JUDGMENT: KES MELIBATKAN KALIMAH ALLAH DI MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS v. TITULAR ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP  OF KUALA LUMPUR
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMED APANDI ALI JCA, ABDUL AZIZ RAHIM JCA, MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01-1-2010]
14 OCTOBER 2013

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Exercise of discretion - Exercise of discretion by Minister - Publication permit - Imposition of condition in permit - Power and function of Minister - Whether exercise of discretion reasonable - Whether valid and in accordance with law - Whether offending Wednesbury principles - Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, ss. 6, 12, 26 - Printing Presses and Publications (Licences and Permits) Rules 1984, r. 3, First Schedule - Federal Constitution, arts. 3, 10, 11, 12 - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss. 93, 95

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Exercise of discretion - Exercise of discretion by Minister - Publication permit - Imposition of condition in permit - Newsletter of Catholic Church - Prohibition from using word 'Allah' in reference to 'God' in Malay version of newsletter - Whether prohibition reasonable - Whether usage of word would create distrust and disharmony between Muslims and Christians - Whether would disturb even tempo of life within community - Whether would harm public order and safety - Whether Minister had valid factual basis to impose condition - Whether Minister's decision valid and lawful - Whether constitutional - Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, ss. 6, 12, 26 - Printing Presses and Publications (Licences and Permits) Rules 1984, r. 3, First Schedule - Federal Constitution, arts. 3(1), 11(1), (4) - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss. 93, 95

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of religion - Whether extending only to practices and rituals forming essential and integral part of religion - Newsletter of Catholic Church - Conditions to permit - Prohibition from using word 'Allah' in reference to 'God' in Malay version of newsletter - Whether transgressing respondent's constitutional rights - Whether usage of word would offend sanctity of Islam as religion of Federation - Whether word 'Allah' an integral part of Christianity - Whether decision of Minister constitutional - Federal Constitution, arts. 3(1), 11(1), (4) - Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, ss. 6, 12, 26 - Printing Presses and Publications (Licences and Permits) Rules 1984, r. 3, First Schedule

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of religion - Freedom of speech and expression - Whether not absolute in nature - Whether subject to constitutional constraints - Publication of religious materials - Whether must not offend sanctity of Islam as religion of Federation - Whether must not disturb even tempo of life within community - Whether must not harm public order and safety - Federal Constitution, arts. 3(1), 10, 11(1), (4) - Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 ss. 6, 12, 26 - Printing Presses and Publications (Licences and Permits) Rules 1984, r. 3, First Schedule

WORDS & PHRASES: "in peace and harmony" - Federal Constitution, art. 11(3)(1) - Constitutional and historical significance of phrase

This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court Judge allowing the respondent's application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first appellant ('the Minister'), made by letter dated 7 January 2009, prohibiting the respondent from using the word 'Allah' in its weekly publication called 'Herald _ the Catholic Weekly' ('the Herald'). It was not in dispute that the prohibition, which formed part of the conditions attached to the publication permit of the Herald, was directed only to the Malay version of the weekly, and not otherwise. It was also evident that in imposing the prohibition, the Minister was acting pursuant to s. 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 ('the Act') read with Form B of the First Schedule to the Printing Presses and Publications (Licences and Permits) Rules 1984 ('the Rules'), and apparently also, pursuant to a directive which the Minister had issued to Christian publications in 1986 prohibiting them from using the words 'Allah', 'Kaabah', 'Baitullah' and 'Solat' in their publications for reasons of national security and public order ('the 1986 Directive'). Be that as it may, before the learned judge, the respondent argued that the Minister, in enforcing the impugned condition, had acted in ways that were ultra vires the Act, breached the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, and violated the respondent's constitutional rights as enshrined in arts. 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution ('the Constitution'). These arguments had found favour with the learned judge who thus ruled that the Minister's decision was null and void and wrong in law. It was the learned judge's further view that: (i) art. 3(1) of the Constitution did not empower the Minister to prohibit the respondent from using the word 'Allah' in the Herald; (ii) art. 11(1) of the Constitution allows other religions such as Christianity to be practiced alongside Islam in peace and harmony, and the Minister, therefore, had taken into account irrelevant considerations when, in issuing the prohibition, he considered inter alia the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation under art. 3(1); (iii) the Minister's decision was also vitiated by failure to take into account relevant considerations, such as the historical fact that for years the word 'God' has been translated in the Malay version of the Bible as 'Allah'; and (iv) no evidence was adduced to support the Minister's claim that the usage of the word 'Allah' in the Herald would pose a threat to national security or public order, and consequently there was no factual basis for the Minister to impose the impugned condition.

The Minister and the second appellant, Government of Malaysia appealed, and in the circumstances put forth the arguments that the word 'Allah' is sacred to Muslims and therefore its sanctity should be protected, that the usage of the word 'Allah' as interpretation of the word 'God' or concept of God by the Herald would cause confusion, hurt religious sensitivity and create disharmony between Muslims and Christians, that the usage would also disturb the current life of the community which may result in disturbance of public order, and that the decision to impose and attach conditions to the permit granted to the Herald, and to issue the directive as per the letter dated 7 January 2009, came within the Minister's function and statutory power under the Rules and Act and is legal and in accordance with the law. The primary questions that arose were: (i) whether the Minister's decision of 7 January 2009 is valid and lawful, in that it has passed the test of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness and has not contravened the principles of illegality, procedural impropriety, proportionality and irrationality; and (ii) whether the Minister's decision has violated the respondent's constitutional rights under the relevant articles of the Constitution.

