Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search Malaysiawaves

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Is Malaysia Truly A Secular State?

We have heard so much from Karpal Singh and DAP leaders per say about Malaysia's "secular"ness. But can Karpal and DAP be trusted in their judgement?

I have noticed one thing that the word "secular" is NOT MENTIONED at all in our country's constitution. In other words, DAP and Karpal have been going to town by relying on "interpretations" of the constitution rather than anything else.

Even at that, there is no consensus in the interpretation of the constitution of Malaysia (on being secular or not).
I, for one, had heard from Constitutional expert like Dr Aziz Bari, which argues otherwise. In fact, Dr Aziz Bari himself insisted that the Malaysian constitution is silent on it's ideology. In other words, the secular nature of the Malaysia Constitution is not decided 100%.

Yet DAP and Karpal goes to town by making such claim without considering other interpretation of the Constitution. I am very sure that Dr Aziz Bari is a bigger authority on the Malaysian Constitution as compared to Karpal SIngh himself.

Furthermore, the article on Malay Special Rights is mentioned explicitly in Article 153 of our constitution (

Yet, DAP seems to resist this article with all their might and power. One cannot help but wonder, what is the DAP real stand?

Is the DAP really sincere about upholding our constitution,? Or DAP (and Karpal Singh) real interest is really to eradicate Malays and Islam from the face of the Malaysian earth?

If the DAP was sincere about upholding the constitution, they will uphold everything in the constitution come what may. And that includes the Malay Special Rights Provision (Article 153) without question?

DAP and Karpal will need to sit down and reexamine their stand. They should be ashamed of their inconsistency and at least apologize to the Malaysian public for their double standard.

Secularism is not in the interest of the Malays and Muslims. Secularism is a dirty word among Muslims, not just in Malaysia but throughout the entire Muslim world. Largely because, Muslims around the world have realized that secularism was actually shoved down their throats by their secular elites, which their respective former colonial masters have trained them to do. In the case of Malaysia, it's UMNO.

After 50 years, Muslims around the world have realized that secularism have destroyed the Muslims and made Muslims go backwards.

But this topic will be dealt with in another article altogether.

Another great topic to dwell is the DAP's assumption that secularism is synonym to tolerance. I shall dedicate a whole topic on this subject.

For now, suffice to say DAP will have to deal with their double standard stand on the Malaysia Constitution issue. My personal belief is that the ideology of the Malaysian Constitution is Malay Supremacy and not Islam or secularism.
Share on whatsapp


  1. First let us learn what "secular state" means shall we?

    "A secular state is defined as protecting freedom of religion as pursued in state secularism."

    Now let us take a look at the Consitution.

    Article 3(1) Not Intended to Make Malaysia an Islamic State

    The provision in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution that Islam is the religion of the Federation does not make Malaysia an Islamic State and the Article expressly provides that it shall not derogate the other provisions in the Federal Constitution.

    Article 3(1) states as follows: -

    �3 Religion of the Federation

    (1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.�

    (4) Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.�

    Article 4 provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    �4 Supreme Law of the Federation

    (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.�

    Article 162 provides as follows: -

    �162 Existing laws

    (1) Subject to the following provisions of this article and article 163, the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force on and after Merdeka Day, which such modifications as may be made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments made by federal or State law.�

    Article 11(1) provides for the freedom of religion. It is a fundamental right enshrined and guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

    11 Freedom of Religion

    (1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.�

    Well?We can always find the truth on facts isn't it?

    Your argument has flaws on it.Please do a little research and make your argument based on facts.

    Does the constitution says that Malaysia is an islamic state?
    No right?

  2. errr two questions

    a. Why is it that all secular countries in the world DO NOT have official religion like Malaysia?

    b. Malaysia not only have official religion, we also have stipulations for Islamic activities not given to other religion?

    c. Secularism defined as protecting the right to religion? Staling, Lenin, Pol Pot etc would strongly disagree with u, greatly.
    The names i mention above are ARDENT SECULARISTS in history.

    I think your still confused between secularism and tolerance.


