Here's how the Malaysian government banned non-muslims from using the word 'Allah'

In 2009, Malaysia was rocked by a controversy known as the ‘Kalimah Allah Issue’. We may recall this issue involving the government banning non-muslims from using the word ‘Allah’, but that really wasn’t what the issue was really about.

The issue actually concerned a question of whether the government had the legal right under the law to ban a newsletter from using the word ‘Allah’, for national security purposes. 

Some people thought that the decision by the government was wrong, but the government actually referred to some laws that justified their decision. And it seems from the reading of those laws, it did give the government wide enough powers to do so.

But before we get into that, here’s how it all started….

A catholic newspaper was given a publishing licence…

The Herald was actually a Catholic publication which published weekly newsletters for the Catholic community in most major Malaysian languages, including Bahasa Malaysia. They had a licence from the Home Ministry to publish their newspaper, but somehow the licence granted to them in 2009 banned them from publishing in Bahasa Malaysia and using the word ‘Allah’.

The Herald of course wasn’t satisfied with such a decision, because according to them, the word “Allah” was being used by Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christians for quite some time. So what they did was…

Challenged the Home Ministry in court

At some point, we may remember that the ‘Kalimah Allah Issue’ was brought to court. And we may have thought the court was basically deciding if non-muslims can use the word ‘Allah’. But the truth is, the Herald brought the case to court saying that the Minister’s decision was wrong and should be quashed. In fact according to the court documents, this what the Herald specifically asked for:

The Home Ministry of course argued back saying that they made their decision according to law. In fact, they argued that Section 6 and Section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 said they could:

• Issue licences for publishing
• Give conditions for those licences

So despite the Ministry’s reply, the Herald further argued that despite the government having powers to make that decision, they didn’t exercise their powers correctly. It’s kinda like how the Immigration Department has the discretion to issue a passport to you, but they can’t simply deny you a passport without good reasons. Similarly here, the Herald argued that the decision to ban them from using the word Allah was without good reasons. 

In reply the government said that their decision to ban the Herald wasn’t done willy-nilly, but it was because of national security. So here’s how the government justified it to the court:

The big question for the court was, is national security a legitimate ground for the government to ban the word ‘Allah’? 

The court actually said it was a legitimate reason, because matters of national security is best left to government and not the courts:

The court went on to further explain that national security is a political matter, and the Home Minister shouldn’t be answerable to the courts, but Parliament.  

Basically, the court sided with the government

So ultimately the government won the case, which meant their ban could stay. But our Home Minister at that time, Zahid Hamidi made it clear that the court’s decision and the ban would only apply to the Herald:

“In the ruling by the Court of Appeal, it only gave the ruling for the usage of the word in the Herald, [but] in the Bible, the word ‘Allah’ can still be used.”

- Former Home Minister Zahid Hamidi as reported by the Malay Mail

But ultimately, this case shows that there are laws that gives the government powers to act. But of course, those powers when used must be used correctly - if not, the government could be answerable to the courts and/or parliament.

Some of us may remember that in 2009, Malaysia was shrouded in a controversy known as the “Kalimah Allah Issue”. For a lot of Malaysians at that time, it seemed like the whole reason behind the issue was that two factions of our society was clashing – the muslims and non-muslims.

The truth is, the real reason behind the “Kalimah Allah Issue” wasn’t about Malaysians fighting among themselves, but it was a question of the exercise of government power. Because what really happened in 2009, was the Home Minister banned a publication from using the word “Allah” due to reasons of national security.

Some people thought that the government decision to do so was wrong and unlawful, but the government actually cited a law for it. And it seems the law actually gave the government wide enough powers to do just that. But before we get into that, here’s how it all started…

A publishing licence was issued to Catholic newspaper

Somewhere in December 2008, the Home Ministry banned The Herald from publishing newsletters with the word “Allah” in it.

The Herald was actually a Catholic publication which published weekly newsletters for the Catholic community in most major Malaysian languages, including Bahasa Malaysia. They had a licence from the government to publish their newspaper, but somehow the licence granted to them in 2008 banned them from publishing in Bahasa Malaysia until the court decided on the legality of the matter.

The Herald of course wasn’t satisfied with such a decision, because according to them, the word “Allah” was being used by Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christians for quite some time. So what they did was…

The Herald challenged the Minister’s decision in court

What some of us were led to believe, is that when the court was deciding on the “Kalimah Allah Issue”, they were deciding whether non-muslims had the right to use that word. In fact what actually happened was, the Herald brought the case to court saying that the decision made by the Home Minister didn’t follow the law and it should be quashed. 

The Home Minister of course claimed that wasn’t the case, and the law actually allowed them to do the following things:

• Issue licences to publishers
• Give conditions for the publishing licence

In fact the law which said they could do just that came from the PPPA, which is a law made to regulate what people publish and distribute. The exact provision which says so are as follows:

Section 6(1)(a) of the PPPA:

Section 12 of the PPPA:

So from a reading of these 2 sections, we could say on the surface that the Minister did have the discretion to grant publishing licences and give conditions for those licences. But what the Herald argued further, that the government did have the legal right to make such a decision, but the exercise of that decision wasn’t right. To put it into an analogy, it’s like if your dad asked you to wash his car but instead of using a soft sponge to wipe the car, you used a metal one and scratched the car. While yes, your dad gave you the authority to wash the car you didn’t use the authority correctly.

In reply to that, the government actually said that the reason for the decision wasn’t made arbitrarily or for the fun of it, but for national security. In fact this is how they justified the national security reason to the court:

The big question for the court now was, is that a legitimate ground for the government to ban “Allah” in their publication? Well the court said that, it was. Why?

The court referred to some British cases which dealt with matters concerning the government’s exercise of power for national security. And those cases actually seem to say that when the government exercise their powers under law for national security, the courts shouldn’t interfere too much. This is because, it’s actually the Home Minister who’s appointed to make such a political decision – who should be answerable to Parliament, not the courts. 

If you stripped down all the sentiment, it was actually all about whether the government acted within the law