Held (allowing appeal; sustaining the prohibition)

Per Mohamed Apandi Ali JCA:

(1) From the reading of the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules, and ss. 93(1) and 95 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, the decision to impose the condition in the permit is well within the law. The decision is within the function and statutory powers of the Minister and is intra vires the Act. (para 27)

(2) The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom of speech and expression under art. 10(2) are subjected to restrictions imposed under art. 10(2)(a). Likewise, freedom of religion under art. 11(1) is subjected to art. 11(4) and is to be read with art. 3(1) of the Constitution. (para 36)

(3) Upon the reasons given by the Minister in his affidavit in reply, it is clear that he was concerned with national security and public order. When such exercise of discretion by the Minister becomes a subject of judicial review, it is the duty of the court to execute a balancing exercise between the requirement of national security and public order with that of the interest and freedom of the respondent. Be that as it may, in this case, since the Minister concerned is in-charge of national security, it is not for the court to probe for strong evidential proof of national security. It must be inferred that the Minister's decision involving national security is rational. In any case, on the evidence, sufficient materials have been considered by the Minister in discharging his function and statutory power under the Act, and there is also sufficient evidence to show that his subjective decision was derived by considering all facts and circumstances in an objective manner. There is, consequently, no plausible reason for the High Court to interfere with the Minister's decision. (paras 42, 45, 47 & 49)

(4) Article 3(1) of the Constitution, which was not originally in the draft proposal of the Reid Commission and inserted only after objections, negotiations, discussions and consensus between the stake-holders such as the various racial and religious groups, was a by-product of the social contract entered into by the founding fathers of the Constitution. In the event, the phrase 'peace and harmony' therein has a historical background and dimension and is not without significance. The court is also aware that the Latin maxims "salus populi suprema lax" and "salus republicae suprema lax" do co-exist and relevant to the doctrine that the welfare of an individual or group must yield to that of the community. Indeed, this is how the element of 'in peace and harmony' in art. 3(1) is to be read with the freedom of religion in art. 11(1) of the Constitution. (paras 31-33 & 48)

(5) It follows that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the phrase 'in peace and harmony' into art. 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate it against any threat, the most possible and probable of which, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam. It is for this reason that art. 11(4) of the Constitution (for laws to be passed to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines to persons professing the religion of Islam) has come to claim its place in the Constitution. (paras 31-34)

(6) Potential disruption of the even tempo of the community is a lawful basis to restrict the fundamental liberties of freedom of expression and freedom to practice one's religion. In the present case, the usage of the word 'Allah', particularly in the Malay version of the Herald, without any doubt, has the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian society. Such publication, as explained by the Minister when imposing the condition, will result in unrest and ill feeling within the community. And surely too, it will have adverse effect on the sanctity of Islam as envisaged under art. 3(1) of the Constitution and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. (paras 38-40 & 42)

(7) The word 'Allah' does not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew Scriptures and nor does it so appear even once in the Old or New Testaments. That being the historical fact, it can be concluded that the word or name 'Allah' is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity, in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church. That being so, there is no plausible reason as to why the respondent is adamant on using the word 'Allah' in its weekly newsletter, particularly in its Malay version. Since 'Allah' is not an integral part of the faith of the respondent, it is reasonable to conclude that the intended usage will cause unnecessary confusion within the Islamic community and is surely not conducive to the peaceful and harmonious tempo of life in the country. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the majority population in this country is Malay whose religion is Islam. (paras 51, 52 & 53)

Per Abdul Aziz Rahim JCA (concurring):

(1) The Minister's decision of 7 January 2009 imposing conditions for publication of the Herald in the Malay version is an exercise of administrative discretion under the relevant provisions of the Act. Hence, so long as the discretion is exercised within the four corners of the Wednesbury principles, in that it did not contravene the principles of illegality, procedural impropriety, proportionality and irrationality, that discretion is absolute and cannot be questioned in any court of law. (para 69)

(2) A publisher of any publication should not be allowed to publish any material under the sun without due regard to public order, morality, safety and sensitivity. In the case of the Herald, it is common ground that the permit granted to the respondent contained 12 general conditions as shown in Form B of the First Schedule to the Rules. These include Condition 6 which prohibited the respondent from publishing materials which are prejudicial to or likely to prejudice public interest or national interest, and Condition 11 which compelled the respondent to comply with any directive issued from time to time by the Minister. (paras 70, 71 & 72)

(3) The 12 standard conditions in the permit are imposed by law, namely by r. 3 of the Rules. It is also clear that the Minister's letter of 7 January 2009 does not go beyond re-stating the prohibitions which have been imposed by the 1986 Directive and, by virtue of Condition 11 to the said permit, the respondent therefore must comply with the said directive and letter. As for the 1986 Directive, the court can take judicial notice that the respondent is aware of the same when it started publishing the Herald in 1999 because the 1986 Directive was sent to all Christian publications. This said, in the light of s. 12 of the Act, r. 3 of the Rules and Condition 11 of the permit issued to the respondent, the Minister had not acted in excess of his power or function in imposing the conditions stated in the letter of 7 January 2009. (paras 77, 80 & 81)

