TO MULL is to think about something slowly and carefully, as defined by sources such as the Britannica Dictionary and the Cambridge Dictionary. So, when it was reported that the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) was mulling over mandatory halal certification for restaurants and food companies that do not serve pork or alcohol, the term “mull” perfectly encapsulates what Religious Affairs Minister Na’im Mokhtar was contemplating.

In this context, Jakim was thinking carefully and over a period of time about making halal certification mandatory. This careful deliberation was evident when Na’im stated that “to mandate that all [restaurants] have halal certification, several Acts or laws will need to be amended. Many agencies will need to be involved in enforcing this.”

Halal matters in Malaysia are complex, being intertwined between Federal and State legislative powers. Article 74 of the Federal Constitution divides legislative authority between the Federal Government and the State Governments. Specifically, Article 74(1) grants the Federal Parliament the power to enact laws on matters in the Federal List and Concurrent List, while Article 74(2) gives the State Legislative Assemblies the authority over matters in the State List and Concurrent List.

A study of these lists reveals that halal issues could fall under both Federal and State jurisdictions. Legal scholars, such as Nurhafila Musa and Faridah Jalil, have argued that the administration and enforcement of halal matters are thus shared responsibilities.

This intricate balance between federal and state powers supports Na’im’s statement that several Acts would need to be amended to implement mandatory halal certification for restaurants. It is a process that may not even materialise in the upcoming parliamentary sittings scheduled for 14 October to 12 December.

Given the complexity of the issue, it is puzzling that Seputeh MP Teresa Kok was so quick to comment on Jakim’s proposal. While she claimed to be fulfilling her duty as an elected representative, she should also have explained to “the people of various races” that the proposal was still in its preliminary stages—a mere “mulling”—that could take time to develop, if at all. As a former minister, Kok should understand this.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim rightly pointed out that Kok could have discussed the matter through appropriate channels instead of publicly commenting on it. Kok, however, argued that since Na’im’s proposal was made in an open forum, she felt it was appropriate to respond publicly. Nevertheless, it remains that Na’im’s idea was still just a proposal, and Kok had plenty of formal opportunities, including the scheduled parliamentary sittings, to voice her concerns.

I agree with the Prime Minister’s remarks that Kok’s quick comments were unnecessary.

However, the jibes aimed at Kok by Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh were equally uncalled for. Such remarks are neither “Madanic” nor “Islamic”. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never resorted to name-calling.

There are important lessons to be learned from this episode. – September 15, 2024.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.