-S. Thayaparan, May 25, 2016.

“It is the certainty that they possess the truth that makes men cruel.”

– Anatole France

Three years ago, at the height of the cries from certain Muslims calling for the heads of sex bloggers who shall remain nameless – nameless because I detest feeding egos – I wrote the following:

“Until there is a change in thinking in how these laws are applied, I say the only truly moral stance, would be to not qualify our statements as to the nature of these selective prosecutions. This will never happen of course because as we all know everything revolves around Muslim sensitivities. As long as these sensitivities are used as political capital, we will always be at the mercy of those who claim to speak on behalf of a religion which claims to be compassionate and just, and those who are afraid to oppose them even though they know the reality of it.”

Today I revisit this quote because of what Islamic affairs minister Jamil Khir Baharom claimed in his written parliamentary reply that “any legislation to ban unilateral conversion is unconstitutional.” Of course, I have no interest in debating constitutional provisions with an Umno minster when as MCA’s religious harmony bureau chairperson, Ti Lian Ker, correctly pointed out that “the child’s faith must remain status quo as announced by then de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz in 2009.”

As usual when it comes to Umno and Islam, the defenders of the faith are in fact defenders of sensitivities of the community whom they claim to represent and who they give no avenue to dissent, even if said community have divergent views on the matter. In other words, Umno defends Islam as they define it.

And we can tell the kind of religion this is when Jamil Khir says, “In the context of the law system and judiciary in Malaysia, the court, be it civil or syariah, upholds the principle of justice in ensuring that the parties of the unilateral conversion are protected.”

Let us take, the most recent unilateral conversion case, that of S Deepa. Jamil Khir wants us to understand that the party (sic) protected is someone like Muslim convert, N Viran @ Izwan Abdullah. An alleged domestic abuser, a known kidnapper (this according to Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz), a man who has reportedly admitted that he converted to Islam to enjoy special privileges and in an instance of extreme self-pity and display of blame shifting, exclaimed, “If this is how it will be, do they want me to go back and drink ‘arak haram’ (liquor)?”

And what does this say of our system of laws, when in the same case the inspector-general of police chose not to act even though he knew that this was a legally and morally untenable position. Indeed, the instruments of the Umno did their utmost in engaging in all manner of legal legerdemain in an effort to protect their anointed one.

All this is even more laughable when deputy inspector-general of police (DIGP) Noor Rashid Ibrahim said, “Anyone in this country has the equal opportunity to run any businesses that is legal. What’s important is in any business being run, or any job, it must follow the laws,” when the scandal of the IGP’s daughter having an arms licence secured before Khalid Abu Bakar secured his position as the country’s top cop.

Exercising political control

“Follow the laws” and “equal opportunity” should never be mentioned in the same sentence in a country where the Umno state has demonstrated as in the Deepa case, that the religious sensitivities closely linked with racial supremacy trumps any form of egalitarianism.

MCA Youth’s Kevin Koo Seng Kiat contention that unilateral conversion should be considered a crime cuts right to the heart of the matter. Indeed, I would argue that although parents have, well, maybe not a right but a responsibility to educate their child on their religious heritage, ultimately the child upon reaching adulthood should determine his or her religious preference.

What unilateral conversion does, and we should be clear that this involves Islam as the Islamic (sic) minister is wont to remind everyone, is rob the child of the right of his or her religious freedom. This has far-reaching consequences in Malaysia because race and religion have legal obligations along with the so-called special privileges that places a Muslim in the harsh glare of federal and state Islamic authorities.

If an adult wishes to place his or herself under such obligations, then it their right to do so, but a parent unilaterally deciding to convert a child without the consent of their partner is not only morally reprehensible but should also come with legal consequences, preferably jail time with a couple of stokes of the rotan.

However, the desire to demonstrate political control and the urge to constantly remind non-Muslims that they are at the mercy of the Umno state through the machinations of religious control even though they do not practice the faith, is the agenda of the Umno state.

In the recent Sarawak state elections, the Rooney Rebit case is evidence of the carrot and stick approach when it comes to Muslim sensitivities in Malaysia. Sensing there was political capital to be made, this time by curbing the excesses of the Umno state, the Najib administration made electoral promises that the National Registration Department (NRD) would not appeal the Rebit case.

Sabah Council of Churches president Reverend Jerry Dusing clearly articulates the issues when he said, “This turn of events clearly project two things – firstly, the NRD which is an administrative arm of the federal government has no regard and respect of our religious freedom guaranteed under the federal constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963. Secondly, that our exercise of religious freedom is subject to political interference.”

This carrot or stick approach when it comes to Islam does the religion no favours. Indeed most of the extreme Islamic groups – and any group who would attempt to impose religious hegemony under the guise of adhering to our (sic) social contract, I consider extremist – were upset that the Najib regime would even use the “carrot” approach to sustain hegemony.

A Malaysian Muslim Solidarity (Isma) writer thundered that Najib was desperate for votes and he should learn (sic) from the Lina Joy case. Maybe this writer and every Muslim who follows the Isma and Umno line, should learn from the Rooney Rebit case where, judge Yew Ken Jie of the High Court in Kuching, said: “He is free to exercise his right of freedom to religion and he chose Christianity.”

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.