    Get it? Faham tak?

  3. are asking me 3 questions not "dua soalan".Whatever.

    I think you based your research on wiki.And you think you got it right.I myself too use wiki to get that definition.Which means that I am right.

    Official religion?Take a look at this

    Oh the secular countries also have official religion!What a coincidence!And they have freedom of religion too!

    A secular state have a freedom of religion.Our constitution stated so!

    11 Freedom of Religion

    (1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

    The Constitution clearly said "Freedom Religion" and the definition of Secular State also have the word "Freedom of Religion".Coincidence?I don't think so.It matches.

    Kau ni buta ke?

    You are so dead wrong!Facts are facts!You can't change them.

    But hey if you want to live in an islamic state, let me remind you that you are always welcome to go migrate to Arab, bring along the Umno members if you want to and be a Taliban.

  4. I replied with good intentions.

    This will be my last reply because you used something that is IRRELEVANT to your argument.
    Please don't mix Secular state, Islamic state and "Ketuanan Melayu", next time I will not reply to your arrogance.

    "Furthermore, the article on Malay Special Rights is mentioned explicitly in Article 153 of our constitution ("

    I know the Constitution states that Malays have special privileges. But the Constitution also states that the rights of non-Malays also have to be protected.

    Malay and Non-Malay Rights Don't Exist

    Fewer things are more important in the Malaysian political world than rights. Whenever we talk politics, it boils down to our rights — the rights of the Malays, the rights of the Chinese, the rights of the Indians, the rights of the East Malaysians, the rights of the Muslims; it goes on and on and on. Yet, paradoxically, while we let our politicians roil us into an uproar over the rights of our respective communities, we hardly ever seem to care about our rights as Malaysians. Even though we supposedly rejected communal politics in the most recent election, at the heart of our political discourse lie communal rights, rather than Malaysian rights. If we want lasting political change, this is the most fundamental paradigm change we have to effect.

    Let's start by defining "rights". What is a right? Look it up in a dictionary, and you will find a plethora of meanings. I don't think we have ever bothered to standardise the definition of "right" in the Malaysian political context, so any definition I put forth here is probably unacceptable to many, but nonetheless I will try: for our purposes, a right is something guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. We can talk in terms of rights already guaranteed, and rights we would like to see guaranteed, but ultimately, the only rights we really have are those protected by the supreme law of the country.

    Now, returning to our original problem, you might wonder what is so wrong about fighting for communal rights. Don't the Malays have their rights to defend? Don't the non-Malays have their rights too? What of the East Malaysians, or the Muslims and non-Muslims? The Federal Constitution guarantees us all certain rights, doesn't it?

    The flaw in this reasoning is that, first of all, many rights we supposedly claim as ours under the Constitution are not there. The right to government funding for vernacular schools? Not there. The privileges of the New Economic Policy? The Constitution doesn't even mention the NEP. Ketuanan Melayu? Not even a whisper of it. Most of these rights are nothing more than privileges the government grants under other laws subordinate to the Constitution; they are not unrevokable rights, but privileges which can be as easily repealed as the privilege to stroll down a city street (ask the lawyers who marched for human rights not too long ago) or even the right of a fair trial (ask anyone detained under the Internal Security Act or Emergency Ordinance).

    The second flaw is that although the Constitution does indeed separate us out communally, the vast majority of the rights it guarantees are for all Malaysians. Not for Malays and non-Malays, not for Muslims and non-Muslims, but for everyone. The right not to be enslaved? That goes for all of us. The right to a fair trial (now a de facto privilege because of laws gutting the Constitution)? For all Malaysians. The right to worship in peace? All Malaysians have that. The right to equal treatment under the law? Article 8 guarantees it for all Malaysians. When we talk about Malay rights and non-Malay rights, Muslim rights and non-Muslim rights, we implicitly assume there is a meaningful difference between these things. In reality, we all enjoy practically the same rights as Malaysians.

