THE G25 group of prominent retired civil servants has expressed deep concern regarding the Mufti Bill 2024 and its implications on the constitutional rights of Malaysians.
"We stand in solidarity with Sisters in Islam and other civil society organisations and individuals who have spoken up to oppose this Bill and to add our voice to the other compelling arguments against it.
"While proponents of the Bill continue to promote the need for centralised authority and uniformity in Islamic law, these arguments do not adequately address the potential risks and constitutional concerns associated with the legislation," the group said in a statement.
It must be remembered that Malaysia is a constitutional democracy, it said, adding that while Islam is indeed the religion of the Federation by Article 3 of the Federal Constitution (FC), Article 4 of the FC makes it clear that the FC is the supreme law of the Federation, and any laws inconsistent with it will be void.
"It is therefore pertinent that any bill drafted and discussed in parliament must first and foremost be consistent with the FC," said G25.
Limiting the definition of Islam
The group also said the definition of "Ahli Sunah Waljamaah" under Clause 3 of the Bill is fundamentally unconstitutional and ultra vires (beyond the powers of) Articles 3, 8, and 11 of the FC.
It said the word 'Islam' in Article 3 of the FC should be given a liberal interpretation and interpreted as inclusive and encompass a wide spectrum of schools of thought and jurisprudence.
"However, we see that Clause 3(4)(a) of the Bill narrows its definition by specifying specific streams in respect of akidah in Islam by using terms such as al-Asyairah and al-Maturidiyah, which many Muslims may not be familiar with.
"In addition, no school of thought should be given prominence over another. However, Clause 3(4)(b) of the Bill gives prominence to the Syafie school of thought, with the other 3 recognised schools of thought having the condition to be followed “in certain circumstances”,".
Clause 3 of the Bill contradicts Article 11 of the FC, which guarantees the freedom to practise one’s religion according to their personal beliefs and conscience, said G25.
It said this means that Muslims have the freedom to practice Islam in a way that aligns with their beliefs and conscience without being constrained by any particular school of thought, so long as they adhere to and do not deviate from the fundamental principles of the faith.
"Limiting Islam to a specific interpretation marginalises minority voices and does not reflect the diversity within the religion. The broad and inclusive interpretation of Islam should remain,".
Position of the Mufti
G25 said the designation of the Mufti as the ‘Chief Authority’ on matters of Islamic law as provided for in Clause 4 of the Bill is ultra vires Articles 3(5) and 34(1) of the FC.
"Article 3(5) establishes the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan.
"Designating the Mufti as the Chief Authority when there should only be one sole “chief authority” is highly inappropriate and undermines the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,".
The group said clause 15(3) of the Bill, which states that a Mufti cannot be summoned by a court to provide evidence on Islamic law, contradicts Article 121(1) of the FC and undermines judicial authority.
"Preventing courts from summoning the Mufti compromises the checks and balances essential to a fair legal system, threatening its integrity.
"The judiciary must have the authority to question any entity, including religious figures, to maintain justice and accountability in all matters," it added.
The group also said that Clause 29 of the Bill introduces “akidah consultants”.
It said the functions given to the akidah consultant under Clause 29(3) seem to allow intervention by these consultants on matters of personal faith.
"This violates Article 11 of the FC which provides for a person’s fundamental freedom to profess their religion without undue interference,".
G25 called upon all Members of Parliament to reconsider the Mufti Bill 2024 as it does not align with the principles of justice, equality, and constitutional rights as enshrined in our FC.
"The arguments made in favour of the Bill thus far do not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks and implications posed by the legislation.
"A balance must be struck that respects constitutional rights and ensures that any authority is held accountable to the people it serves.
"Checks and balances are essential for good governance and to instil trust and confidence in our administration,". - October 17, 2024
.jpeg)
.JPG)