(4) Neither the historical evidence nor the fact that the word 'Allah' appears in the Al-Kitab, the Malay version of the Bible, is sufficient justification for the Minister not to consider imposing the prohibitive condition on the usage of the word 'Allah' in the Herald. The Al-Kitab and the Herald are two publications of entirely different character. The Al-Kitab, with the words "BUKAN UNTUK ORANG ISLAM" being printed clearly and conspicuously on its front page, is meant only for Christians and to be used only in churches and among Christians. The Herald, on the other hand, is in the category of a newspaper and is likely to be used as a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church to disseminate information on the activities of the church. And the Herald's accessibility online could only mean that it can be read by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Hence, the permission given to the Al-Kitab in which the word 'Allah' appears cannot be treated in the same manner as the printing and publication of the Herald with the usage of the word 'Allah'. (para 86)

(5) In the context of the Muslim society in Malaysia, the Arabic word 'Allah' is used to refer to God without any translation or modification to its meaning. Hence, considering that the concepts of God in Islam and in Christianity are worlds apart, the use of the word 'Allah' in the Herald to describe or refer to God among Christians is set to create confusion among the Muslims. It follows therefore that the Minister, in considering the potential harm to public order and national security that may result in multi racial and multi religious society like ours before coming to the impugned decision herein, cannot be said to have been actuated by any improper motive or misdirected himself in law or to have taken into account irrelevant matters. Case law authorities have also shown that in exercising his discretionary power and subjective satisfaction thus, the Minister may take into consideration whether the publication has the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the community and prejudice public order, safety and tranquility, and need not wait for violence to actually break out before exercising the discretion. (paras 89, 91, 92, 93 & 94)

(6) Since 1986, the Minister, when issuing the 1986 Directive, had already assessed the potential harm to public order and safety if the usage of the kalimah "Allah" in any Christian publication is not restricted. The learned High Court Judge in this case did not appear to appreciate this concern. However, events that unfolded soon after the learned judge pronounced her decision on the respondent's judicial review application (street protests, inflammatory discussions and accusations and attacks on churches and mosques) showed that the Minister's concern on the potential harm to public order and safety did indeed have a reasonable basis. Consequently, the Minister's decision of 7 January 2009 to impose the impugned condition is valid and lawful. It has passed the test of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness and has not contravened the principles of illegality, procedural impropriety, proportionality and irrationality. (para 96)

(7) Article 3(1) of the Constitution was a by-product of the social contract entered into by the founding fathers of the Constitution, whilst the introduction of art. 11(4) was to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the Federation and to protect it against any threat of propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam. The position of Islam as the religion of the Federation imposes certain obligations on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well as to protect its sanctity. There is nothing unreasonable or irrelevant therefore for the Minister to take into consideration Islam as the religion of the Federation under art. 3(1) and the restriction on proselytism under art. 11(4) to impose the impugned condition that he did in respect of the publication of the Herald. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. (paras 97, 103, 104 & 106)

(8) The prohibition by the Minister only prohibits the use of the word 'Allah' for God in the Herald. The word 'Allah' is not an essential and integral part of the Christian religion. The prohibition is therefore not unconstitutional and nor does it inhibit the respondent, which represents the Christian community, to practice their religion. The prohibition is consistent with the obligation of the first appellant Minister to have regard to Islam as the religion of the Federation in art. 3(1) and its protection pursuant to art. 11(4). (para 108)

Per Mohd Zawawi Salleh JCA (concurring):

(1) Having read the judgments in draft of my learned brothers, I agree with them both, and for the reasons which they gave, I too would allow this appeal. However, in view of the importance of the case, I would add a few observations of my own on the issue of whether the usage of the word "Allah" in the "Herald _ the Catholic Weekly" is an essential and integral part of the religion of Christianity. (para 112)

(2) From case law authorities such as Hajjah Halimatussaadiah Hj Kamaruddin v. Public Services Commission, Malaysia & Anor, Fatimah Sihi & Ors v. Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak & Ors, Javed v. State of Haryana, Commissioner of Police And Ors v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and Anor, The Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr v. Syed Hussain Ali and Ors and State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, a principle could be distilled that freedom of religion extends only to practices and rituals that are essential and integral part of the religion. The usage of the word 'Allah' in the Malay version of the Herald to refer to God is not an essential or integral part of the religion of Christianity. Therefore, such usage does not attract the constitutional guarantee of art. 11(1) of the Constitution. (paras 114-121 & 140)

(3) Judging from the viewpoints expressed by personalities such as GJO Monshay, Brutus Balan, Tiny Muskens, Gerrit de Pijter, John Gilchrist on the use of the word 'Allah' by Christians, and the translations of the Bible in languages used by the majority Muslim communities in the Middle east, Africa and Asia on the word used for the Supreme Being, it is clear that the Christians themselves have not reached a consensus as to how to use the word "Allah", whether in their many translations and versions of the Bible or in their general usage of it and this simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial such usage is. The question of translating God as 'Allah' is still being hotly debated (by adherents of Christianity) and it is also doubtful whether the opinion of the respondent on the usage of the word "Allah" reflects that of the Catholic majority. (paras 128-136 & 140)