    What about the handful of different rights we enjoy? For the Bumiputra (Malays and East Malaysian natives), Article 153 says they have a "special position" which the government must pay heed to. No specific rights are guaranteed, although the Constitution lists out a number of areas such as scholarships and civil service positions where the government may intervene to advance the Bumiputra. In the very same breath, Article 153 explicitly warns that the government must also protect the rights of other communities. In short, it says "Yes, there are some slight distinctions between the Bumiputra and non-Bumiputra for historical reasons, but everyone is a Malaysian now, and just because the Bumiputra need affirmative action doesn't mean you can ride roughshod over the rights of other Malaysians." In reality, we don't even need the clause protecting non-Malay rights, so to speak, because Article 8 guarantees equality under the law, but the Constitution doubly guarantees protection to all Malaysians.

    Some might see hints of doublespeak and cognitive dissonance here; how can you protect the rights of one group without disenfranchising the other? Is Article 153 asking us to do the impossible? I don't think so. I think it clearly leads to the conclusion that certain privileges (e.g. those under the NEP) might be necessary to protect the rights of certain Malaysians, and little more than that. It is literally impossible to read any defence of Malay supremacy into that; if anything, Article 153 upholds the notion that there are only Malaysian rights, not Malay and non-Malay rights, because the only real way that you can defend the rights of the Malays and non-Malays concurrently is to defend the rights of all Malaysians.

    The way I see it, all this talk about the rights of the Malays and non-Malays, this community and that community serves as little more than a smokescreen, distracting us from how the government continually impinges on the rights of Malaysians of every different race. Why should freedom of religion be a non-Malay or non-Muslim issue when the Constitution guarantees it to every individual citizen? Why should the citizenship of non-Malays be constantly questioned when everyone's rights as Malaysian citizens are enshrined in the Constitution?

    While we bicker over this and that, the government has steadily taken away the liberties that don't belong to any one community in particular. Who benefits from freedom of movement, the right to travel wherever one pleases? Every one of us. Who suffers when that right is arbitrarily taken away, as happened to some West Malaysian opposition activists when they tried to set foot in East Malaysia? Every one of us. Who benefits from freedom of speech, the right to express our own thoughts? Every one of us, from the Indian labourer who marches for HINDRAF to the Chinese shopkeeper who marches for BERSIH to the Malay factory worker who marches for Malay economic interests. And who suffers when the government continually enacts laws which reduce and shrink this right? Every one of us, of course.

    If we want a country where every Malaysian can live in peace, where every Malaysian has the same rights and opportunities to strive for their own prosperity and to lead their own lives, then we have to stop talking about the rights of this community or that community. The supreme law of our country draws no such distinctions in the rights it grants. It treats us all as Malaysians, and guarantees us all the same rights. When one of us suffers, all of us suffers.

    I know it is a lot to ask of suffering people to be bighearted, to realise that the other side suffers too. But the next time your heart breaks over some outrageous travesty, be it a Bumiputra boy starving to death or a non-Bumiputra straight-A scorer who cannot obtain a place in any public university, just remember: when one of us suffers, all of us suffer. We all have the same rights to human dignity, the same rights to make the most of ourselves. We gain nothing by fighting for the rights of one individual or one community. We gain everything by fighting for the rights of the people of Malaysia, regardless of race or religion, colour or creed.


ARiF merupakan jentera utama Harapan Baru di dalam membantu kelancaran gerakerja semua peringkat.

Kami ARiF Melaka memerlukan sumbangan dan bantuan kewangan daripada tuanpuan untuk kami melakukan gerakerja berkenaan. Oleh kerana kami masih baru, sumbangan diperlukan untuk menampung kos pakaian, membeli peralatan komunikasi, peralatan lalulintas dan sebagainya.

Kami amat berbebsar hati jika tuan/puan dapat menghulurkan sumangan kepada kami. Segala sumbangan diserahkan kepada pemegang amanah ARiF Melaka.

a/k Maybank : 104013154427

Hantarkan makluman bank-in melalui SMS/WA ke 016-981 1315 (H.ANUAR)

Semuga Allah membalas segala jasa baik tuan/puan semua.