Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Answers to the three questions of Lina Joy's case

1. Individual liberty is the fundamental human rights for universally practice in the democratic state. Contradictory, the Lina Joy’s case occurred in Malay is absolutely affect to human rights and the model of democracy. The government by its own interest should not reject the case of a small change of identity card. In the article 18 of ICCPR, individual has to or adopt one religion to practice, and article 18 of UDHR, everyone has the right and freedom to change the religion. But the Malaysian government used its right to abuse the request for change of Lina Joy. In the report of Lina’s case, she does not have any religion to practice; even if, she was born in Muslim family it is because she had never believed and practiced Muslim. So, depending on the Malaysian Constitution, article 11 said everyone has the rights to profess and practice his or her religion. Therefore, Lina should have been changed her identity card without any rejection from the government.

2. If I were Lina Joy and faced problem, struggling for its own interest, I would have used my own right and liberty to fire complain at the court through different ways to complete my end.
A/. I will do as she has done by passing various stages starting from registration to the court.
B/. I will reach the Human rights Institution for help by expressing my interest and wills.
C/. I will raise the case of Democratic Society that we have practiced so far.
D/. I will go to the Mass Media to publish of issue relates to Human Rights in my country.
E/. I will press the International Community examine about democracy in my country that it might effect and concern to the world issues.
F/. I will hire the most efficient lawyer to pursue the case and interpreting the existing constitution which said to guarantee Human Rights.

3. The court decision to the Lina’s case will have been affected the future development of rights in Malay. First of all, Malay is a long period that practice democracy. We can say that Malay should play the role as a good sample of DEMOCRACY in Southeast Asia. Secondly, Malay is a Muslim society. The Muslim law is easy to enter, but difficult to exit. Moreover, in some Muslim societies practice the Apostasy, the highest degree of crime to person wish to escape from Muslim. Thirdly, the court guarantees no Human Rights and the decision is constitutionality, contrast to the highest law of the land. Fourth, politics and religion is interlinked. The state’s interest is that the government wants to use the religion shape the politics of the state. The article 18 of UDHR can protect Lina Joy’s interest even she has religion or does not have religion to believe and worship. Still, the article 18 of ICCPR can assure her right of any religion because she does not have one. The government cannot varnish its reputation because the case is already published and learned by public. However, the government can recover from its bad reputation if the government releases her free form her wills.
Thanks in advance for your comments!


chansath said...

Hi, in constitution of Malaysia in article 11 i think it means different from you.Every one has the right to confess or practice his or her religion, So it means mean that every must respect the institution by confess or practice the law or can say by confess or follow the religion.Therefore,Lina Joy against the law in Malaysia according article 11 above!

Seka said...

Answer to your comment on me and ask some question back

savoen I think UDHR give a bigger right to the right to freedom of religion than ICCPR cos UDHR let people change religion but ICCPR only let people have or adopt.

moreover, I want to ask that Malaysia has signed in UDHR and ICCPR or not?


moen savoeun said...
This comment has been removed by the author.