Madame Speaker Hannah Yeoh and other Selangor officials held a meeting with representatives of the Community of Praise church, said Elizabeth Wong in her press statement on 21 April 2015.
This church is the one in Taman Medan, Petaling Jaya that is at the centre of the cross controversy.
BELOW: Teresa Kok giving flowers yesterday to Pastor Paul Packianathan of the Community of Praise church. On the left is YB Rajiv (Hannah Yeoh’s former Personal Assistant), in the middle is YB Hee and on the right is YB Lim Lip Eng who is DAP evangelista MP Segambut
Evangelistas meeting Taman Medan church leaders
At the meeting last week between Selangor officials and the Taman Medan church were Madame Speaker Hannah Yeoh, Selangor exco Elizabeth Wong, Petaling Jaya Selatan MP Hee Loy Sian, Bukit Gasing Adun Rajiv Rishyakaran, MBPJ councilors F.K. Tang and Peter Chong as well as Committee on Non-Islam Affairs (HESI) advisors.
The Pakatan Christian politicians in the meeting had advised the church to put its cross back up. The Christian politicians recommended such a course of action in order “to stop this precedent of mob rule by politically-aligned extremists”.
The church however is waiting for a sign from God and has prayed to seek guidance.
Pakatan YBs in exco making their own S’gor rules
According to Elizabeth, “MBPJ Councillors also clarified that since 2008, the previous State Committee on Non-Islam Affairs (then known as State Committee on Non-Islam Places of Worship or RIBI) has allowed Churches to operate in commercial premises or offices without the need for application of permits, only by way of notification to the committee”.
As has been widely reported by the pro-Christian, English-language media over the last few days, Elizabeth stated that a “notification to HESI committee suffices” for the shoplot churches to operate without the need for permit.
Some concerned lawyers have countered that the Selangor exco are on the wrong side of the law.
And RM500 fine each day for every day the offence is continued
In their press statement on April 26 titled ‘Elizabeth Wong and Selangor State Committee on Non-Islamic Affairs are Wrong’, a group called Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ) said freedom of worship is not absolute and the right of a religious organization to manage its church “must be in line with the law”.
CLJ brought attention to Subsection 70(12) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 which reads:
“Any person who uses any building or part of a building for a purpose other than which it was originally constructed for without the prior written permission from the local authority shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand ringgit and shall also be liable to a further fine not exceeding five hundred ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after a notice to cease using for other purpose has been served on such person.”
The CLJ’s considered opinion is that it is clearly illegal for the Community of Praise to convert their present rented building for use as a church without first obtaining prior written permission from the MBPJ.
This is an offence liable to a fine of up to RM25,000 if convicted.
CLJ: Not within competence of exco to waive requirement
The lawyers further believe that Selangor state exco members do not have the jurisdiction to waive the above said requirement under federal law.
They urge the relevant authorities to investigate this matter, saying the practice of HESI and the exco “since 2008 pertaining to the operation of churches is untenable, and must be halted immediately”.
With so many evangelical Christians in high positions in the Selangor government, it appears the Christian groups have been getting away with flouting existing laws since Pakatan took power in the state.
Related:
“Extremism!” screams Hannah Yeoh on Taman Medan church brouhaha
“Barbaric !” – Guan Eng on Taman Medan protesters
Wong Chun Wai on Taman Medan: Ignorant, prejudiced bigots
ABOVE: LGBT activist Azrul Mohd Khalib, together with Council of Churches sec-gen Rev. Hermen Shastri, and other ‘Malaysians for Malaysia’ NGIs distributing flowers yesterday in Taman Medan
Helen Ang 
Operasi ‘church planting’ Evangelist uji penduduk kawasan majoriti umat Islam
http://www.ismaweb.net/2015/04/gereja-taman-medan-najib-azmin-pemimpin-islam-tak-boleh-diharap/
Kawasan majoriti Islam? Selangor juga majoriti Islam. Begitu juga Malaysia. Kalau ini adalah alasan, maka tiada rumah ibadat bukan Islam yang boleh dibangunkan di Malaysia.
