JANUARY 2 — The G25, through the statement made by its spokesperson, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, in the interview published by the Malay Mail Online, on 26 December 2015, claimed that when the G25 went to see the Prime Minister [in February or March 2015], “he was supportive” and “he suggested that we form (the consultative committee to review unconstitutional laws on Shariah criminal offences) on our own”.

In that interview, Noor Farida also said that the government should endorse G25’s call to reform unconstitutional Shariah laws “to make sure that those which trespass on the Constitution, the criminal laws which trespass on the Constitution, that they be realigned, that they should be harmonised with the Constitution”. “We’re calling for harmonisation of Shariah with the Federal Constitution”, she asserted.

Earlier, in a more publicised press conference following the G25 Forum, Noor Farida was reported to have said: “The remit of the consultative committee members will be to look at the Shariah laws, and to recommend repeal or amendment where there have been trespasses of the Constitution and to look at the laws that intrude into people’s private spheres. You cannot intrude into a person’s private sphere.”

However, despite this claim, anyone attending in full the G25 Forum entitled “Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” on Saturday, 5 December 2015, and Sunday, 6 December 2015, held at the Persatuan Alumni Universiti Malaya (PAUM) Club House, Kuala Lumpur, would seriously doubt that the G25 has the Prime Minister’s support or that the G25 is even worthy of the support at all.

It was witnessed that the G25 Forum featured some panellists or participants who are known to be very critical of the government, with a few of them are even outright opposition party leaders in the likes of the Parti Amanah Negara leader Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad and the Democratic Action Party leader Dr Wong Chin Huat, whereas no leader from the ruling Barisan Nasional was present at any moment throughout the two days either as panellists or participants.

Assuredly enough, one invited speaker, Dr Lukhman Taib of Universiti Malaya, who was invited at the last minute to replace Prof. Dr Mohammad Hashim Kamali of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies Malaysia, and given the opportunity to talk about the Prime Minister’s version of wasatiyyah, but got his lecture regrettably attacked mercilessly later on by a number of the participants.

In the words of Datuk Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa of the Islamic Renaissance Front, who spoke after Dr Wong Chin Huat of the Penang Institute, the unkind comment was: “Whatever that you mentioned in your lecture was only theoretical, it was not practised, what the government is trying to show to the people is that they practise moderation but in fact in our country there is no moderation, you ban books, you do whatever you want”.

The level of the criticism on the government in the G25 Forum was indeed very high, hence raising the question as to the actual motive of the G25, instead of its formally announced objective of “the harmonisation of Shariah with the Federal Constitution” that necessitates some kind of working arrangement with the government, thus could it cannot be avoided if anyone infer that it was actually meant to seed distrust to or to destabilize the government.

What else can be concluded after the way panellists such as Assoc. Prof. Dr Azmi Sharom of Universiti Malaya made an innuendo like “And we have Najib making out terms human rightism, you know, 2.6 billion is another term”, or Assoc. Prof. Dr Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani of Universiti Utara Malaysia poked fun by erroneously claiming that “Najib won’t touch at all (about the Islamicness of Malaysia), bisu?”

Similarly, as a panellist, Dr. Ahmad Farouk, also jabbed at the Prime Minister: “I don’t think that this concept of wasatiyyah that was mentioned by the Prime Minister, whether he really understood it or not, because we are nowhere near wasatiyyah.

How could we claim to be a nation of wasatiyyah when we claim we must emulate ISIS, which is which? He must be…, I don’t know, something must be wrong.”

Not to forget this well-publicised criticism of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Syed Farid Alatas, a Malaysian academician at the National University of Singapore, on the government’s alleged discriminative policies: “The lack of a multicultural approach, whether it’s towards Shiites, Sufis, anti-Christianity...we’re on the slippery slope towards very strong authoritarian nationalism with, I would add, apartheid tendencies.”

In a similar vein, another speaker, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, of the International Movement for a Just World, had on the first day talked about how the National Security Council Bill 2015, which a former Attorney General, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, regarded as constitutional as it does not breach any provision in the Federal Constitution, being the most obnoxious piece of legislation ever existed in Malaysia.

But it was not only the Prime Minister, or the Executive branch of the government, that became the brunt of the criticism in the G25 Forum, as the Legislative branch of the government, or the Parliament, was also heavily critiqued. Suffice it to mention the words uttered by a panellist, Emeritus Prof. Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi of Universiti Teknologi MARA: “(the) Parliament is in a comatose and is happy to be so”.

