Call on Malaysians to think the unthinkable – a new Prime Minister and a new Malaysian coalition government before 14GE  to “Save Malaysia”,  protect constitutionalism and  rule of law and entrench good governance

The DAP Central Executive Committee decision last night to reaffirm its commitment to Pakatan Rakyat as the embodiment of the hopes and aspirations of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion and region, for a new Malaysia where there is freedom, justice, democracy, integrity and human dignity had been a great disappointment and shock to UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders who had expected to see the demise of Pakatan Rakyat last night.

Pakatan Rakyat is undoubtedly facing its greatest crisis in its seven-year history as a result of the political conspiracies of plotters who use the bait of UG (Unity Government of UMNO and PAS) and hudud implementation in Kelantan to destabilise, divide and destroy PR.

What the UMNO/BN conspirators never expected was the unintended consequences of such a plot, as it has also brought UMNO/Barisan Nasional coalition to the brink of disintegration or of being totally discredited even if the shell of the coalition is maintained.

This is best illustrated by the great and prolonged “labour pains” of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to declare the stand of UMNO/BN on the private member’s bill of the PAS President and MP for Marang, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Najib was supposed to make clear the official UMN/BN stand last Friday, but five days have come and gone, and there are no signs that Najib is out of his “labour pains”.

The initial delay in Najib’s announcement was probably influenced by the hope that the DAP CEC on Monday night would announce the demise of Pakatan Rakyat, but when this did not eventuate, Najib’s “labour pains” have worsened, with UMNO Ministers declaring that UMNO Ministers support the UMNO Kelantan State Assemblymen voting in support of Kelantan PAS Syariah Criminal Code 2015 while the 13 other Barisan Nasional component parties are reported to have urged Najib to stay true and loyal to Barisan Nasional (and previously Alliance) founding principles that hudud laws are unconstitutional and not suitable for a plural society like Malaysia.

It suddenly dawned on Najib that UMNO/BN’s support for PAS President’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation in Kelantan is a double-edged sword for it would not only destroy Pakatan Rakyat, it would at the same time destroy Barisan Nasional!

If this come about, with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat destroyed by the same C4 explosive of UMNO support for Hadi’s private member’s bill in Parliament, then a new political scenario which is post-BN and post-PR has arisen.

It is in such a new political scenario that  I had suggested two days ago that the time may have  come for a new “Save Malaysia” coalition comprising MPs from both insides of the political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia,  to defend constitutionalism and rule of law with a new Prime Minister and a new Malaysian Government.

I believe UMNO MPs would not be monolithic in supporting Hadi’s private member’s bill. One UMNO MP who had declared his opposition to Hadi’s private member’s bill is the PAC Chairman and UMNO for Pulai, Nur Jazlan Mohamad.

The statement by former Deputy Prime Minister and former UMNO Deputy President Tun Musa Hitam that UMNO could “self-destruct” as UMNO had always taken the position that hudud is not suitable for a multi-religious and multi-racial country is clear signal that it is not just one UMNO MP, Nur Jazlan who would not be able to support Hadi’s private member’s bill, but many other UMNO MPs as well.

After all, the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein had made it very clear that the Malaysian constitution would not permit the implementation of hudud laws.

This is why I said that if Najib wields the double-edged sword and announces that UMNO/BN supports Hadi’s private member’s bill, and the two coalitions of BN and PR are destroyed, then it is time for MPs from both sides of the political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea to take a stand to “Save Malaysia” to defend constitutionalism by coming together in a new coalition – with MPs presently  from both BN (including UMNO) and PR.

If there are sufficient numbers in such a new coalition exceeding a simple majority of the 222-seat Parliament, then it will also involve establishing a new government coalition and a new Prime Minister in  both post-BN and post-PR scenario.

Who will then be the Prime Minister?  Clearly, Najib will not be the Prime Minister. The new PM can be from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak or Sabah – can be a man or a woman.

After the five-day “labour pains” of the Prime Minister over declaring the UMNO/BN stand on Hadi’s private member’s bill, Najib may try to take the easy way out and find some excuse not to declare any stand on Hadi’s private member’s bill.

But this will in effect be a major change of policy of UMNO/BN as until now, the UMNO/BN coalition had never altered from the position that hudud law is against the Malaysian Constitution and not suitable for a multi-racial, multi-religious country.