which is why I said if Taman Medan ‘poor, backward, barbaric malay folks’ as what described by evangelist and her sympathizers and supporters are to be held liable under the law, then the same should happen to that community of praise church.
but since evangelists hold powers in the higher echelon, Christian can seemingly get away with any charges in the name of freedom of religion.
this is because they are very cunning by playing the victim card first even though they were the one playing the agent provocateur role.
the evangelist knows very well the psyche of an ordinary malay that would feel guilty whenever someone of their kind act not according to Islamic and malay culture norm.
this is in line with the shyness attribute to malay in general and connects any wrongdoings of his kind to bangsa, agama dan negara. the same does not happen to Chinese or Indians as a whole.
I guess this may land up in the Federal Court after all.
It’s amazing that there are so many “instant” legal experts around. Maybe the national education system is doing something right, this pesky Pisa rankings notwithstanding.
The question now – who is going to sue who (pardon my grammar)?
You can read Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) at
Click to access Act133y1974bi.pdf
Didn’t the Malaysiakini website carry a contrary opinion?
Like I posted, it is best tested in the courts.
There’s plenty of legal talent in the country to argue for and against.
Pls give url of Malaysiakini article.
re: “There’s plenty of legal talent in the country to argue for and against.”
The Malays have always been too tidak apa but that’s changing fast – thanks to the evangelista onslaught and aggression.
“Critics, check your facts on Selangor church ruling” (www.malaysiakini.com/296484).
As for your second point, is it about “globalised Malays” and “localised Malays” or “liberal Malays” and “conservative Malays”?
To which group does the “tidak apa” label apply to?
The Malaysiakini article you cite is written by Stephen Ng (SN).
SN wrote: “If CLJ continues to insist that places of worship must be premises designated for religious activities, then, it should address a major issue affecting the non-Muslim community, who make up the other 50 percent of the total population.”
Helen Ang (HA): It is the state governments which must address the issue that houses of worship are required to be situated in premises with a proper permit for the carrying out of religious activities. In the case of Selangor, it is largely DAP’s responsibility since it’s the Christians who are complaining the loudest. (DAP Selangor has the most Christian Aduns.)
re: “There has been a scarcity of religious land and burial grounds, throughout the country since Independence.”
This is true but the DAP is BFF with developers and where there is Penang state land, Guan Eng has sold it to developers for lucrative condo projects rather than for Penangites to bury or even burn their dead, e.g. the Indians are clamouring for a Hindu crematorium to be built on the Penang mainland and complaining that the incinerator in the Batu Lanchang one was not working, i.e. broke down and not repaired (ref. last year’s news).
SN: “Even if a permit is required (which is really unnecessary), it should be just a matter of formality and strictly on the basis of having met the requirements under Act 133 …”
HA: Well, here is Mr Ng – locus standi Malaysiakini contributor – declaring that a permit “is really unnecessary”. Only a few days ago, the MBPJ spokesman said a permit is necessary.
I do not find that SN has rebutted CLJ other than making his own declarations. If you believe he has any compelling and convincing argument, pls do highlight the relevant portion for us.
Pretty ironic to see Azrul Mohd Khalib wearing a Fit Malaysia t-shirt a program mooted by none other than…
Sorry, it should be “the Lee Kuan Yew…..”.
Typos again!
Helen – you may also want to peruse this commentary “Malaysia’s ISIS conundrum” by Joseph Chinyong Liow.
The link is http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/21-malaysia-isis-conundrum-liow
Mr Liow is “the inaugural holder of the Lee Kuan Few Chair in South-east Asia Studies and senior fellow at the Brookings Centre for East Asia Policy Studies”.
It is reasonably well argued, from my initial reading of it.
In the Brookings article that you cite, Joseph Liow wrote:
So, according to Mr Liow, the Muslim groups in Malaysia are at odds with Christians and Hindus.
Urm, Buddhists and Taoists are exempted? I’m thankful for the blessing.
An old friend of mine who is now someone high up in a GLC once remarked to me that the disquiet of Malays over Christians and Hindus do stem from property / land matters over temples – mainly from not wanting to play by the book and being uncompromising.