(4) If the word 'Allah' is to be employed in the Malay versions of the Herald to refer to God, there will be a risk of misrepresentation of God within Christianity itself, since the Christian conception of God as symbolised by the trinity is absolutely and completely dissimilar to the conception of 'Allah' in Islam. In other words, the potential for confusion is not confined only to Muslims but also to Christians. (para 139)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi kerana membenarkan permohonan responden untuk perintah certiorari bagi membatalkan keputusan perayu pertama ('Menteri'), yang dibuat melalui surat bertarikh 7 Januari 2009, melarang responden dari menggunakan perkataan 'Allah' dalam penerbitan mingguannya yang dipanggil 'Herald _ the Catholic Weekly' ('the Herald'). Tidak dinafikan bahawa larangan, yang merupakan sebahagian dari syarat-syarat yang dikenakan ke atas permit penerbitan the Herald, adalah ditujukan kepada versi Bahasa Melayu mingguan tersebut, dan tidak sebaliknya. Adalah juga jelas bahawa dalam mengenakan larangan tersebut, Menteri telah bertindak di bawah s. 12 Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984 ('Akta') dibaca bersama Borang B, Jadual Pertama kepada Peraturan-Peraturan Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984 ('Peraturan'), dan kelihatannya juga, di bawah arahan yang dikeluarkan terhadap penerbitan-penerbitan Kristian pada tahun 1986 melarang mereka dari menggunakan perkataan-perkataan 'Allah', 'Kaabah', 'Baitullah' dan 'Solat' dalam penerbitan mereka masing-masing atas alasan menjaga ketenteraman dan keselamatan awam ('Arahan 1986'). Walau apapun, di hadapan yang arif hakim, responden berhujah bahawa Menteri, dalam melaksanakan syarat dan larangan, telah bertindak secara ultra vires Akta, melanggari kaedah-kaedah keadilan asasi dan keadilan prosedur, serta melanggari hak-hak keperlembagaan responden seperti yang termaktub di bawah fasal 3, 10, 11 dan 12 Perlembagaan Persekutuan ('Perlembagaan'). Penghujahan responden telah diterima oleh yang arif hakim yang dengan itu memutuskan bahawa keputusan Menteri adalah tak sah dan batal dan salah di sisi undang-undang. Selanjutnya, menjadi pandangan yang arif hakim bahawa: (i) fasal 3(1) Perlembagaan tidak memberi kuasa kepada Menteri untuk melarang responden dari menggunakan perkataan 'Allah' dalam the Herald; (ii) fasal 11(1) Perlembagaan membenarkan agama-agama lain termasuk Kristian dianuti dengan aman dan harmoni seiring dengan agama Islam, dan Menteri, dengan itu, telah mengambilkira pertimbangan-pertimbangan yang tidak relevan apabila, dalam mengeluarkan larangan, beliau antara lain mengambilkira kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan di bawah fasal 3(1); (iii) keputusan Menteri juga dicacatkan oleh kegagalan mengambilkira pertimbangan-pertimbangan relevan, seperti fakta sejarah bahawa sejak bertahun-tahun perkataan 'Tuhan' dalam Kitab Injil berbahasa Melayu sudah pun diterjemah sebagai 'Allah'; dan (iv) tiada keterangan dikemukakan untuk menyokong dakwaan Menteri bahawa penggunaan perkataan 'Allah' oleh the Herald akan menggugat ketenteraman awam dan keselamatan negara, dan oleh itu tiada asas bagi beliau untuk mengenakan syarat yang dipertikai tersebut.

Menteri dan perayu kedua, Kerajaan Malaysia merayu dan berikutnya membangkitkan hujah bahawa perkataan 'Allah' adalah suci bagi orang-orang Islam dan kesuciannya perlu dilindungi, bahawa penggunaan nama 'Allah' sebagai terjemahan kepada perkataan 'Tuhan' atau konsep Tuhan oleh the Herald akan menyebabkan kekeliruan, akan melukai sensitiviti agama dan akan mencetuskan ketidakharmonian di antara penganut-penganut Islam dan Kristian, bahawa penggunaannya juga akan mengganggu kerukunan hidup sedia ada masyarakat dan memudaratkan ketenteraman awam, dan bahawa keputusan untuk mengenakan dan melampir syarat-syarat kepada permit yang diberi kepada responden, serta mengeluarkan arahan sepertimana surat bertarikh 7 Januari 2009, adalah terangkum di bawah tugas dan kuasa statutori Menteri di bawah Akta dan Peraturan, dan adalah sah dan menurut undang-undang. Persoalan penting yang berbangkit adalah: (i) sama ada keputusan Menteri bertarikh 7 Januari 2009 sah dan mengikut undang-undang dalam ertikata bahawa ianya melepasi ujian prinsip kemunasabahan Wednesbury dan tidak melanggari prinsip-prinsip ketidaksahan, ketidakteraturan prosedur, kesepadanan dan ketidakrasionalan; dan (ii) sama ada keputusan Menteri melanggari hak-hak keperlembagaan responden di bawah fasal-fasal Perlembagaan yang relevan.

Diputuskan (membenarkan rayuan dan mengekalkan larangan)

Oleh Mohamed Apandi Ali HMR:

(1) Dari pembacaan peruntukan-peruntukan spesifik Akta dan Peraturan, dan ss. 93(1) dan 95 Akta-Akta Tafsiran 1948 dan 1967, keputusan untuk mengenakan syarat pada permit adalah berlandaskan undang-undang. Keputusan adalah dalam lengkungan tugas dan kuasa statutori Menteri dan adalah intra vires Akta.

(2) Dakwaan mengenai pelanggaran hak kebebasan asasi responden boleh disanggah dengan undang-undang mantap bahawa tiada kebebasan yang bersifat mutlak. Kebebasan bersuara di bawah fasal 10(2) adalah tertakluk kepada sekatan di bawah fasal 10(2)(a). Begitu juga, kebebasan beragama di bawah fasal 11(1) adalah tertakluk kepada fasal 11(4) dibaca bersama fasal 3(1) Perlembagaan.