Najib’s refusal and inability to declare such core constitutional principle of nation building which had been a bedrock principle of UMN/BN all these decades since Merdeka in 1957 and Malaysia in 1963 will be a major policy change by itself.

If Najib continues to suffer from “labour pains” and finds it impossible to declare any stand on Hadi’s private member’s bill, then Malaysians must dare to think of the unthinkable of a new government coalition and a new Prime Minister even before the 14th General Election  to “Save Malaysia”,  protect constitutionalism,   rule of law and entrench good governance.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 4:57 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hudud, a cause for hubris and hypocrisy

COMMENTARY BY JAHABAR SADIQ, EDITOR

The Malaysian Insider

23 March 2015

Justice or hubris, democracy or hypocrisy, these are the questions cropping up as hudud laws make their regular appearance in the Malaysian political and legal landscape.

If you read or listen to PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, and even self-confessed PAS progressives such as Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, you get the impression that hudud has a place in Malaysian society.

Fact is, even Umno politicians, with the exception of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, will find it hard to disagree with their political opponents in PAS.

And Muslims themselves have to confront the fact that the Quran does speak of such criminal laws and punishments.

Hadi told Malay daily Berita Harian that it was PAS’s democratic right to push through such laws and a private members’ bill to enable it.

Meanwhile, in his column in The Malaysian Insider today, Dzulkefly wrote, “To answer specifically on our position on hudud, I once again say, without fear or favour, that hudud has its own unique place in the larger corpus of Islamic legal prescription or jurisprudence, ie. in Islamic law.

“We nonetheless do not think that it is the most important imperative of the shariah, given the many other competing priorities. Never should a Muslim be accused, however, of rejecting shariah if he/she believes in its transcendental (revealed) origin, but prioritises other more important shariah imperatives as taking precedent over its penal code.”

To be fair, almost everyone – and this includes politicians in parties other than PAS, PKR or Umno – believes that hudud is eventually possible in Malaysia.

The answer, though, is no.

It is not possible in the Malaya formed by the Federal Constitution of 1957 and amended in 1963 for the creation of Malaysia.

Punishments are within the jurisdiction of the federal government, not state governments. Any change just for Kelantan affects other states, and changes the entire constitution and character of the nation known as Malaysia.

Would it be fair that a Muslim guilty of theft gets his hand amputated while a thief of another faith only gets a jail sentence? Is that just? Well, not even by Islamic justice or standards.

These points have been argued since 1993 by an entire gallery of politicians from the entire spectrum, constitutional lawyers, religious leaders, activists and some Malaysians. You just have to search for “hudud 1993” in any search engine and all the answers and viewpoints still being argued are there.

The question now is whether PAS is again pushing for hudud laws because of justice or hubris. Aren’t common criminal laws and punishments enough for the guilty? Or to be specific, for the guilty Muslim?

Or is this just an attempt to score points for the afterlife, as expounded by Hadi in his vision, at the expense of Malaysians in Kelantan?

If it is a case of democracy, why then say that all Muslim lawmakers are bound to support it as it is God’s law? In a democracy, shouldn’t one vote according to one’s conscience without being told that God says so?

Isn’t it hypocrisy to invoke democracy and then say it is God’s laws?

If democracy means a choice and a voice, does that mean it is fine for anyone to leave the faith?

Dzulkefly is correct to say that it is not an imperative right now because other issues are more important. The thing is, it should not be an imperative at all.

A law that changes what the founding fathers of Malaysia wanted for Malaysians cannot be accepted.

These PAS chaps – be they the clerics or progressives – are trying to spin it as part of the democratic process of having differences. In effect, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If there are a few things that have become clear after GE13, it’s these: PAS leaders are patently dishonest and champions of double-speak. They speak of a welfare state and yet, Kelantan is proof that the people’s welfare is just about hudud.

The only saving grace is that Hadi has never hidden his ambition for an Islamic state.

But the so-called progressives have sidelined it in the quest for power-sharing and now lack the moral courage to leave a political party rotten to the core.