He also said “no issues with the Buddhist and Taoists, you know why? Because you all buy the land fair and square!”
Anyway, that’s just anecdotal evidence from one person’s opinion only but telling nonetheless …
Well, Malay disquiet with Christians has a historical precedent in back in the 16th century when the influential Melaka kingdom was overpowered by the Portuguese colonialists accompanied by their Jesuit missionaries. As for not wanting to play by the rules and regulations there is a Jesuit joke about sharing that goes like this:
A Jesuit priest and a Franciscan monk sat down to dinner, after which pie was served. There were two pieces of pie, one small the other large. The Jesuit reached over for the larger piece of pie. The monk remonstrated, “St. Francis always taught us to take the smaller serving.” The Jesuit replied, “And so you’ve got it.”
Another one about responses to freebies:
A Franciscan monk gets a haircut, and then asks how much he owes. The barber says he never charges clergy. The monk thanks the barber and goes home. The next morning the barber finds a big basket of fresh bread from the Franciscans’ kitchens.
An Augustinian monk gets his hair cut by the same barber. The barber also tells him than he never charges clergy. The next day the barber receives a nice bottle of wine from the Augustinians’ wine cellar.
A Jesuit priest gets his haircut, and the barber again says that he never charges clergy. The next day, when the barber opens his shop, he finds twelve other Jesuits already waiting for him.
Hahaha! now as for Brahmin jokes …..
A Christian is egged on by his friends to visit a Hindu temple which normally forbids non-Hindus from entry. After some convincing, he agrees. Once inside, he is pestered by a Brahmin for some “donations.”
“Leave me alone! I am an Isai [Christian] !” shouts the Christian.
The Brahmin, unwilling to let go of some fast money, promptly replies, “What, to save ten rupees you convert your faith?”
hahahaha
It’s a pity that the “influential Melaka kingdom” then did not ally itself with China which had both guns and gunpowder.
Or is that a selective rereading of history?
As for jokes about religion, including Islam, just check on the Internet or tune in to the late night talk shows in the US.
And there are quite a few Muslim stand-up comics who have acerbic views on their religion.
Are you denying that?
Who’s denying what?
Those jokes are representative of the general perception of Catholics themselves – it comes from a Jesuit website devoted to Ignatius Loyola:
http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/dotmagis-blog/more-jesuit-jokes
And before you break out into canon fire, are you denying the extensive diplomatic exchanges between the Malacca Sultanate
and the Ming Dynasty empire? The muslim Admiral Cheng Ho made a total of seven great voyages to the countries of the south and west of China, and gunboat diplomacy was never once practiced.
Encik Rithmatist,
This is not stand-up comedy ya, but the tok-sheikh2 of traditional Malay pondok find it comical but nauseating when tok guru Nik Aziz made a public statement that Allah sits with folded legs (duduk bersila) on the Throne of Heaven (Arsh), and that Prophet Muhammad – salallahu alaihi was sallam – was seated on Allah’s right-hand side! in this Nik Aziz has outdone his Hanbali preceptor Ibn Taymiyyah who professed the same thing but didn’t know that the Lord’s legs were folded . . . . masha Allah inna lillah wa inna ilaihi ra’jiun!
re: “Third, this politicization of Islam is taking place against a backdrop of an exceedingly strong state which has taken upon itself to police Islam and curtail any expression of faith that departs from the mainstream Shafi’i tradition. Yes, the ummah may be universal and Islamic confessional traditions may be diverse, but in Malaysia there is very little room for compromise beyond the “Islam” sanctioned by the state. The Shi’a tradition is legally proscribed, and several smaller Islamic sects are deemed deviant and hence, banned. All this happens despite the existence of constitutional provisions for freedom of worship. Needless to say, attempts by various fringe quarters in Muslim society to move discourse away from an overly exclusivist register have run up against the considerable weight of the state, which defines and polices “right” and “wrong” Islam.”