(3) Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberi oleh Menteri dalam afidavit jawapan, jelas bahawa beliau bimbang dengan kemungkinan terjejasnya keselamatan negara dan ketenteraman awam. Bilamana pelaksanaan budibicara sedemikian oleh Menteri menjadi halperkara semakan kehakiman, maka menjadi tugas mahkamah untuk membuat pertimbangan di antara keperluan keselamatan negara dan ketenteraman awam dengan kepentingan dan kebebasan responden. Walau begitu, dalam kes semasa, oleh kerana Menteri berkenaan bertanggungjawab terhadap keselamatan negara, bukanlah menjadi tugas mahkamah untuk memeriksa dengan mendalam bagi mencari bukti kukuh mengenai keselamatan negara. Andaian perlu dibuat bahawa keputusan Menteri yang melibatkan keselamatan negara telah dibuat dengan rasional. Apapun, atas keterangan, bahan-bahan yang mencukupi telah dipertimbang oleh Menteri dalam melaksanakan tugas dan kuasanya di bawah Akta, dan terdapat juga keterangan mencukupi yang menunjukkan bahawa keputusan subjektifnya itu dicapai setelah menimbang kesemua fakta dan halkeadaan dengan secara objektif. Oleh hal yang demikian, tiada apa-apa alasan munasabah bagi Mahkamah Tinggi untuk campur tangan dengan keputusan Menteri.

(4) Fasal 3(1) Perlembagaan, yang asalnya tidak wujud dalam deraf cadangan Suruhanjaya Reid dan hanya dimasukkan ke dalam deraf selepas bantahan, rundingan, perbincangan dan persetujuan pihak-pihak berkepentingan termasuk pertubuhan-pertubuhan kaum dan agama, adalah berpunca dari kontrak sosial yang telah dipersetujui oleh pengasas-pengasas Perlembagaan. Ianya mengikut bahawa perkataan 'aman dan harmoni' dalam fasal tersebut mempunyai dimensi dan latarbelakang sejarahnya sendiri dan bukannya tanpa pengertian. Mahkamah menyedari bahawa maxim Latin "salus populi suprema lax" dan "salus republicae suprema lax" wujud secara beriringan dan relevan kepada doktrin kebajikan seseorang atau sekumpulan orang hendaklah tunduk kepada kebajikan masyarakat. Malah, inilah caranya bagaimana elemen 'dalam aman dan harmoni' di dalam fasal 3(1) Perlembagaan harus dibaca dengan kebebasan beragama di bawah fasal 11(1) Perlembagaan.

(5) Ianya mengikut bahawa maksud dan tujuan kemasukan perkataan-perkataan 'dengan aman dan harmoni' ke dalam fasal 3(1) adalah untuk melindungi kesucian Islam sebagai agama negara ini, termasuk melindunginya dari apa-apa ancaman yang, dalam konteks negara ini, berkemungkinan besarnya datang dari dakwah-dakwah agama lain terhadap penganut-penganut Islam. Inilah juga sebabnya mengapa fasal 11(4) (yang membenarkan undang-undang digubal bagi menghalang pendakwahan doktrin agama-agama selain dari Islam terhadap pemeluk agama Islam) mengambil tempatnya di dalam Perlembagaan.

(6) Kemungkinan musnahnya kerukunan hidup masyarakat adalah asas sah untuk mengekang hak asasi kebebasan bersuara dan kebebasan untuk mengamalkan agama seseorang. Dalam kes semasa, penggunaan kalimah 'Allah', terutama dalam versi Bahasa Melayu the Herald, adalah berpotensi untuk memusnahkan kerukunan sedia ada dalam kehidupan masyarakat Malaysia. Penerbitan sedemikian, seperti yang diperjelas oleh Menteri apabila mengenakan syarat, akan menyebabkan berlakunya perseteruan dan kekacauan dalam masyarakat. Pastinya juga, ia akan menjejaskan kesucian Islam seperti yang diperuntuk di bawah fasal 3(1) Perlembagaan, serta hak untuk mengamalkan agama-agama lain dengan aman dan harmoni di mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan.

(7) Perkataan 'Allah' sebagai nama Tuhan mahupun nama manusia tidak wujud walaupun sekali dalam Kitab-kitab Hebrew atau Taurat atau Injil. Mengambilkira hakikat sejarah ini, kalimah atau nama 'Allah' bukanlah menjadi isi kepercayaan dan amalan agama Kristian, terutamanya Gereja Roman Katholik. Oleh itu, tiada alasan munasabah mengapa responden beria-ia benar hendak menggunakan kalimah 'Allah' dalam suratberita mingguannya, terutama dalam versi Bahasa Melayunya. Oleh kerana 'Allah' tidak menjadi isi agama responden, maka adalah munasabah untuk merumuskan bahawa penggunaannya akan menyebabkan kekeliruan yang sia-sia di kalangan umat Islam dan tentunya juga tidak kondusif kepada tempo kehidupan yang aman dan harmoni di negara ini. Rumusan ini diperkukuh oleh fakta bahawa penduduk majoriti negara ini adalah orang Melayu yang beragama Islam.