PAS leaders who care more about the afterlife should carry on without taking the rest of us with them. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own afterlife, and not some cleric, cop or charlatan who wants to score points for himself. – March 23, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 7:19 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Selepas 22 tahun ‘Hudud PAS’ jadi ‘Hudud sebenar’

Mohsin Abdullah

The Malaysian Insider

24 March 2015

Kenyataan Tun Musa Hitam Sabtu lalu (21 Mac) mengesahkan apa yang selama ini ramai “syak” (atau sedia maklum?) iaitu Umno ttidak pernah berminat melaksanakan hukum hudud di negara ini.

“Sebagai seorang bekas penganjur Umno, saya penuh percaya yang hati sanubari Umno sejak ditubuhkan hingga sekarang berpendirian hudud tidak sesuai bagi Malaysia yang berupa negara majmuk berbagai keturunan dan agama ini “.

Jelas bukan? Kata kata bekas timbalan presiden Umno itu.

Pun begitu, Umno pintar menyuarakan hujah bahawa “kami bukan tidak mahu hudud tetapi masanya belum sesuai untuk dilaksanakan “. Lantas “ia perlu dikaji“.

Walaupun tidak menegaskan bila masa yang sesuai untuk hudud, hujah seperti itu menyaksikan Umno ,”terlepas” daripada dituduh “tidak Islamik” atau “anti perundangan Islam”. Sekali gus terus menambat hati sebilangan besar pengundi Melayu.

Dan apabila PAS, pada 1993, membentangkan Enakmen Jenayah Syariah II di dewan undangan negeri Kelantan, Umno tetap “terlepas” daripada dituduh “anti undang undang Islam  “ dan “ tidak Islamik”.

Caranya dengan melabelkan enakmen yang dibentang PAS itu sebagai “hudud PAS“ dan bukan “hudud Islam sebenar“. Oleh kerana perundangan itu pada hemat Umno “bukan hukum Allah sebenar”makaia “tidak patut disokong”.

Namun,18 Mac lalu Umno menyokong perundangan yang sama ketika ia dibentangkan semuladi DUN yang sama. Tetapi dengan pindaan. Dikenali sebagai Enakmen Kanun Jenayah Syariah 1993 (pindaan 2015).

Dengan sebak dan penuh emosi, ketua penerangan Umno Kelantan Datuk Md Alwi CheMan memberitahu dewan yang mulia itu, “Saya sokong hudud ini kerana Allah.Umno sokong juga kerana Allah. Bukan kerana politik”.

Bolehkah disimpulkan setelah dipinda, yang dulunya “hudud PAS” dan “bukan hudud sebenar” kini telah menjadi “hudud sebenar“? True Islamic law – lantas Umno menyokong?

Bagi PAS pula, jika itulah keadaannya mengapalah mereka menunggu sekian lama untuk “memperbetulkan kelemahan” enakmen yang dibentangkan 22 tahun lalu itu?

Jika pindaan tidak dilengahkan tentu ia tidak dicop “hudud PAS” sekali gus diterima sebagai “hudud sebenar” dan disokong Umno awal awal lagi.Kemungkinan hudud sudah pun dilaksanakan.Bolehkah dianggap begitu?

Jadi apa sebab PAS tidak bertindak terlebih dahulu sehingga hasrat mereka “tertangguh”?

Pengulas politik berpengalaman Mohamad Sayuti Omar tidak fikir kelenggahan hudud di Kelantan disebabkan kecacatan atau kelemahan enakmen.

“Kalau ia kerana itu masakanTok Guru tidak terfikir dan dinasihati melakukan pindaan? Bagi saya bukan kerana kecacatan itu, sebalik kelenggahan itu adalah strategisi asahnya,” kata Sayuti dalam blognya tempoh hari.

Tok Guru yang dimaksudkan seperti semua maklum tentulah Allahayarham Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

Bagi Sayuti, dalam PAS orang yang paling “ membuak buak”untuk melaksanakan hudud ialah Allahyarham Nik Aziz  tetapi Allahayarham “tidak bertindak melulu dan pakai kepalanya seorang sahaja“.

Allahyarham Nik Aziz kata Sayuti “mendengar pandangan rakan rakan,walaupun adakalanya tegas dalam politiknya”.

Menurut Sayuti, diakui Allahyarham Nik Aziz pernah menggunakan surat“amaran” perdana menteri ketika itu Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sebagai “alasan “ menangguhkan hudud.

Namun kata Sayuti “Tok Guru bukan tunduk kepada surat itu – tetapi strategi mengelakkan sesuatu yang boleh memburukkan keadaan PAS dan kerajaan Kelantan”.