In the Name of Allah Most Merciful and Just
One wonders about the extent of Mr. Liow’s understanding of Islam in its various aspects. In jurisprudential matters of which he talks about the Shafi’i school as representative of Malaysia’s “state policing” he should in fairness, state the particular case about which he is aggrieved that detracts from the universalism of Islam and its rich spiritual traditions, which he finds compromised by those specific rulings by the authority in question.
Anyhow, anyone who is familiar with the nature of the strife among Muslims today with respect to their different forms of interpretation of the Islamic creed taught by Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) would be quite surprised that Mr. Liow makes no mention at all about the opposition political party PAS which proclaims an Islamist agenda based on a Hanbali-Wahhabi interpretation that makes “takfir” or the pronouncement of “heresy” upon other Muslims who are not in line with their political agenda and religious worldview, a commendable act of faith. This, Mr. Liow ought to know is the same mental stricture that governs the Islamic State (ISIS) terror mongers. To date the ISIS have slaughtered over 300 religious scholars in Iraq including its foremost Shafi’i scholar, who differed with their radical views.
One quality that positioned Al-Shafi’i among the highest ranks of Islamic scholars was his persistent devotion and sincerity in the pursuit of truth, and to declare his view even if unpopular or at variance with his teachers, to whom he was most devoted. No one ever accused him of rejecting true evidence.
Imam Al-Shafi’i used to urge his students to devote both their time and effort in studying the Hadith beyond the noble Quran. He never got furious while debating with anyone, as he was uninterested in scoring points or winning admiration, but rather to certify the truth. And if his opponents were right, he would have no difficulty in accepting their view.
Shafi’i was quoted as saying: “I wish people would learn what I have to offer, but without attributing it to me. This way, I might be compensated by the Lord, without the praises of men.”
Mr. Liow should know that such scholars “do not need your approval, neither do they want your disapproval”, but as in all cases concerned, let truth be told.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Madhab/Shafi/imam_shafi.html
Elizabeth lee’s explanation is the most farcical statement ever. Everywhere in the world when one builds or establishes places of worship one has to comply with various planning processes and laws. That’s why it’s very difficult to build mosques overseas irrespective in commercial residential or industrial area.
But in Selangor according to Eli you can build places of worship ikut suka hati. So an owner of a shop lot in a mall say besides branded goods shop can open up places of worship ikut suka hati. No one can object. Why? Coz according to Elizabeth, it’s unconstitutional to regulate this. This is a highly farcical argument. We’re most liberal than the most liberal country in the world!!!
This is where Stephen Ng reply doesn’t make sense. Establishing a place of worship needs to or should go through planning processes of approval or public consultation. Why? One should have the right to object. If we can object on so many grounds for objecting the building and use of a premise why can’t one object to places of worship? This is the common practice overseas. For example the place of worship may affect the business of the next door Neighbour. It may also cause traffic congestion and inadequate parking spaces as the commercial development was never meant for large congregation. You mean in Selangor you can’t and don’t have basis to object mah! Ridiculous policy. Commercial development was never intended for place of worship. These objections are part of the many planning issues which in overseas are valid.
To sample the many objections made overseas on setting up a mosques please see https://mosqueblock.wordpress.com
You see the many “reasonable grounds” of objections. Also if you realise when it was objected, has anyone accuse the Brits of kurang iman or extremists? So many towns objected to it. Banyaknya ekstrimis!!!
What about the people of New York and republicans when they rejected ground zero mosques. Why are they not extremists and kurang iman. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v2y6ymfD8k
What about in malaysia itself. See http://sabahkini.com/no-necessity-to-have-a-mosque-in-the-middle-of-christian-dominated-penampang/. Here the Christians objected to building of a mosque in a chiristians dominated area. Why are they not kurang iman or extremists? Why is it pkr and its reps are not extremists.
You will realise the argument of kurang iman and extremists on this issue is only applicable to muslims. Same act but different value depending on who does the act. It’s actually a bigoted and racist argument.
Thus not only Eli’s statement is farcical by any western liberal standards, the dap and other responses too are bigoted and racists.
