KOTA KINABALU: United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Upko) respected the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s dismissal of an application by Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) for leave for a judicial review to challenge a Home Ministry order prohibiting the import of Christian books containing the word “Allah”.
Its information chief, Albert Bingkasan, said Upko had always been of the opinion that religion is a private matter; that it is between oneself and the Almighty.
“But then again, the court’s decision is on a specific matter, and Upko respects that. We do not think this is the end of the issue. Let justice takes its course,” he said yesterday.
“Again, we wish to reiterate, Upko will defend the right of anybody who wishes to continue using the word Allah in their worship. Only yesterday in the Holy Family Church, Telipok near here, I myself prayed to Allah, that this beloved country of ours be blessed, that the Prime Minister and our leaders be guided to do what is right, and bring Malaysia to greater heights.
“Upko appeals to one and all, let us enhance our togetherness, pray for peace and prosperity, rather than harping on our differences which will inevitably bring only bad things to the country. There will be miracles when we believe. We pray.”
Meanwhile, Sarawak leaders said the High Court had misinterpreted the Court of Appeal’s “Allah” ruling.
They said the judge, in rejecting the application, failed to consider the laws on religious freedom in Sabah and Sarawak and the government’s assurance to Christians in the two states on the use of the word “Allah” after the Court of Appeal decision was made.
Judge Datuk Zaleha Yusof, in rejecting SIB’s application earlier yesterday, said she was bound by the Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Catholic weekly Herald, that the word “Allah” could not be used in the Christian publication.
See Chee How, state PKR deputy chief and a senior lawyer, said there were so many reservations aired after the Court of Appeal ruling.
“She just could not only cite the ruling,” said the Batu Lintang assemblyman, adding that the legal remedy available for the church was to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal.
Sarawak DAP chief Chong Chieng Jen said the ruling not only breached the Malaysia Agreement, it was also in violation of the Federal Constitution.
Chong said the first point of the Malaysia Agreement stated there would be religious freedom in Sarawak and Sarawak while recognising Islam as the official religion.
He said he had anticipated such a ruling to be made in light of the Court of Appeal ruling.
He said although the government tried to make an exception on the use of the word in Sabah and Sarawak to uphold the Malaysia Agreement, “the High Court judge’s decision does not make that differentiation”.
“It’s the blanket position of the law, a declaration and pronouncement of the law by the court which I think is wrong,” he added.
Chong, a senior lawyer, said with this legal position, “all the political gimmicks by BN saying that it does not apply to Sabah and Sarawak” do not stand.
Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) president Tan Sri Dr James Masing said “those learned people who are trained to read the law” should explain how they interpreted “freedom of religion” as spelt out in the Constitution.
Masing, who is state land development minister, said he believed the High Court, as well as the Court of Appeal, “have misread the law of this land”.
“What does the Constitution say on freedom of religion in the country?” he asked.
He said: “The so-called trained professionals might be trained to read law but that does not make them gods of the Federal Constitution.
“The Constitution says freedom of religion and that to me applies to everybody irrespective of the religious belief they profess.
“Just how do they interpret ‘freedom of religion’, that’s what I want to know.”
PKR state chief and lawyer Baru Bian, however, said SIB lawyers should have asked for a postponement of the hearing until after the Federal Court delivers its decision on the Catholic Church’s appeal.
Baru said SIB’s legal counsel should have waited for the Federal Court’s decision on the Herald’s appeal because the High Court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in such cases.
“Their hands are tied. The High Court cannot go against it (the Court of Appeal decision). That is the rule of stare decisis,” Baru said, using the Latin phrase meaning “to stand by a decision”.