However, in line with the title of the G25 Forum, “Islam in a Constitutional Democracy”, the largest chunk of criticisms made in the G25 Forum was directed at the third branch of the government, the Judiciary. It is very perplexing if the panellists, from very strong legal backgrounds, who did so do not know are not aware of the existence of the Sedition Act 1948, or do they think that they are immune from it?

Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 clearly states that “a “seditious tendency” is a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State”. Needless to say, some of the words uttered by some of the panellists in the G25 Forum can effectively bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the country’s courts/judges.

Take, for instance, the words uttered by Azmi Sharom: “I think actually we need to stop taking constitutional cases to the courts at the moment. I am very worried because once we bring it to the Federal Court, if the bad precedent is set, it will be hard to get rid of it. And right now it seems very unpredictable.” And those of Datuk Mohd Hishamuddin Yunus: “With respect, it is not unpredictable, but it is predictable.”

Shad Saleem was even more blunt as twice he did infer in the G25 Forum, both on the first and second day, that we couldn’t trust the courts/judges. Besides this, he was also recorded as openly saying that “In many areas the judges need to be questioned”, and that, “Then we need judicial review, but what do you do if the judges cannot see and they cannot hear and they cannot reason, then what can we do?”

On judges’ conducts, Shad Saleem said: “All the judges are appointed, and at the time of their appointment they take their oaths to protect, to preserve and to defend the constitution. I think some of them forgot their oaths. I think some of them are openly declaring that they are Muslims first, this first, that first. I think they should be constitutional judges first. All are most welcome to resign and take another job.”

More specifically, Shad Saleem also criticised the Appeal Court’s judgment in the Herald case by saying: “In the Herald case, I take note with consternation even though the case involved Christians, not a single judge in the panel was Christian… I think this Herald decision must be reviewed… It was intolerance. I think it was a naked aggression, a naked exertion of power, it is a totally unsustainable decision.”

Similarly, Azmi Sharom also criticised the Federal Court’s judgment in the Ezra case by saying: “The argument was that the banning of this book was unconstitutional because the Constitution is very very clear, only Parliament can make laws that restrict the freedom of expression, but this law that was used against Ezra was not made by Parliament, it was a state legislation, and therefore is unconstitutional.”

Azmi added: “I mean, cannot be any clearer than that, the Constitution says only Parliament can make laws that restrict the freedom of speech… The Federal Court says, oh, no, no, this is not about freedom of expression, this is about precepts of Islam, this is law to control anything that goes against Islamic law, so that was, it is ok for the state legislature to make this law. I don’t know where these judges come from.”  With further sully remarks from Azmi that “I’m sure they were not my students…”

Azmi further added: “What happens in Ezra’s case clearly, clearly went against the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the court says to defend the precepts of Islam, it doesn’t matter what you label it, if it has effect on our right it should have been unlawful. What is the point of law if you can circumnavigate it by saying I make this law to protect the precepts of Islam… only the government can define the precepts of Islam.”

Mohd Hishamuddin, meanwhile, criticised the Federal Court’s judgment in the transgender case, which he was involved at the earlier stage, by saying: “The Federal Court in Mohamad Juzaili, in ruling that the procedure in Article 4(3) and Article 4(4) applies, had not only failed to follow its own decision in Nordin Salleh but also its own decision in the earlier case of Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia.”

To discerning observers, all those things that happened in the G25 Forum, cast a very strong doubt that the actual motive of the G25 is “the harmonisation of Shariah with the Federal Constitution” which supposedly necessitates some kind of working arrangement with the government, and it is absurd to believe that the G25 has some kind of working arrangement with the government when the government was heavily whacked from almost every angle in the G25 Forum?

As a matter of fact, even the Conference of Rulers was not sparred from tough criticisms in the G25 Forum. Said Shad Saleem: “Then the Majlis Raja-Raja, the Conference of Rulers, under Article 38 they have the power to deliberate on the questions of national policy and the matter they think fit. I personally think The Majlis Raja-Raja in this respect has not turned the attention to the roles assigned to them by the Constitution.”

And making it more doubtful that the genuine motive of the G25 is “the harmonisation of Shariah with the Federal Constitution” was the big clap that this lady by the name of Adriana Abu received after she exclaimed that “I don’t know how to solve it unless we go out and say not just abolish JAKIM but the entire shariah system because a lot of Malaysian Muslims are not getting justice.” It is big wonder, why she was given that big applause. 

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.