(Dengan berkata demikian Sayuti mahu kepimpinan PAS di Kelantan masa kini khususnya mencontohi kebijaksanaan Allahyarham Nik Aziz pada ketika PAS boleh mengalami perpecahan. Itu cerita lain untuk hari yang lain).

Berbalik kepada kisah Umno.

Naib presidennya Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal walaupun “senada” dengan Umno Kelantan apabila menyatakan “tidak timbul soal tidak sokong hukum Allah” turut berkata “aspek pelaksanaan mesti dipertingkatkan”.

Setiausaha agung Umno Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor pula menyifatkan “private bill” mengenai hudud yang mahu dibentangkan di parlimen oleh presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang sebagai “hudud politik”.

Patutlah Musa mengeluarkan kenyataan meminta Umno menyatakan dengan jelas pendiriannya mengenai hudud walaupun beliau berada nun jauh di Cordoba, Sepanyol.

Kenyataan rasmi presiden Umno ditunggu-tunggu. – 24 Mac, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 10:28 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who is really insulting hudud?

By Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi

Malaysiakini

Mar 24, 2015

COMMENT
 Over the past few days, the mainstream media has highlighted the case of a “penghina hudud” (hudud insulter) from radio station BFM who subsequently received death and rape threats. Most of the news failed to put the concept of “insulting hudud” or “insulting Islam” in the proper perspective.

In this comment piece, I would like to ask who is actually insulting hudud by analysing the content of four YouTube videos – that of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Nur Jazlan Mohamad, Ahmad Farouk Musa and BFM’s Kupas clip.

The first video I would like to “kupas” (analyse) is the video of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir. This video is an excerpt from an Astro Awani news clip where Mahathir was quizzed on PAS’ hudud.

He said PAS’ hudud was not fair because if a Muslim steals, his hand will be cut off, but if a non-Muslim steals he will only be jailed for two months. He add that “in the future all Muslims will have no hands.”

Now let us ask ourselves, is Mahathir an insulter of hudud? An ustaz from PAS, in the same video, argued that Mahathir has indeed insulted hudud. I am of the view that Mahathir did not.

Mahathir was commenting on hudud as interpreted by PAS, and not the concept of hudud overall. But some may ask why was Mahathir being sarcastic by saying “in the future all Muslims will have no hands”?

Did he mean to insult or chaff at PAS’ hudud, or was he really worried about the implementation of punishment which he believes to be extremely cruel and can destroy this country’s Muslims?

In another video, he stressed that he does not question Islam’s hudud, but rejects hudud as interpreted by a PAS ustaz because it contains his own political views.

He stressed time and again that the Quran states that the spirit of hudud and punishment in the Quran is based on justice, and the chopping of a Muslim’s hand as opposed to jailing a non-Muslim for two months was not just.

What is your opinion dear readers, is Mahathir a “penghina hudud”?

Can hudud be implemented?

The second video is that of Nur Jazlan, who is one of two Umno members whom I truly respect due to the firmest and clarity of his thoughts.

When asked by journalists about the implementation of hudud in Kelantan, he said firstly, hudud could disrupt our multiracial country, and secondly, that it was not yet time to implement hudud.

Is he a “penghina hudud”? A shallow-minded person might think that Nur Jazlan (right) had belittled the concept of hudud for thinking that it is not a complete law because it can disrupt a multiracial country.

Secondly, at what point in time can hudud be implemented? Is it possible that there will never be an appropriate time to implement hudud, even till Judgement Day?

It is my opinion that Nur Jazlan did not insult hudud or PAS’ hudud. He only described how he was uneasy with the way it is being implemented, and the political and economic context of when hudud can be implemented.

Ahmad Farouk Musa, director of the Islamic Rennaisance Front, in another video, rejected PAS’ interpretation of hudud by suggesting that PAS is politicking when saying that hudud is a divine law, or a law from Allah, and those who oppose it are clearly “kafirs” (disbelievers).

He then said, “Is it really divine? I say no it is not.” He followed this up with academic arguments to support his statement.

Is he a “penghina hudud”? I am of the opinion that he did not insulting hudud, because it is possible he shared the same thoughts as Islamic scholars who describe some of Quranic verses on hudud are historical in context, and not eternal.

