
REASONED ARGUMENTS
Do read this very interesting contribution from GOPAL RAJ KUMAR – lawyer and former lecturer, now practising in Australia:
NEED FOR INTERFAITH DIALOGUE OR COMMISSION OF INQUIRY?
There is no need for a commission of inquiry, for inter faith dialogue or a Royal Commission at this stage of Malaysia’s development as a vibrant and robust democracy.

Faith and goodwill like good manners cannot be imposed on anyone by laws without their own recognition and acceptance of the value of these concepts.
Closed door dialogues are an anachronism in a democracy which requires openness and transparency where necessary.
Commissions and Commissions of inquiry are often a device for people (from various faiths in this instance) seeking to wield power and their influence outside of the constitutional parameters set up to deal with issues for which powers and limitations already exist within the same framework of the constitution.
That lawyers and clergymen from all sides seek to access power or more power within a system that already empowers them as citizens is itself evident in the Allah issue.
I pose the challenge once more to all and sundry who claim that an unfettered right to religion or an unqualified right or guarantee exists within the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to show me that right within the constitution. Then show me how that right or guarantee within the constitution has been trampled or curtailed unlawfully by the government exercising its sovereign and constitutional right in prohibiting or limiting the use of the word Allah.
THE ORIGIN OF COMMISSIONS AND ROYAL COMMISSIONS
This is an 18th Century device used to deal with matters of public importance and noteriety. It is dangerous as it often involves a member of parliament setting terms of reference in which process the protagonists have lobbying power and influence to set out. These terms of reference then are applied and manipulated to gain whatever advanatge it is the protagonist seeks to gain out of the inquiry which they may not be able to under the more watchful and protective stewardship of law courts. The normal civilized rules of evidence do not apply. Innuendo, hearsay (thirdhnd and so forth).
Once begun it can’t be stopped by government. The rules of evidence are discarded and normally indadmissible evidence can be led and admitted to the inquiry resulting in damaging unenforceable findings against individuals and institutions alike which could smear their reputaitons for life. (Kerry Packer late media baron in Australia was accused of being a drug peddlar and murderer by statements made by discredited witnesses in the Costigan Royal commission of inquiry into the Painters and Dockers Union in the 1980’s in Melbourne). Packer was never able to clear his name inspite of being arrguably Australia’s most powerful man and its wealthiest for a while.
In the United Kingdom, royal commissions are committees of inquiry established by royal charter or warrant at the behest of the cabinet to look into issues of considerable public importance.
Their membership and precise terms of interest are set by a member of the cabinet, but it is then intended that their collection of evidence, deliberations, and submission of a report to the cabinet are carried out independently.
Royal commissions have at least an educative impact, and may contribute policy proposals which are taken up by the cabinet. At worst they are used as vehicles for diffusing political problems, or are overtaken by the need to respond to events more rapidly. They fell out of favour after 1979 but are still very much a threat to the rights and freedoms people enjoy under the prootection of the law. It is also a useful weapon against a non compliant and out of control government. Whats required is balance. Balance between the knoweldge required to use it effectively and knowledge to prevent its abuse. It ought not to be used simply because there is a call for it.
DANGERS OF COMMISSIONS AND INQUIRIES DRIVEN BY A POLITICAL AGENDA
A recent case in point of the abuse of aa Royal Commission of inquiry is the one that arose out of the “Lingham tapes Affair”. I will not labour the numerous points raised for and against the lingham but instead invite a wider and more detailed reading of the Lingham Tapes Affair on the following link:
http://takemon.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/lingham-tapes-a-record-of-ignorance/
The issue of the provocative and unnecessary incorporation of the word Allah into the Catholic vernacular was correctly and accurately foreseen by the Attorney General and in his pre emptive action to prohibit it use.
The resultant anger and retaliation blamed on Malays in a torrent of emails doing the rounds and in websites and blogs run by politicians and anti UMNO (read Malay Muslim) groups, played out like a self fulfilling prophesy. It invoked and stoked the anger and ire of a large part of the population who after the Lina Joy affair did see this episode as another assault on their religion and the sanctity of those symbols and words uniquely identified with it.
Having failed to establish their case for use of the word Allah under the constitution, the driver of this issue PKR and its acolytes within the Christian polity have now set out to use a more sinister means though an amorphous system to establish what they and an erroneous High Court decision on the use off the word Allah have failed to do for them. Provoke the Malay Muslims into division and a violent confrontation in the hope of gaining international sympathy for their cause.
ACTION NEEDED
If the Malays want to reinforce all the negatives about them, they can remain silent and silent observers of their own demise.
The government of the day must with a greater deal of conviction take the courts and their bad decisions to task. There is precedent for the government of the day (the executive branch) to intervene where the courts fail. It is after all one of the three arms of government and the more powerful and active in day to day matters than the courts.
The problem with this proposition though is that many of the judges are weak and the government has allowed itself to be fooled into believing that the closed shop of the Malaysian bar is all that it is entitled to as consumers of legal services.
The present government by inviting as a first step, foreign practitioners with a specialty in Islamic law has taken a small but bold step in the right direction. It must now hastily open the door wider for quality legal services from abroad in cooperation with local firms in keeping with the NEP.
A nation cannot develop in a stable and lawful direction where the quality of its legal profession and its legal services are woefully inadequate and clearly out of step with its industrial and economic development.
The ISA has a purpose and it ought not to be used sparingly if it is a tool to achieve peace, stability and tranquility when it is most needed.
There is a price to pay for our democratic freedoms. There are no absolute democracies anywhere in the world. That price for our freedoms ought to be extracted from those who threaten it and act generously with the lives of others in trying to achieve their own narrow political objectives in the process.
Gopal Raj Kumar