We really have racists people in this country hiding under the cloak of liberalism. Their interpretation of liberalism scares even the liberal of the west. It’s full of incoherent logic. Now in Selangor everyone can build and establish their place of worship ikut suka hati. Coz according to Eli it’s unconstitutional to do so. What a ridiculous argument and policy.
Ps: please take note that I’m not saying you cannot build places of worships but it should go through proper public consultation processes. We cannot have arbitrary processes. Building and establishing a mosque here and everywhere in the world had to go through planning processes. So must others. Then we avoid the many Taman Medan, Sabah and Shah Alam incidences. Eli’s policy will only breed future tension and conflict.
Erratum: reference to Elizabeth should be Elizabeth Wong.
Quote: For example the place of worship may affect the business of the next door Neighbour. It may also cause traffic congestion and inadequate parking spaces as the commercial development was never meant for large congregation
Vibrancy is what commercial development is all about. No business owner is happy if their place are tranquil and serene. Empty parking spaces are not a good sign either. Unlike those daycare centres with gaudy colors that are sprouting up sporadically in residential houses, we are talking about commercial areas where yes, it’s meant for people to congregate. If one were to object to renting out shoplots to a church simply based on that reasoning, that would mean banks, coffee shops and the Magnums would too be disqualified.
Quote: Ps: please take note that I’m not saying you cannot build places of worships but it should go through proper public consultation processes. ..
You will be glad to know there is indeed a proper application process enforced when it comes to building places of worship. The process is strict, unrelenting and very slow. (I’m not going into that cause it would be a topic for another day) So rest easy. The chances of a church/temple disrupting the serenity of your residential neighbourhood is pretty slim. Therefore, pardon the devoted resorting to renting commercial spaces.
Cheers
I think HH applies the rule selectively. Say we follow Eli’s policy, that means I can turn a shoplot in say sungai wang into a Friday mosque and jam up the whole parking lot and roads and no one can complain of this? Or may be turn a shop lot in Jalan Bukit Bintang into a temple. No one has a right to regulate and complain?
HH is probably unaware these are valid reasons throughout the western worlds in denying a mosque. Without exception I must say. We need to adopt an acceptable standards in demarcating place of worships. It’s a false argument to say it should not be regulated as suggested by Eli. Let’s do it properly.
Quote: HH is probably unaware these are valid reasons throughout the western worlds in denying a mosque. Without exception I must say. We need to adopt an acceptable standards in demarcating place of worships. It’s a false argument to say it should not be regulated as suggested by Eli. Let’s do it properly.
2 things.
1. Churches without standalone buildings are not required to obtain operating license. Churches without buildings and on rented premises are only required to notify the States Department. This is the standard practice/requirement during BN rule. (Still is) Of course I heard that is being now challenged in court, but notwithstanding, the point I’m trying to make is such practices are not new and certainly not a new directive from PR Excos.
2. “We need to adopt an acceptable standards in demarcating place of worships”
I am totally with you on this. You mentioned the West, but when the state profess outright it is aligned to a particular faith, then it cannot be a non-partisan entity standing on middle ground meting out sound decisions. Think cases relating to apostasy. Until there is separation of state and religion, decisions and policies pertainning to matters of faith will naturally carry a certain connotation and bias. Yes, we are not like the West.
Quote: You will realise the argument of kurang iman and extremists on this issue is only applicable to muslims. Same act but different value depending on who does the act. It’s actually a bigoted and racist argument.
If we were to compare same acts, that would be a tad hard. To my recollection they are no instances of non-Muslim groups congregating outside a mosque on Friday demanding their signage be taken down nor raiding mosques on suspicion Christians/Buddhists are being converted.
Cheers
You are right that there should be regulation here on the places of worship, but it’s just half of the story here.
While building of mosques or suraus are probably being given priority during the town / urban planning here in Malaysia, other buildings of worship are either not part of that planning or just plain lousy planning.
Lands are properly gazetted as mosques in those plannings by local councils but does the authority allocate enough or any lands at all for temples, churches or other buildings or structures for worship in the first place?
Because of this, the Christians are circumventing regulation loophole or blurry rules by operating the churches in shoplots which seems to be a disgruntlement to them.
