I eulogised Augustine Paul but almost lost my Christmas lunch

FMT:

 

I eulogised Augustine Paul

but almost lost my

Christmas lunch

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer

-11 Feb 2025, 07:00 AM

Interfaith harmony is an important aspect of the oath of office jurisprudence.

6

Shares

Total Views: 501

“Now I can’t invite you for Christmas lunch or dinner.”

That was a message I received from a senior lawyer recently, after it was announced that Jakim was drawing up guidelines to regulate the presence of Muslims at non-Muslim faith events and celebrations.

“Ha! Ha! Ha!” I responded swiftly. “There is nothing stopping me from hosting it for you at my house.”

Indeed, the prospect of the guidelines put many Malaysians in a bind recently. So, it was heartening to note that both the Sultan of Selangor and the prime minister had by their statements opted to preserve interfaith harmony, an important foundational pillar of our society indirectly guaranteed by our Federal Constition.

Article 10 of the constitution generally preserves the right of Malaysians to assemble in any place, even in churches, temples and homes. If the venue is not a public place, then the owner of the place is at liberty to impose restrictions on attendees.

Yes, the constitution and Rukun Negara anchor the Muhibbah spirit and the universal principle that religion is personal to the individual and no person should impose their religious values on another.

All religions are practiced within their precincts. However, when doing so, the rule of law must be respected.

India offers an excellent example of how mutual respect for all religions is practised particularly through attendance at each other’s events and ceremonies.

It is something I have always practised myself. Even after my elevation as a judge, I would make it a point to accept an invitation to attend the wedding of a non-Muslim friend.

I was always happy to attend ceremonies held in temples and churches. There is no better place to bless a newlywed couple than in their house of worship and after observing in person the ceremony conducted by their priest. I find it hilarious that some so-called leaders claim Muslims cannot watch these ceremonies.

Many of my non-Muslim friends have died. On such occasions, I believe it to be part of my duty as a Muslim to attend their wake or funeral to pay my respects to the deceased and condole with their families. I have always made it a point to attend funeral services whenever I can, even at the premises of a crematorium.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, however, I have had to give many of these events a skip, but that is purely for health reasons. That is my personal choice, but I would always offer my congratulations to the happy couple or my condolences to the family of the deceased and politely explain my reasons for not attending. Invariably, they are always accepted in good faith.

The last non-Muslim funeral I attended was for a prominent female lawyer during the Covid-19 pandemic. As was necessary at the time, strict restrictions were in place. I was asked by a family member to assist in carrying the coffin into the undertaker’s van and willingly lent a hand and shoulder.

At the time, I noticed that even the deceased’s pet dog was crying and trying to obstruct the removal of her coffin. Even an animal with no sense of religion had a sense of comradeship. I learned an important lesson that day.

For me personally, the real test of religious harmony and respect came when I received a call from a family member of the late Federal Court judge, Augustine Paul, to present a eulogy at his funeral in a church.

It was a request which took me completely by surprise given our limited relationship especially since he was a sitting Federal Court judge at the time.

Firstly, my contact with Paul in the early stages when I was practicing law was purely at an academic level. He was a prolific author of books and articles on evidence and criminal procedure, and I shared the same interest.

Most of the discussions would be by phone. I do not recall any meetings at his home or in a restaurant but I remember being invited to his chambers at the High Court on at least three occasions, always at 8am.

If I was early, his secretary would inform me that he was still reading the Bible and would see me at 8am. When we met, the open Bible would still be on his table, sometimes directly between us. I never took any offence.

Our meetings were usually short and limited to discussing various legal issues. At 8.45am, he would excuse himself to get ready to commence his task on the bench.

I informed the caller that I had never delivered a eulogy in a church, mosque or temple, and said it would be odd for me to present one in a church. “This was a family decision,” he said in reply. “Paul had high regard for you as a judge and jurist, especially on subjects of his interest.”

I was honoured by those kind words, and it became impossible for me to refuse the invitation. I delivered my eulogy to a packed church in the presence of representatives from many different religions.

It seems to me that these days progressive Muslims can only be found in Singapore. In my view, that is no coincidence, as no Singaporean is permitted to be corrupt or allowed to participate in corrupt practices.

I call Singaporean Muslims “progressive” because the country’s government facilitates a fundamental Quranic injunction against corruption and corrupt practices.

Unfortunately, the same term was lost from our lexicon when Umno was declared illegal, then Lord President Salleh Abas removed, and the appeal to the Privy Council abolished.

Interfaith harmony is an important aspect of the oath of office jurisprudence, which mandates that the executive, legislature and judiciary must preserve, protect and defend the constitution under the watch of the Malay Rulers, the guardians appointed under our constitutional framework.

All Malaysians, and particularly jurists of all faiths, must work together to rid this country of regressive laws that hinder the arrest of corruption while taking steps to protect the fundamental liberties of all persons under the Federal Constitution.

***

kt recalls:

The (late) Judge Augustine Paul was IMMENSELY hated by Anwaristas, wakakaka, so I have to admit that when he passed away, the Anwaristas were celebrating for what they saw as the death of a very "much-compromised" man. 'Nuff said!