Oleh Abdul Aziz Rahim HMR (menyetujui):

(1) Keputusan Menteri bertarikh 7 Januari 2009 mengenakan syarat-syarat bagi penerbitan the Herald dalam Bahasa Melayu adalah satu tindakan melaksanakan budibicara pentadbiran di bawah peruntukan-peruntukan relevan Akta. Oleh itu, selagi budibicara tersebut dilaksanakan dalam ruang litup prinsip Wednesbury, dalam ertikata ianya tidak melanggari prinsip-prinsip ketidaksahan, ketidakteraturan prosedur, kesepadanan dan ketidakrasionalan, maka budibicara tersebut adalah mutlak dan tidak boleh dicabar di mana-mana mahkamah.

(2) Penerbit mana-mana penerbitan sekalipun tidak boleh dibiarkan untuk menerbitkan bahan-bahan dengan sesuka hati mereka tanpa mengambilkira soal ketenteraman, moraliti, keselamatan dan sensitiviti awam. Di dalam kes the Herald, adalah diterima bahawa permit yang diberikan kepada responden mengandungi 12 syarat am sepertimana yang terserlah pada Borang B Jadual Pertama kepada Peraturan. Ini termasuklah Syarat 6 yang melarang responden dari menerbitkan bahan-bahan yang memprejudis atau berkemungkinan memprejudis kepentingan awam atau kepentingan nasional, dan Syarat 11 yang mewajibkan responden mematuhi mana-mana arahan yang dikeluarkan oleh Menteri dari masa ke masa.

(3) Kesemua 12 syarat standard pada permit tertera di situ melalui kuatkuasa undang-undang, iaitu oleh per. 3 Peraturan. Adalah juga jelas bahawa surat Menteri bertarikh 7 Januari 2009 hanya mengulangi larangan yang telah pun dikenakan oleh Arahan 1986 dan, berdasarkan Syarat 11 permit tersebut, responden dengan itu mestilah mematuhi arahan serta surat berkenaan. Berhubung dengan Arahan 1986, mahkamah boleh mengambil notis kehakiman bahawa responden sedar dan tahu mengenainya memandangkan Arahan 1986 telah dihantar kepada semua penerbitan agama Kristian. Apapun, mengambilkira s. 12 Akta, per. 3 Peraturan dan Syarat 11 permit yang dikeluarkan kepada responden, Menteri tidak bertindak di luar batasan tugas dan kuasanya dalam mengenakan syarat-syarat di dalam surat bertarikh 7 Januari 2009.

(4) Keterangan sejarah dan fakta bahawa kalimah 'Allah' wujud dalam kitab Injil berbahasa Melayu, Al-Kitab, kedua-duanya bukan justifikasi memadai untuk menghalang Menteri dari mengenakan syarat larangan terhadap penggunaan nama 'Allah' dalam the Herald. Al-Kitab dan the Herald adalah dua penerbitan yang sama sekali berbeza dari segi karakternya. Al-Kitab, dengan perkataan "BUKAN UNTUK ORANG ISLAM" tertulis dengan menonjol dan jelas di muka hadapannya, adalah dimaksudkan hanya untuk orang-orang Kristian dan hanya digunakan di gereja di kalangan penganut-penganut Kristian. The Herald, sebaliknya, adalah berada dalam kategori akhbar dan berkemungkinan digunakan sebagai lidah Gereja Katholik untuk menyebarkan maklumat berhubung kegiatan-kegiatan gereja. Sementara itu, kemudahan akses secara elektronik kepada the Herald bererti ia boleh dibaca oleh orang-orang Islam dan bukan Islam. Oleh itu, penerbitan the Herald yang mengguna nama 'Allah' tidak boleh disamakan dengan kebenaran yang diberikan kepada Al-Kitab di mana terdapat nama 'Allah' di dalamnya.

(5) Dalam konteks masyarakat Islam di Malaysia, kalimah Arab 'Allah' adalah digunakan untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan tanpa sebarang terjemahan atau modifikasi kepada maksudnya. Oleh itu, mengambilkira wujudnya jurang yang amat luas di antara konsep Tuhan di dalam agama Islam dan Kristian, penggunaan nama 'Allah' dalam the Herald bagi memperihal atau merujuk kepada Tuhan di kalangan orang-orang Kristian tentunya akan mengelirukan orang-orang Islam. Ianya mengikut bahawa Menteri, dalam memberi pertimbangan kepada kemungkinan terjejasnya ketenteraman awam dan keselamatan negara dalam masyarakat kita yang berbilang kaum dan agama sebelum membuat keputusan yang dipertikaikan, tidak boleh dikata sebagai telah didorongi oleh motif tidak wajar, atau telah tersalah arah akan dirinya, atau telah mengambilkira pertimbangan-pertimbangan yang tidak relevan. Autoriti undang-undang kes juga menunjukkan bahawa dalam melaksanakan budibicara dan kepuasan subjektifnya sedemikian, Menteri boleh mengambilkira sama ada penerbitan berpotensi memusnahkan kerukunan hidup masyarakat atau memprejudis ketenteraman, keselamatan dan kesejahteraan awam, dan tidak perlu menunggu sehingga kekacauan betul-betul berlaku sebelum melaksanakan budibicaranya tersebut.