For example, the law where two women must be witnesses (in place of one man) might be due to the lack of women doing business at the time.

Interesting satire

Lastly, let us look at BFM’s Kupas video. In that video, what is clear is that it does not question PAS’ hudud as was the case with Mahathir and Farouk Musa. The video is more in the vein of Nur Jazlan’s questioning the timing and economic context of PAS’ hudud implementation.

So how can this video be accused of insulting hudud as published in newspapers and other mainstream media? It could be that many do not like the way the video is presented and view it as insulting, even if the content is clearly not.

This is because many who view it, including mainstream journalists, did not see the real meaning of BFM’s Kupas programme, whose original presenter was Edri.

Edri is a thinker who is both brave and firm, and he conveys political messages by writing his own scripts and produce interesting satires to get young Malays to be more politically aware.

Aisyah Tajuddin  is merely standing in for Edri by acting on a script written by two other writers.

Kupas is presented with its own style, which has not been seen by many Malays. Kupas has been running for more than a year, but it doesn’t get a lot of hits, even though the presenter, in my opinion, is hilarious and the videos are filled with constructive messages.

Can this style be interpreted as insulting hudud or Islam? It is nevertheless one of the many mediums of communication and education. There will be those who love it, and those who hate it. But isn’t that personal taste?

Now, in the four videos that were analysed, who really is “penghina hudud”? Mahathir? Nur Jazlan? Farouk Musa? Or Aisyah Tajuddin? For me, none of these videos insulted hudud, but they questioned the rationale and political intentions of PAS.

More recently, Bukit Bendera MP Zairil Khir Johari said he will reject PAS’ hudud in Parliament. Is he a “penghina hudud”? In another news item, PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said that her party’s parliamentarians will reject PAS hudud. Should both be declared “kafirs” and insulters of hudud?

Let us really reflect on this before accusing anyone of being a “penghina hudud”.

MOHAMAD TAJUDDIN MOHAMAD RASDI is Aisyah’s father and former architecture lecturer at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The original article is in Bahasa Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 11:10 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ambiga accuses IGP of stifling hudud discussion

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 10:17 am and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
PAS
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cops overstepping legal limits in ongoing public crackdown, lawyers say

by Joseph Sipalan

The Malay Mail Online

March 25, 2015

KUALA LUMPUR, March 25 – The police are acting beyond their legal means by relying on a law provision that has been declared unconstitutional to arrest people for participating in public shows of dissent, lawyers said.

They argued that the authorities cannot continue to detain individuals using disputed laws when the courts have clearly ruled against the admissibility of such legislation, even if an appeal is still pending.

“This is a worrying development. The authorities seem to take the position that just because an appeal is filed, it means there is no finality to the interpretation of the impugned provision,” said civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan.

“This is a deliberate misapprehension of the law,” he added when contacted by Malay Mail Online.

Over the past few weeks, the police have detained a string of opposition politicians, lawyers and social activists in connection with public criticism of the conviction and five-year jail sentence of opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Aside from the Sedition Act 1948, authorities have also invoked Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, among other legal provisions to detain alleged offenders.

Among others, the police have begun investigations under the Act against politicians Saifullah Zulkifli and Rafizi Ramli, as well as activist S. Jayathas, over their roles in the March 7 #KitaLawan rally in support of Anwar.

But lawyers pointed out that Section 9(5) of the assembly law had been ruled unconstitutional last year by the Court of Appeal, a decision that has yet to be reversed by the Federal Court.

Last April, the Court of Appeal ruled it unconstitutional to criminalise spontaneous public assemblies in breach of a 10-day notice required under Section 9(1) of the PAA, and also ordered that Section 9(5) — which imposes a maximum RM10,000 fine for non-compliance — be struck out for running counter to the Federal Constitution.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is currently pursuing an appeal against the decision at the Federal Court.

Syahredzan stressed that until a court ruling is overturned by a higher court, that particular decision will remain as the prevailing interpretation of the law.

“So long as the court has declared a provision as unconstitutional, and so long as that decision is not overturned, then it is a good law.

“It is binding on you, me, the state and it is certainly binding on the police. The police cannot ignore a court decision; it would be contemptuous on their part to do so,” he said.

Human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo said it becomes the responsibility of the AGC to advise the police on whether the enforcement agency can use laws that have had their constitutionality challenged.