So let’s be frank and not beat around the bush because the regulation part is not really the issue here. It’s the fear of proselytisation of Christianity on the Malay community.
Dear HH,
To the contrary. You miss the point. Places of worship must be regulated and cannot buat ikut suka hati under the false pretext of article 11. There is no such thing even in liberal democracies of that right to build or establish ikut suka hati by notification. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion as Eli is falsely spinning. Regulating a place of worship is a totally different issue.
Do recognize this point.
2: England is Christian bias. That’s why its not consider as a true secular state in many writings. This is the reason of the difficulty and biasness the muslims had in establishing a mosque even though its rented. In England you can’t rent a place to build a mosque say on Oxford street besides selfridges and argue its part of freedom of religion. The Christian who going by many’s argument are kurang iman or weak faith will object. They think a similar elizabeth’s argument here are nonsensical.
In malaysia it’s somewhat the same. Please be informed for hundred of years we too are Islam bias and thus our constitution reflects the same. Understand the role and history of Islam here. The building of a mosque just like the church in England is given due mainly to demographic and historical reason. There should be no objection of Azan by right. Under the planning law, a mosque must thus be provided. This practice of establishing mosques has been the case for centuries. You see mosques everywhere.
However it does not mean that other places of worship cannot be built. Unlike the west we have been very much more tolerant. Our planning laws provide such places. It’s not compulsory for all religions though. Where there’s a number of Hindus, temple spaces may be provided. In the urban area where I’m in, a sizeable area for Buddhist temples are provided for and already built. No objection coz part of the planning process.
Now these allocations for religion are mainly determined by developers. As its not compulsory to provide for all kinds of minority religion, the developers don’t provide for all. If a Christian developers want to allocate the land for church in town planning they can apply to do so. I don’t know how many churches are built by the developed but I do know certain Chinese companies providing space for Buddhist temple. And this is the issue you don’t deal with. One, Developers don’t want to provide for it. Two, it’s also unfair for developers to provide for all religion.
These issues as I said need to go deeper than your discussion. You must understand and take cognizant of our country’s constitution and history. Work on a compromised solution around it. Don’t simply establish of worship ikut suka hati and call others who object as lemah iman and extremists. This is bigoted and racist. Your effort in comparing facts is also selective. Please read other than pro pr media. The issue in Taman medan is the establishment of the church in the area. They knew about it only when the cross was evidenced.
We should have a proper process. If you’re really concern, tell us your view whether each developer must provide spaces for all places of worships? Who bears the cost?
There is some solution to the planning which Eli is in control. But ball is in your court.
Cheers,
You were lambasting Eli Wong for parroting our current renting practices pertaining to houses of worship. Thought I should let you know she is just quoting the status quo and hardly qualifies as the object of your discontentment. Well, If there is any consolation to you, these practises are currently. being challenged in court.
I see you are an avid fan of regulation. So let’s go there.
When one talks about regulation, it will have to involve some sort of governmental intervention. No two way about it. So the question is how determine is our government willing to prioritize itself to resolve matters of faith outside the scope of Islam. I am just a layman but common sense would dictate putting up a requirement for developers on projects over certain size to allocate certain land for building houses of worship. Much like the mandatory bumi lots in housing development. After 1 or 2 years(from the clearing of the land) developers are free to do what they want if there are no takers. Probably Lousy Engineer would be in a better position to comment on the feasibility of the idea.
The calll to regulate houses of worship is valid only if the government can offer some kind of solution in place to cater to the non-Muslim community. Merely advocating imposing stricter guidelines without offering an alternative is not exactly a solution.
Correction: should read:-
The calll to regulate houses of worship is valid only if the government can offer some kind of solution in place to cater to the needs of the non-Muslim community.
Dear HH
You are clearly favoring one religion with total disregard to the nation.
First you fail to argue in earnest. There’s no country in the world which force all its developers to provide place of worship for all minority religion. It’s a most ridiculous argument. It will result in no development at all. That’s why people in Christian and leading liberal countries will think you are insane and an extremist as what they would have called muslims arguing the same for a mosque there.
