice in its discussions of future plans.

Press Statement by Hakam
I am the current President of the Nasional Human Rights Society (HAKAM). HAKAM is a member of the coalition which calls itself “Article 11”. You would have read about the controversy surrounding the road-show currently underway. The forum in Penang held in May was disrupted by protestors. The forum in Johor Bahru held earlier this month was almost disrupted and was regrettably shortened, again due to protestors. There is a significant amount of material on the web in the Bahasa Malaysia language which, while doing many things, chiefly presents a distorted picture of not only what Article 11 is attempting to achieve but also the way things are. These distortions have perhaps unfortunately become the foundation of the Prime Minister’s caution as reported in the media on 26th July 2006. I believe it is essential to set the record straight, not only for the security of those concerned but also for the sake of the nation.

The Article 11 initiative is in no way connected with the Interfaith Commission initiative. They are separate initiatives, with very different objectives. Unfortunately, unscrupulous parties have twisted this state of affairs and presented the objectives of both initiatives as not only being highly objectionable but also as being connected. It should be borne in mind that the Interfaith Commission initiative was aimed at making the Government aware of the benefits in establishing a statutory non-adjudicative body which could through recommendations assist the Government of the day in shaping coherent policy pertaining to religious harmony. A draft bill was endorsed by a national conference in February 2005 and, together with a plenary statement, presented to the Government. That is where all formal efforts pertaining to the proposed commission ended.

The Article 11 initiative is however aimed at creating awareness of the Federal Constitution, the guarantees provided therein and the concept of the rule of law against the context of increasing assertions that Malaysia is in law an Islamic State. In presenting the Federal Constitution, the initiative has at no point sought to question the status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia. That is what the Constitution says, after all. Neither has the initiative sought to challenge or attack the administration of Islamic Law nor the esteemed position of the Rulers.

The initiative has however shown that the provisions in the Constitution relating to Islam have a context and, amongst other things, are to be read in the light of the constitutional declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. The context being suggested by Article 11 is not that of the members of Article 11, the organisers or even the speakers at the forums. The context being suggested is one which the courts of this country have recognised. The suggestion that Malaysia is a secular country has recently been wrongly attributed to persons who have unfairly been indirectly characterised as trouble makers intent on attacking the administration of Islam. That is wholly incorrect. The statement is one of declared law. In the 1988 Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court declared:

..we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of the law...Until the law and the system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.

The law stands as that decision of the Supreme Court has not been reversed or departed from. In fact, during the recent Lina Joy Federal Court appeal, the Court asked whether it was being asked to depart from the principle in Che Omar Che Soh. Counsel opposing the appeal answered in the affirmative, indicating an acceptance that declared law in this country is as it stands in Che Omar Che Soh.
We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims, and thus an Islamic Country, and a country in which the supreme law is the syariah, an Islamic State. In Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court stated:

"If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution..."

As an illustration, the Pakistani constitution has provisions which declare the syariah law as the supreme law of Pakistan, and any laws inconsistent with the syariah as being void. The Malaysian Constitution does not. Furthermore, our constitutional history clearly reflects that the thinking of the alliance leaders and all key stakeholders in the period leading to the establishment of the Federal Constitution. That while Islam was to be given protected status, as a matter of law and the application of law, Malaysia was to be a secular, Westminster Style Democracy. This thinking, having gone to the establishment of the free nation of Malaya and then later, Malaysia, with its gloriously pluralist, multi-racial, multi-religious make up, cannot be dismissed as being mere opinion.

In view of this, it is grossly unreasonable for various parties to have characterised Article 11 as having challenged the status of Islam as the official religion and the status quo. Article 11 has not done so, it has championed the law including the declaration of Islam as the official religion of the Federation. Conversely, it is its detractors who have, through distortions and by preying on religious and racial sensitivities, sought to challenge the status quo. Perhaps because it is this very process of mixing religion, politics and the rule of law and the ensuing confusion that Article 11, has been cautioning against. Regrettably, this process is gaining ground.

This is not say that I or Article 11 condemns those who aspire to put in place around them a complete system based on syariah principles. That aim should however be achieved through constitutional process, that is constitutional change. The Federal Constitution, in as much as it is a living document, cannot be subverted through reinterpretations inconsistent with the objectives underlying the Federal Constitution when it was introduced in 1957. That would be amount to a hijacking of the Federal Constitution and the social contract it put in place.

for more press statements and better understanding of the events that lead up to the gag order, please visit article 11's website.

also read Lim Kit Siang's take on it.

article 11 is about being fair. it is about equality of rights and equal access to justice. so why can't i talk about it?