The courts, at the same time, must also uphold the correct interpretation of the law such as by refusing remand if an arrest was made based on a provision of law that has been declared unconstitutional, he added.

Khoo said the seizure of Christian hymn books in Johor last December was a clear example of the police relying on a law “that had been declared unconstitutional in the context in which it had been used”.

“And when the police overreach themselves on the law and then don’t apologise for mistakes, it tends to undermine public confidence in the police,” he said.

Civil liberties lawyer New Sin Yew said the ongoing crackdown is symptomatic of “abuse of power or gross negligence” by the police in using “void laws which have been declared unconstitutional” to carry out arrests or detention.

“The police should cease and desist period. The law and court decisions are crystal clear. Comments and criticisms are not an offence under the law,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 7:19 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Do something about police hunt on hudud critics

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 11:28 am and is filed under
PAS
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Going beyond the obvious in hudud discourse

By Wong Chin Huat

Malaysiakini

Mar 21, 2015

COMMENT
 There is perhaps no political debate more mislabelled and misleading in Malaysia than that of the so-called “hudud” law.

Hudud, an Arabic word, is the plural form of hadd (had in Malay), which means ‘limit’. It refers to fixed punishments mentioned in the Quran for certain crimes.

Section 4 of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) 2015 listed six types of crimes: sariqah (theft), hirabah (robbery), zina (adultery), qazaf (accusation of adultery without four credible witnesses), syurb (intoxication), and irtidad/riddah (apostasy).

The same is listed in Section 4 of Terengganu’s Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) Enactment 2002 [Enakmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah (Hudud Dan Qisas) 2002].

The Brunei Syariah Penal Code Order 2013 lists two more types of crimes: zina bil-jabar (non-consensual adultery) and liwat (sodomy).

The most well-known of hudud punishments are stoning to death for adultery, and amputation for theft and robbery.

More than stoning and amputation

Strictly speaking, if it is just about hudud punishment, then we are saying, for example, the substitution of imprisonment with amputation for theft – more precisely, theft of goods worth one nisab or more.

Nisab is the amount of money equivalent to the current price of 4.45g of gold in the laws for Kelantan [Section 2] and Terengganu [Section 2], and 4.25g of gold in Brunei [Section 54].

As of 19 March 2015, this means amputation is applicable if the goods stolen is worth about RM614, slightly more than a BR1M payment.

However, the Kelantan and Terengganu enactments cover crimes beyond hudud punishments. They cover also qisas punishments, for crimes of causing death and bodily harm.

Both hudud and qisas punishments are stated in Al-Quran or Sunnah.

The difference between the two is that hudud punishments are fixed.

Section 48 of the Kelantan Code, for example, makes clear that the punishments cannot be suspended or changed.

As there are strict conditions imposed on implementing hudud and qisas punishments, when these conditions are not met, the sentence will be left to the court’s discretion.

Those are called ta’zir punishments, also covered under the Kelantan Code [Section 4].

Testimony of non-Muslim and women victims

More than religiously-informed punishments, the laws introduce their own evidence system.

For example, Section 39(2) of the Kelantan Code stipulates that all crimes under it have to be “proved by oral testimonies or by confessions made by the accused, or syahadah of witness”.

This rules out modern techniques of collecting evidence, from fingerprints to DNA findings.

Then, Section 40 stipulates that the minimum number of witness is four for adultery cases and two for all others.

While such restrictive demands are seen by many Muslims as a merit to give the accused the best benefit of doubt, it may also lead to effective impunity if criminals can easily get away with it.

The most controversial one would be Section 41 which states that a witness must be a male Muslim who has reached puberty (aqil baligh) and is ‘just’.

Subsections 41(2) and (3) further explain, “A person shall be considered as ‘just’ if he does what is required of him by Islam and avoids committing great sins and does not continuously commit lesser sins and protecting al-maruah that is a sense of honour”, and “a person shall be deemed to be just, until the contrary is proved.”

This basically means if a crime is committed against a non-Muslim, a woman, an under-aged person, or a male Muslim who has committed some great sin or has continuously committed some lesser sins, the person cannot be a witness to the very crime which has befallen him or her.

In fact, for tourists who fall under the categories listed above, they should not visit Kelantan unless they have two ‘just’ adult Muslim males to accompany them at all time.