(6) Sejak tahun 1986 lagi, Menteri, apabila mengeluarkan Arahan 1986, telah pun menimbang tentang kemungkinan mudarat yang akan berlaku kepada ketenteraman dan keselamatan awam jika penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' oleh penerbitan-penerbitan agama Kristian tidak dibendung. Yang arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes ini nampaknya tidak mengendahkan kebimbangan ini. Walaupun begitu, peristiwa-peristiwa yang berlaku sejurus selepas yang arif hakim mengisytiharkan keputusannya berhubung permohonan semakan kehakiman responden (protes jalanan, perbincangan dan tuduhan-tuduhan panas serta serangan ke atas gereja dan masjid) menunjukkan bahawa kebimbangan Menteri terhadap kemudaratan ketenteraman dan keselamatan awam sebenarnya mempunyai asas munasabah. Oleh itu, keputusan Menteri pada 7 Januari 2009 untuk mengenakan syarat yang dipertikai adalah sah dan menurut undang-undang. Keputusan tersebut telah melepasi ujian prinsip kemunasabahan Wednesbury dan tidak melanggari prinsip-prinsip ketidaksahan, ketidakteraturan prosedur, kesepadanan dan ketidakrasionalan.

(7) Fasal 3(1) Perlembagaan adalah tercetus dari kontrak sosial yang dipersetujui di antara pengasas-pengasas Perlembagaan sementara kemasukan fasal 11(4) adalah bagi melindungi Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan serta melindunginya dari ancaman kegiatan-kegiatan dakwah oleh agama-agama lain terhadap pengikut-pengikut agama Islam. Kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan telah meletakkan obligasi ke atas pihak berkuasa untuk mengembang dan melindungi Islam serta kesuciannya. Oleh itu, tiada apa pun yang tidak munasabah atau tidak relevan bagi Menteri untuk mengambilkira Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan di bawah fasal 3(1) dan sekatan terhadap pendakwahan di bawah fasal 11(4) apabila mengenakan syarat yang dipertikai terhadap penerbitan the Herald. Tiada apa yang tidak berperlembagaan mengenainya.

(8) Larangan oleh Menteri hanya menyentuhi penggunaan perkataan 'Allah' untuk Tuhan di dalam the Herald. Perkataan 'Allah' bukanlah bahagian penting dan isi agama Kristian. Larangan dengan itu tidak boleh dikata tidak berperlembagaan atau melarang responden, yang mewakili masyarakat Kristian, dari mengamalkan agama mereka. Larangan adalah konsisten dengan obligasi Menteri untuk mengambilkira Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan di bawah fasal 3(1) dan perlindungannya di bawah fasal 11(1).

Oleh Mohd Zawawi Salleh HMR (menyetujui):

(1) Membaca deraf penghakiman yang ditulis oleh yang arif saudara-saudara saya, saya bersetuju dengan mereka berdua, dan berasaskan alasan-alasan yang mereka kemukakan, saya juga akan membenarkan rayuan ini. Namun begitu, memandangkan peri pentingnya kes ini, saya akan menambah beberapa pandangan saya sendiri mengenai isu sama ada penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' di dalam 'Herald _ the Catholic Weekly' merupakan bahagian penting dan integral agama Kristian.

(2) Berdasarkan autoriti undang-undang kes seperti Hajjah Halimatussaadiah Hj Kamaruddin v. Public Services Commission, Malaysia & Anor, Fatimah Sihi & Ors v. Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak & Ors, Javed v. State of Haryana, Commissioner of Police & Ors v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and Anor, The Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr v. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors and State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, satu prinsip boleh dipetik iaitu bahawa kebebasan beragama hanya terpakai kepada amalan-amalan yang menjadi bahagian penting dan isi agama. Penggunaan perkataan 'Allah' dalam versi Bahasa Melayu the Herald bagi merujuk kepada Tuhan bukan merupakan satu bahagian penting atau isi agama Kristian. Oleh yang demikian, penggunaannya tidak boleh menarik perlindungan perlembagaan di bawah fasal 11(1) Perlembagaan.

(3) Meneliti pandangan-pandangan yang diutarakan oleh personaliti-personaliti seperti GJO Monshay, Brutus Balan, Tiny Muskens, Gerrit de Pijter, John Gilchrist berkaitan penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' oleh penganut Kristian, serta terjemahan Kitab Injil dalam bahasa-bahasa yang dipakai oleh majoriti komuniti Islam di Timur Tengah, Afrika dan Asia berhubung perkataan yang digunakan bagi Zat Yang Maha Agung, adalah jelas bahawa orang-orang Kristian sendiri tidak mencapai kata sepakat tentang bagaimana kalimah 'Allah' harus digunakan, sama ada dalam terjemahan-terjemahan dan versi-versi Kitab Injil mereka mahupun dalam penggunaan amnya, dan ini sekaligus menunjukkan ketidakpastian dan betapa kontroversinya penggunaan perkataan tersebut. Persoalan menterjemah Tuhan sebagai 'Allah' masih lagi menjadi perbahasan hangat (di kalangan penganut-penganut Kristian) dan adalah diragui sama ada pendapat responden berhubung penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' sebenarnya melambangkan pandangan majoriti penganut Katholik.

(4) Jika perkataan 'Allah' digunakan dalam versi Bahasa Melayu the Herald bagi merujuk kepada Tuhan, akan wujud risiko salahnyata mengenai Tuhan dalam agama Kristian sendiri, kerana konsep Tuhan dalam agama Kristian seperti yang terlambang oleh konsep triniti adalah secara mutlak dan sepenuhnya berbeza dari konsep 'Allah' dalam Islam. Dengan lain perkataan, kemungkinan wujudnya kekeliruan bukan terhad kepada orang-orang Islam sahaja tetapi mencakupi juga penganut-penganut Kristian sendiri.

