Wanted : The Force Of Law

 Wanted : The Force Of Law

‘There is no need for anybody to seek cheap publicity over the ‘Allah’ issue as it is not a problem in Sarawak’ …quote… Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Dato Sri Alexander Nanta Linggi.

https://www.theborneopost.com/2021/03/21/nanta-dont-seek-cheap-publicity-over-allah-issue/

There are at least 2 reasons why this issue is a real and existential problem and a threat for non-muslim Malaysians particularly non-muslim Sarawakians and why Alexander Nanta is wrong to say it is not a problem.

The Problem

First of all, the seizure of 30,000 copies of the bibles by Jabatan Kastam Di-Raja at Kuching Port in Dec 2010 was a direct result of the unjustified ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ by Christians in Malaysia. In March 2009, 5000 copies of the Al-Kitab (bible written in malay) was confiscated at Port Klang.

Following a huge public outcry, the bibles seized in Kuching were released on the 12^th Jan 2011 but had to be ‘defaced’ with the words ‘For Christians Only’. Is there a possibility of a recurrence in the future? Many Christians in Sarawak think there is and that is probably the reason why 2 MPs, 1 Senator and 15 ADUNs from GPS joined with their colleagues from the other side of the political divide to urge the PN federal government to withdraw their appeal of High Court judgment on Jill Ireland’s ‘Allah’ case.

It is noteworthy that Alexander Nanta was not among the lawmakers who signed the petition.

https://www.theborneopost.com/2011/03/14/bibles-meant-for-sarawak/

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2011/03/16/govt-lifts-bible-impound

Following the release of the confiscated bibles, then minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala said that is a reasonable compromise in managing the polarities of views between Christians and Muslims in the country. Qualifying the basic fundamental right of a group of citizens, guaranteed by the country’s constitution, is as puzzling as Alexander Nanta saying this matter is a non - issue. It makes sense only to the two of them.

Secondly, the ban on ‘Allah’ if strictly enforced will effectively mean that churches in Sarawak will have to suspend all their services in Bahasa Melayu as ‘Allah’ is used in almost all their prayer books and bibles. In the final analysis, what this mean is that the fundamental right of Christians to freely practise their preferred religion is seriously curtailed.

The Assurances Thus Far

Many verbal assurances from various government leaders , ranging from the late Pehin Sri Adenan Satem to the present CM Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari, to DCM Tan Sri Dr. James Masing and Alexander Nanta himself, were made to non-muslim in Sarawak. There was even the Najib Tun Razak’s 10 - Points Resolution in April 2011. All these assurance were comforting to hear but all did not have the most important ingredient - the force law. Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin, the judge who presided over Jill Ireland case against the Malaysian government remarked in her judgment, ‘ the then-federal government had failed to give full effect to the 10-point solution when it was announced in 2011, as it did not retract the 1986 government directive’.

Because these assurances do not have the force of law, the 22^nd March 1982 ban (KHEDN: 0 59/3/9/A; PN (PU2) 24 Pt. 11 , which was issued pursuant to Internal Security (Prohibition of Publications) (No. 4) Order continue to hang over our necks like the proverbial sword of Damocles.

If the PN federal government had chosen NOT to appeal Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin’s judgment, the decision will stand and consequently acquire the force of law. Unfortunately and sadly, the federal government chose to file and appeal and so we go back to the position in 1986.

Native Customary Land

Onward to another issue involving the force of law or the absence of it that is still plaguing the dayaks of Sarawak - the native customary land (NCL). On the 24^th July 2013, The Star newspaper reported that Baru Bian the assemblyman for Ba’Kelalan had said the call to amend the Sarawak Land Code to be consistent with the adat or custom of the natives is redundant.

Baru Bian said the state government had already made an amendment to the law many years ago by the way of the Land Code (Amendment) Ordinance 2000 but the amendment was not gazetted into law.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2013/07/24/baru-call-to-amend-land-code-redundant

What possible and plausible reasons could have stopped the GPS government of Sarawak (then the BN government of Sarawak) from gazetting an amendment which they themselves made to the Sarawak land code? It is not right for us to speculate on the why but we know that the failure to gazette the amendment into law adversely impacts on natives rights to their NCL land.

It is quite clear that the Sarawak government, from BN’s term of governance until GPS’s term (of today) is firm on one thing only: to deprive Sarawakians of their rights by removing from crucial areas in their lives and livelihood the force of law so that they cannot have recourse to any forms of justice and to equitable solutions in their problems.

Alexander Nanta is himself a dayak and presumably a Christian. It would appear that in at least the spiritual realm, his right and that of his family members is adversely affected although it may not be now. As a dayak of immense political influence and power he may not have problems that the ordinary rural based dayaks are having. So when he denied that the ‘Allah’ issue is a problem to non-muslims and when as a dayak, he does not push for laws that champion and promote dayak rights over their NCL land, could it be he is in a state of denial?  He after all know how to push for reforms in the timber industry so pushing for laws that champion and promote dayak rights is a question of whether he is willing or unwilling to do it.

The time for non-muslim Sarawakians, especially the dayaks, to rethink their allegiance to and support for leaders who has no inclination to protect and champion their most basic rights. We must now decide on whether to allow them to continue to serve as lawmakers or choose new lawmakers with an entirely different platform.