Parallel justice system for selected crimes

What is termed as the hudud law is then a severe misrepresentation of a grand project aimed at introducing the entire parallel set of syariah criminal laws – however limited – to a small category of crimes.

The list excludes crimes like corruption, money laundering, breach of trust, and infringement of copyright. For all these crimes, civil laws will apply.

For the sake of argument, never mind non-Muslim criminals who are theoretically governed by civil laws only, let’s just look at the Muslims.

Will the civil laws seamlessly begin where the syariah laws end?

Take theft, for example. If amputation is applied on a Muslim drug addict for stealing a new bicycle worth RM1,000 under Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code [Sections 6 and 7], is it fair that a Muslim politician who embezzled RM1 million will not lose a limb but face a maximum jail term of 20 years and a fine of RM5 million under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 [Section 16]?

Clearly, if we agree that the syariah law elements should be incorporated maximally into our laws, there should be a holistic review of the civil law to ensure proportionality and commensurateness of punishment to the severity of crime.

Then there is the big elephant in the room.

Section 2 of the Kelantan’s Code claims it applies to every Muslim aged 18 years or above of sound mind. However, Articles 181 and 182 of the Federal Constitution which provides for the Special Court for Rulers stand in the way.

Will the private member’s bill tabled cover amendments to Article 181 or 182 to make the Special Court for Rulers syariah-compliant too?

This is exactly why Prof Yusuf Qaradawi, an internationally acclaimed authority on syariah law, has questioned the suitability of implementation of hudud punishments: “sometimes some individuals steal millions and billions and hudud are not applied to them as they are politically empowered and rich. In the same time, hudud are applied to the weak and the poor. Here, imbalance takes place.”

Open debate needed, beyond the ‘hudud’ label

An open debate is not happening, partly because of the ‘hudud’ label.

For the proponents, the ‘hudud’ label allows them to mute detailed discussions by equating objection to syariah punishments to disobeying Islam.

Calling ‘hudud’ as “syariah criminal code” will be recognising the existence of ‘human reasoning’ elements in the implementation, and then its examination and scrutiny – even by non-Muslims – would be legitimate.

For the opponents, ‘hudud’ is figuratively equivalent to stoning and amputation, hence an easy symbol with which to dismiss, instead of engaging Muslims who are eager to live the Islamic lifestyle to the fullest.

We need to recognise the issue is not just about these controversial punishments, but really about the goal of separate full-fledged legal systems for Muslims and non-Muslims.

For that, one will need to confront the difficult questions of nationhood, citizenship, and state impartiality, and recognise that secularism is not an accepted premise in Malaysia’s official discourse of nationhood and citizenship.

And resolving the conflict over this controversial project to remake the nation-state is no longer a question of party positioning or coalition survival, but one much greater than that: the definition or redefinition of Malaysia as a nation-state.

Part I: Impact of Kelantan’s hudud on all of us

WONG CHIN HUAT earned his PhD on the electoral system and party system in West Malaysia from the University of Essex. He is a fellow at the Penang Institute, and a resource person for electoral reform lobby, Bersih 2.0.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 6:38 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Law & Order
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lee Kuan Yew’s death – passing of an era

Lee Kuan Yew’s death on Monday at the age of 91 marks the passing of an era.

The tributes from world leaders in the past few days is testimony of the mark he had made not only in Singapore, ASEAN, Asia but in  world politics in his transformation of Singapore in three decades  from a backwater British colony into a first world country, or in World Bank statistics on GDP per capita PPP, into the fourth wealthiest nation in the world, after Macao, Qatar and Luxembourg.

Under Kuan Yew leadership, Singapore had punched above its weight in the international area in  many areas of human endeavour.

This is something Malaysians should ponder long and hard, as to why we are losing out in the international stakes, as we are not only unable to punch above our weight in international affairs on many fronts, but even punching below our weight.

Singapore is set on many new challenges in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era, not least of which is how Singapore can continue to punch above its weight in many areas of human endeavour, but can also lead the way  in upholding human rights and democratic freedoms.

(Media Statement after signing the condolence book on the passing of Lee Kuan Yew in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 25th March 2015)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 10:40 am and is filed under
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should be given another 48 hours to make his statement on the stand of UMNO/BN MPs on Hadi’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation in Kelantan

MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai seems to be having the “shivers” causing him yesterday to urge all to give the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak more time to make public the government’s stand on the PAS President and MP for Marang, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill on the implementation of hudud laws in Kelantan.

