Saturday, November 22, 2008, 11.59 PM
|
|
Saturday, November 22, 2008, 11.59 PM |
|
 |
While we should expect lawyers to be legalistic, and they could not be otherwise even if they tried, we also hope that they are not without a modicum of wisdom as against mere book learning.
What happened a week ago when the Bar Council insisted on proceeding with their now celebrated public forum to discuss "Conversion to Islam" against the advice of their many friends and well-wishers, who were rightly concerned about law and public order, showed that perhaps members of the council had relied far too heavily on their rights under the law, and by doing so, had offended the cultural and religious sensibilities of Malays.
It was not so much the subject of discussion that really caused the furore among Muslims, but the manner in which it was discussed that was really the point at issue.
You see, the Malays are nature's gentlemen -- conservative, sensitive and tradition-bound who, while generally forgiving, are easily slighted.
For the overwhelming majority, their religion is central to their existence. Form is often more important than substance, or so it would seem. Whether this outlook is right or wrong is not for us to debate. It is part of "Malayness".
The lawyers were, of course, right to want to examine the widespread ramifications and implications for the Constitution, as well as the position of the non-Muslims caught in a morass.
It is a legal quagmire made worse by the "laws" of indeterminate provenance that apply to the non-Muslim families of Muslim converts.
All of us, naturally, want to see a speedy resolution of what is rapidly becoming an intractable national problem, a human tragedy that is a blot on Malaysia's collective sense of justice.
But we must all remember that we are dealing with religion, and no matter what religion, it has to be handled with a certain degree of delicacy and respect.
I suppose Datuk Ambiga Sreene-vasan, president of the Bar Council, has every right to feel justified that she and her colleagues have stood their ground, and have defended human rights and freedom of expression.
By their defiance, they have demonstrated to us, the not-so- learned, their unbending resolve and attitude to fundamental democratic principles.
All, no doubt, highly legal, commendably inspiring and principled.
But I wonder if they realised that by doing what they did, they were putting our cherished ideals and hopes for a peaceful resolution of a potentially explosive issue on a dangerous collision course with a mighty force called religion that has been sanctified by thousands of years of unquestioning submission of its adherents to its divine power and majesty?
The Bar Council has, it seems to me, done something which was totally out of character even for them.
I know there are thousands of men and women of goodwill among them, so let us be charitable and just say it was an aberration.
For all the good they thought they had done on behalf of humanity, I fear the verdict is that they had acted out of a sense of bravado that was plainly reckless in the circumstances, to say the least.
We should never forget that reason is not and has never been part of any religion's lexicon.
Reason or logic is the antithesis of blind faith, which is the staple or cornerstone of any religion.
The sort of clinically logical, legalistic approach, adopted instinctively by lawyers when debating religious issues, simply does not cut any ice with the religiously inclined.
The legal eagles might have thought they had won a moral victory, but it was a hollow triumph at best.
By their seemingly arrogant act which flew directly in the face of the Muslim sense of unease and insecurity, my learned friends showed that the safety and well-being of their fellow citizens was the least of their concerns.
That might not have been the intended outcome, but that was how it came across to your Muslim friends. You may say that it was all a matter of perception and, therefore, had no basis in fact.
I have always supported that view, just as I maintain that, unfortunately, perceptions are real. They influence the way we look at things and the manner in which we often react to a situation.
On that fateful Saturday morning, the Bar Council suffered the ignominy of a complete moral catastrophe because they did not have the courage or strength of character to recognise the incendiary nature of the issues over which they were presiding.
It could quite easily have resulted in an unnecessarily violent racial conflict that many Malaysians have been working hard over the years to prevent.
Would the Bar Council have had the moral and ethical courage to admit their role in fomenting political unrest by their ill-considered and truculent behaviour?
Did they not consider the possibility that their action might ignite the flame of racial and religious hatred?
A surfeit of soulless legal knowledge is really no substitute for good old-fashioned common humanity, "sense and sensibility".
No one has ever questioned the urgent necessity for a speedy resolution of the legal, religious and emotional problems associated with conversion.
It is right that the Bar Council should lead the way in bringing this about, but an open public forum is surely an inappropriate place for this purpose.
We all want to find the best and most sensible way out of this dilemma, a solution that accords with the principles of justice and equity, the only basis, really, upon which we can build a strong and lasting foundation for national integration and unity, sustainable human development and respect for religious and cultural diversity.
The Bar Council should discuss the issues dispassionately with clear objectives, with the government and other relevant parties, in a small focus group and develop a working plan to be implemented within a realistic time frame.
I am sure it is in the interests of everyone to find a permanent cure to this festering emotional sore.
National unity in our country remains essentially a work in progress and requires plenty of care and effort to develop its full potential.
We still have a long way to go on this slow, painful journey. But with mutual goodwill, respect and understanding, we will get there. We deserve nothing less than a united and prosperous Malaysia for all.
I keep my exhortation to my race to the last. It is good to defend our religious convictions and values, but surely there is no justification whatsoever to deny others their rights and freedoms -- of speech, thought, expression, assembly and worship.
There are less ugly ways of drawing attention to our disappointments and frustrations, imagined or real, but storming freedom's gate to force our will or views on others detracts from the true teachings of our religion of peace.
There are no quarrels or differences, even those which are doctrinally important, that cannot be resolved in a quiet, sensible, respectful and dignified way.
In a sense, we are all to blame for that noisy and unedifying spectacle of that Saturday!
The writer is a former special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general on ethics. He can be contacted at tunkua@gmail.com
|
|
 About NST | Contact Us | Advertising | Subscribe Online | Privacy Policy | How To Get There |
| Write to the Editor for editorial enquiry or Sales Department for sales and advertising enquiry. Copyright © 2008 NST Online. All rights reserved. |