Two, You have failed to argue based on a fairness. What is a reasonable cutting point for a fair distribution of places of worship? Actually you don’t care at all thinking Christians issue is the most important to solve. I find this is highly bigoted. Just like Eli falsely arguing Article 11. Any solution must suit the Christians at all costs ke? Why? You are validating the extremist evangelist impression here. Shame on you. Since you fail to be fair I will not pursue the matter or solution. You want a solution try to think Malaysian first and not Christian Malaysian first as DAP always argue. DAP would have called you racist.
Further you are stuck with childish argument that if BN does it its fine for pr to continue. I find this again a ridiculous bias view. First you lied. Elizabeth Wong said it was amended only in 08. It’s under pr govt. She never said it was under a bn govt. further this argument is nonsensical and doesn’t solve anything. Isn’t PR the one which has power to solve now? Why are you not making them accountable?
I find HH you’re no longer reasonable and in fact a bigot from your answers. Really shameful answers.
Quote: You are clearly favoring one religion with total disregard to the nation
Firstly who are the nation? Simplistically said, it would be the people along with their respective beliefs. Islam being the supreme religion is privy to certain exclusive rights. Now, before you proceed to go into another lecture on the sanctity of Islam, let me reassure you nobody is challenging the fact. In essence, the nation is made up by both Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Highlighting the communal needs of the minority is hardly detrimental to the nation. Ignoring them probably would.
Quote: First you fail to argue in earnest. There’s no country in the world which force all its developers to provide place of worship for all minority religion. It’s a most ridiculous argument.
Earnest is my middle name. The pertinent question is, is it yours? You were the one who called for more regulation aka governmental intervention. Governmental involvement would mean more regulation to be adhered. Would it be more justifiable to you to have more rules rammed down the throats of devotees, whom have no recourse in face of insufficient houses of worship being approved/built, as opposed to wealthy developers? While on that, you do realize it is just an idea for crying out loud.
Quote: You have failed to argue based on a fairness. What is a reasonable cutting point for a fair distribution of places of worship? Actually you don’t care at all thinking Christians issue is the most important to solve. I find this is highly bigoted.
Fair distribution of places of worship? No, I don’t have the stats and let’s not forget I am not the one questioning the staus quo (pertainning to houses of worship), you are. Neither am I the one questioning why a fundamendally Islamic country should outdo the West by being so lackadaisical in allowing other religion to set up places of worship sporadically at will.( The non-Muslims are prolly just thankful for the life line. ) Only bigotted people would find offense in acts of goodwill towards another religion. Doesn’t sound like me, does it?
Dear lousy engineer,
I’ve answered in HH reply above. You are looking only from Christian persoective only. Try to have a macro look.
You are right on the mosque but not right on other places of worship. let me ask you whether you believe that in any development developers must provide land for for all religious minorities? Meaning to say that the developer must allocate in all development areas for temples and churches of all denomination including the Sikhs as well. What’s your stand. Is it reasonable? If so who bears the cost? If not what is the priority?
Why must we look only from Christian point of view? Shouldn’t planning laws be guided by demographics?
Pardon for butting in..
Quote: Why must we look only from Christian point of view? Shouldn’t planning laws be guided by demographics?
If the present conundrum is faith related, it only makes sense viewpoints from that particular faith be put into equation. Refusal to empathize or very least, hear them out only demonstrates the lack of sincerity in having a meaningful dialogue on the subject.
I don’t think any country in the world which practices what Eli Wong is trying to do. Just try to set up a mosque in the middle of any Western city or even in countries such as India or China and see if that works.
If we take Eli’s logic, then I can turn my house into a temple and conduct Friday prayers and hold processions. Would the state agree to it ?
This is a clear case of Evangelistas trying to hijack and pervert the legal system to suit their needs.
When Azmin was first proposed as MB, someone commented that he’s a real Malay in his blood. Well, his track record since his elevation suggest otherwise – a meek Ali Baba MB controlled by the powerful evangelist warlords and financiers.