Case(s) referred to:

A, X and Y v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 335 (refd)

Adong Kuwau & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor [1997] 3 CLJ 885 HC (refd)

Arumugam Kalimuthu v. Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri & Ors [2013] 1 LNS 296 CA (foll)

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (foll)

Collector and District Magistrate v. S Sultan AIR 2008 SC 2096 (refd)

Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwaranada Avadhuta [2004] 2 LRI 39 AR (foll)

Commissioner of Police and Ors v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and Anor (2004) 12 SCC 770 (refd)

Commonwealth Shipping Representative v. P & O Branch Service [1923] AC 191 (refd)

Council Of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374 (foll)

Darma Suria Risman Saleh v. Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2010] 1 CLJ 300 FC (foll)

Dato' Menteri Othman Baginda & Anor v. Dato' Ombi Syed Alwi Syed Idrus [1984] 1 CLJ 28; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 98 FC (refd)

Fatimah Sihi & Ors v. Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak & Ors [2005] 2 CLJ 255 CA (refd)

Hajjah Halimatussaadiah Hj Kamaruddin v. Public Services Commission, Malaysia & Anor [1994] 3 CLJ 532 SC (refd)

Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd v. National Union of Commercial Workers [1991] 2 CLJ 881; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 159 SC (foll)

Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057 (refd)

Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (Minister of Home Affairs), Malaysia [1969] 1 LNS 65 FC (refd)

Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Nasharuddin Nasir [2004] 1 CLJ 81 FC (refd)

Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal (1972) 3 SCC 845 (foll)

Lim Kong v. PP [1962] 1 LNS 89 HC (refd)

Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson & Anor [1942] AC 206 (refd)

Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v. Syarikat Bekerjasama-Sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 CLJ 65 FC (refd)

Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia v. Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara [1990] 1 CLJ 699; [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 186 SC (refd)

Minister of Labour & The Government of Malaysia v. Lie Seng Fatt [1990] 1 CLJ 1103; [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 195 SC (foll)

Padfield and Ors v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food & Ors [1968] 1 All ER 694 (refd)

Pembangunan Maha Murni Sdn Bhd v. Jururus Ladang Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 LNS 122 SC (refd)

PP v. Khong Teng Khen & Anor [1976] 1 LNS 100 FC (refd)

PP v. Pung Chen Choon [1994] 1 LNS 208 SC (refd)

R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p McQuillan [1995] 4 All ER 400 (refd)

R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball [1977] 3 All ER 452 (refd)

Re Application of Tan Boon Liat @ Allen; Tan Boon Liat v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [1976] 1 LNS 126 HC (refd)

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124 (refd)

Sagnata Investments Ltd v. Norwich Corp [1971] 2 QB 614 (refd)

State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri AIR 1995 SC 464 (refd)

Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Transport Workers Union [1995] 2 CLJ 748 CA (refd)

The Durgah Committee, Ajmer and Anr v. Syed Hussain Ali and Ors AIR 1961 SC 1402 (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Evidence Act 1950, s. 57(2)

Federal Constitution, arts. 3(1), 10(1)(a), (2)(a), 11(1), (4), 12, 160

Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, ss. 40, 93(1), 95

Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, ss. 6(1), 7, 12, 13A(1), 26(2)(d)

Printing Presses and Publications (Licenses and Permits) Rules 1984, r. 3

Constitution of India [Ind], arts. 25, 26

Other source(s) referred to:

Daud Soesilo, Translating the Names of God Revisited: Field Experience from Indonesia and Malaysia, pp. 4, 8

GJO Monshay, Who is this Allah?, 1990, p 8

Muhammad Imam, Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia - A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June)

Professor Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, 1996, p 201

Professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Document of Destiny the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia, 2008, pp 138-139

Professor MP Jain, Administrative Law of Malaysia and Singapore, 3rd edn, p 413

For the 1st & 2nd appellants - Suzana Atan (Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari, Munahyza Mustafa, Andi Razalijaya A Dadi & Shamsul Bolhassan with her); SFCs

For the 3rd appellant - Mubashir Mansor (Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, Nur Syazwani Rosli & Damian Kiethan with him); M/s Zainul Rijal Taiha & Amir

For the 4th appellant - Abdul Halim Bahari (Azril Mohd Amin & Mohd Fasha Musthafa with him); M/s Azra & Assocs

For the 5th appellant - Mohd Adli Ithnin; M/s Adli & Co

For the 6th appellant - Ikbal Salam; M/s Ikbal Salam & Assocs

For the 7th appellant - Nawal Hanin (Siti Razasah Abd Razak with her); M/s Omayah Nawal & Partners

For the 8th appellant - Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdullah (Mohd Tajuddin Abd Razak & Adzly Ab Manas with him); M/s Tajuddin Razak

For the 9th appellant - Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman (Abdul Rahim Sinwan & Ridha Abadah Subri with him); M/s Azra & Assocs

For the respondent - Porres Royan (S Selvarajah, Benjamin Dawson & Annou Xavier with him); M/s Fernandez & Selvarajah

[Editor's note: For the High Court judgment, please see Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor [2010]
2 CLJ 208.]

Reported by Wan Sharif Ahmad

Sumber teks di atas adalah di SINI

Ini adalah ringkasan alasan penghakiman. Adalah disarankan agar anda membaca teks penuh alasan penghakiman kes ini bagi mendapatkan gambaran sebenar keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan. Ia boleh didapati di SINI