COMMENT The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) notes the push by the Kelantan government to convene an emergency sitting of the state legislature on Dec 29 to pass amendments to the enactment enabling the hudud.

There appears to be no prior consultation on the proposed amendment. Even Pakatan Rakyat partners and its own PAS central committee members seem not to have been consulted and everything is shrouded in secrecy.

This non-consultation, even on important issues, is very regressive and can lead to authoritarian rule and give the impression that no different view is tolerated.
 
The MCCBCHST calls for open dialogue on the matter and maximum consultation amongst all Malaysians as if hudud is implemented it will affect all Malaysians.

The 25 eminent Malays’ call for a consultative process and rational dialogue on application of Islamic laws therefore is timely and should be respected.

The MCCBCHST is of the view that in addition to the legal and constitutional objections for hudud’s implementation, there are more pressing issues which require attention at the moment.

This includes tackling poverty, fighting corruption, tackling economic woes, fighting injustice and drug abuse, protecting the weak and vulnerable against oppression, creating a welfare state and tackling pressing economic issues.

The implementation of hudud also requires pious and honest men and an honest society, which are lacking today.

Why hudud is unsuitable for us
 
The following are further reasons as to why hudud law is not suitable for Malaysia:

- It will offend the basic structure doctrine of the federal constitution. No amendment can be made which goes against the basic fibre or principles of the constitution;

- All historical documents and evidence show that Malaysia was meant to be a secular state and governed by secular laws;
 
Constitution expert Shad Saleem Faruqi (right) in his book ‘Document of Destiny’ wrote: “The word ‘secular’ does not appear anywhere in the constitution. However, there is historical evidence in the Reid Commission papers that the country was meant to be secular and the intention in making Islam the official religion of the federation was primarily for ceremonial purposes.”

- Shad further wrote in his book that:

a. Article 4(1) and constitutional supremacy: under Article 4(1) the constitution and not the syariah is the supreme law of the federation;

b. Article 160(2) of the constitution defines ‘law’, and it does not mention syariah as part of the definition of law.  The term ‘law’ includes written law, common law and custom or usage having the force of law; and

c. Article 3(4) states that though Islam is adopted as the religion of the federation, it is clearly stated in Article 3(4) that nothing in this Article derogates from any provision of the constitution.

This means that no right or prohibition, no law or institution is extinguished or abolished as a result of Article 3’s adoption of Islam as the religion of the federation.

- The Alliance memorandum submitted to the Reid Commission referred to religion in these terms:

“The religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state”

- The Cobbold Commission Report 1963 again reiterated the nature of the new federation and that there was to be no state religion for Sabah and Sarawak;

- Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy. This is inconsistent with it being turned into an Islamic theocracy;

- Political scientist Chandra Muzaffar (left) said in an interview with The Malaysian Insider in May that “no prime minister since Tunku Abdul Rahman had supported the implementation of hudud”;

- Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim in an interview with The Malaysian Insider in May said most Islamic countries in the world have not adopted hudud punishment, including the most populous Islamic country in the world, Indonesia (except for Province of Acheh) which has a population of 250 million people;

- Islamic Renaissance Front director Dr Farouk Musa in an interview with Malaysiakini in November 2012 said “hudud practising countries show that victims are basically women and the poor”;

- Sociology of religion expert Syed Farid al-Attas expert in a lecture at Wawasan Open University, Penang in 2013 said “an Islamic State is not good even for Muslims”;

- Statistics show that the safest countries are non-hudud practicing countries such as Denmark, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Iceland; and

- Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left) said in a June blog entry said “no stable and democratic nations exist in today’s Islamic world”.

In view of the above a comprehensive consultative process is required to be undertaken.

All Malaysians want Malaysia to succeed and be a role model to other countries as showcasing unity in diversity. Present hudud-implementing countries are no role models to follow, as they are failed states.


JAGIR SINGH is president of MCCBCHST.