Your whole reply epitomizes the problem of our nation. You’re unable to get out of the bigoted “evangelical” viewpoint and thus unable to resolve this issue fairly and sensibly.
There is something wrong with the manner you argue. Try not be selective. Answer as a whole based on the basis for the nation. Think Malaysian first as DAP always argue.
Get your principles right. No where in the world you can establish and build place of worship ikut suka hati.
So what people do from this principle is to regulate in the planning processes. There’s no other way. The U.S., UK law which many always hold as a beacon of Liberty have this rule.
Based on these two principles, I’ve already said we need to consider minority needs. But how? We can’t request all the developers to build in a development places for all minority religion can we? That’s nonsensical.
Rather than focusing on this you then argue many other points which are in fact irrelevant showing diversionary answers befitting of a bigoted arguments. For example falsely arguing its from BN era while Eli’s statement said its from 08. For example not recognizing the role of Islam as religion of the federation. For example seeking to solve this for the Christian minority aje. All these are irrelevant arguments if you’re earnest to solve. If you are you would even acknowledged you misled and denounced the bigoted lemah iman argument. But you’re not.
It can still be resolved in a transparent manner. We are unlike in the west where we are more compromising. But don’t push one sided bigoted arguments. Think nation first. You cannot get your way all the time. A compromised is needed to if its for common good.
Ps: if earnest try not to write by poking certain points. This is not an effective earnest method. Thus we get repeat argument going nowhere. Write from principle view point. Start whether you agree or not and if not argue it out. Do it in a cohesive logical manner like we do in karangan. If you had done this we could have focused on how to resolve this. As is you’re all over not seeking solution showing bigotry. Move away from this non productive style to solve this issue. I’m fine with this style for a few rounds but when you’re repeating points and forgetting earlier points yet claim you’re earnest, it’s oxymoronic.
The reply is addressed to HH.
Dear Ellese
I think I’ve said what needed to be said. Anything more would be redundant. I do appreciate the opportunity to exchange viewpoints with you. My parting words to you is It would help if you don’t dismiss my viewpoints as strictly evangelical bias. It’s not.
The distinctive social structure in Malaysia is firstly Muslims and a collective others. (which encompassed the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus etc) The plight of the churches are no different from those of Buddhist and Hindu temples. Admittedly churches are given a more prominent highlight in the English media while others, mostly in their local language dailies. Unlike during British rule where the Chinese stayed in new villages, Malays in Kampungs and Indians in estates, new housing developments see a mixture of all the above. It is hardly apt to cite religious sensitivity as objection when houses of worship of another are in sight.
I am not against regulation per se. But the intention must be noble and for the common good. It must serve a purpose and not used as a fig leaf to carry out other agendas.
As for the lemah iman, I would have to say if someone state their objection to something purely from their emotional standpoint, naturally there would be certain connotations that go with it. You had argued from a macroeconomic standpoint, that is fine. It is a legit concern. But you do realize there are others who offer no such basis apart from citing their sensitivity. One can complain about their neigbour if they are too noisy, but it’s hardly a legit complaint if you don’t like the way they look or dress.
This press statement is from council of Churches
https://www2.facebook.com/ccm.news/posts/779385038835635?fref=nf
“3. In addition, MBPJ Councillors also clarified that since 2008, the previous State Committee on Non-Islam Affairs (then known as State Committee on Non-Islam Places of Worship or RIBI) has allowed Churches to operate in commercial premises or offices without the need for application of permits, only by way of notification to the committee. This is based on the principle that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution embodies freedom of worship.”
It stated quite plainly the current practise has been in place since the previous committee, RIBI. I’ve personally known shoplot churches being set up by way of notification to the State Dept ( not Selangor) way back in 2003.
Cheers
HH,
The CCM press statement said churches have been allowed since 2008 to operate in commercial premises or offices without the need for application of permits. This practice started with the Pakatan government.
Don’t be distracted by the words/explanation in brackets. The RIBI name change occurred during the seven-years-and-counting tenure of Pakatan. Read the sentence carefully again.
Helen,
Thanks for the clarification. My 2003 account still stands.