Hadi’s bill is not hudud bill
By Shamsher Singh Thind
The presidents of MCA, MIC and Gerakan have threatened to quit the Cabinet if the private member’s bill tabled by Abdul Hadi Awang is passed.
Lucky for them, Hadi saved their ministerial positions for now by deferring the tabling of his bill to the next parliamentary sitting.
Be that as it may, I wish to highlight two points.
First, Hadi’s bill was designed to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 by removing the sentencing limitation of the shariah criminal courts. At the moment, such courts may only impose a maximum punishment of imprisonment for 3 years, a RM5,000 fine and 6 strokes of light whipping.
Hadi’s bill was neither designed to criminalise acts which are already punishable by the Penal Code or other federal laws, nor to punish any non-Muslim. Therefore, it is a misnomer to refer this bill as a hudud bill.
Now, if it was constitutional for the BN-led Federal Government to enact the 1965 Act, then why is it unconstitutional to amend the same? I do not see any provision in the Federal Constitution that limits the sentencing powers which may be properly delegated to the State-based shariah courts by virtue of a federal law, such as the 1965 Act.
The effect of the 1965 Act is that a Muslim in Penang, for example, who drinks alcoholic beverages in a public place is liable to a RM3,000 fine and imprisonment for 2 years. In Pahang, the same offence carries a maximum punishment, including whipping 6 times, whether the offender is male or female.
So, if Ah Chong and Ali were both found drinking at a bar, only Ali will be punished. No punishment can be meted against Ah Chong.
Does this amount to inequality? If so, why did MCA, MIC and Gerakan allow the 1965 Act to be enacted in the first place? On the other hand, if this does not amount to inequality, then what is the problem in allowing the punishment for such offence to be enhanced?
Second, the PAS-led Terengganu State Government in 2002 did pass a hudud law. It is called the Shariah Criminal Offence (Hudud and Qisas) Enactment, which came into force on 27 October 2003. Of course, no Muslim has ever been punished under this law due to the limitation of the sentencing powers of shariah criminal courts as discussed above.
Now, despite winning the 2004, 2008 and 2013 general elections in Terengganu, the BN has yet to repeal the 2002 Enactment, which is still in force, although not functional.
If the component parties of BN are so concerned about the total ban on hudud, then why are they keeping quiet on this issue?
Based on the two points above, I call upon the party presidents, Liow Tiong Lai, S. Subramaniam and Mah Siew Kong to resign with immediate effect. If they want to resign over a bill that is introduced to amend the 1965 Act, then they should resign for allowing the passing of the 1965 Act in the first place. If they want to resign over a hudud law, then they should resign for having failed to repeal the 2002 Enactment.
According to an American proverb, in politics a man must learn to rise above principle. So, let your actions speak louder than your words. Otherwise, silence is golden.
Shamsher Singh Thind is the publicity secretary DAP Chai Leng Park and Legal Adviser to P Ramasamy (Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.
Post a Comment