What is clear is that Liow is no more the confident self six days ago when he gave “exclusive leaks” to the media that Najib would announce the UMNO/BN’s stand on Hadi’s private members bill last Friday – and six days have come and gone, and Najib continues to suffer from “labour pains” without any sign that Najib would be opening his “golden mouth” on this issue.

In the past week, Malaysians have been told that the 13 Barisan Nasional component parties last Thursday and the Cabinet last Friday have reached a consensus to oppose  Hadi’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation as it is against the Federal Constitution, unsuitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia and would have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy, foreign investment and development.

Why have the confidence expressed by the MCA and Gerakan Presidents and leaders that Najib would come out with a statement declaring UMNO/BN opposition to Hadi’s private member’s bill suddenly evaporated in the past week?

In fact, Najib’s failure to announce UMNO/BN’s opposition to Hadi’s private member’s bill  would itself be a tectonic shift in the cardinal nation-building policies which the country’s first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, the Barisan Nasional and before it, the Alliance, had previously espoused without any equivocation.

In fact, all the previous five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah when they were Prime Ministers would have no hesitation to declare that hudud law is against the Malaysian Constitution and unsuitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia.

If Najib is not prepared to declare what the previous five Prime Ministers would have no hesitation in doing during their premiership, it means that the UMNO/Barisan Nasional under Najib has deviated from previous UMNO/BN policies.

Najib should be given another 48 hours up to the next Cabinet meeting on Friday to make his statement on the stand of  UMNO/BN MPs on Hadi’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation in Kelantan, and if Najib continues to suffer from “labour pains” after seven days and unable to declare a clear stand that UMNO/BN opposes Hadi’s private member’s bill,  then a new political scenario has set in.

This is a new political scenario which is post-Barisan Nasional and post-Pakatan Rakyat, as both coalitions would have been severely damaged by the UMNO “UG” (Unity government between UMNO and PAS) conspirators who had used the lure of hudud implementation to destabilize, divide and destroy Pakatan  Raykat.

The question is whether MPs from both sides of the political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea are prepared to  take a stand to “Save Malaysia” to defend constitutionalism by coming together in a new coalition – going beyond BN and PR.

If there are sufficient numbers in such a new coalition exceeding a simple majority of the 222-seat Parliament, then there will be a new government coalition and a new Prime Minister.

Who will then be the Prime Minister?  Clearly, Najib will not be the Prime Minister. The new PM can be from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak or Sabah – can be a man or a woman.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 11:56 am and is filed under
Gerakan
,
Islam
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Pas’ hudud law not divine, open to criticism”

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 11:30 am and is filed under
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Seeing through the hudud controversy

By Liew Chin Tong

Malaysiakini

Mar 23, 2015

MP SPEAKS
 First of all let me stress that Muslims have the right to believe in hudud law. I respect that right, as much as I believe Muslims respect the rights of people of other faiths.

However in the case of the Kelantan hudud enactment, it is more than just a legal matter but rather as a political ploy meant to eliminate the progressives in PAS and to break Pakatan Rakyat in the process.

Worse than that, albeit unintentionally, the bickering and anger arising from the fiery emotional arguments could tear the nation apart.

The end game for those who designed the plot is to draw the battle line along a ‘Muslims versus non-Muslims’ conflict.

We are in an extraordinary time that requires extra careful understanding of the situation. We must see through the grand design and defeat the plot.

Put it plainly, the current hudud rush is being designed by Umno and the pro-Umno leaders in PAS to be a religious conflict. To thwart this we must unite the most number of Muslims and non-Muslims on commonly acceptable positions.

Why the rush?

The hudud move essentially began with a challenge by Md Alwi Che Ahmad, Umno assemblyperson for Kok Lanas (who ‘cried joyfully’ at the tabling of the hudud enactment in Kelantan recently), in the state assembly in March 2014 that the hudud enactment should be implemented.

Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir told Parliament on March 27, 2014 that Umno would support a private member’s bill if it is brought to the federal parliament.

After rounds of ‘joint technical committee’ meetings between the federal government and the Kelantan state government, the latter announced in a hush hush manner that a bill would be tabled in the state assembly on Dec 29, 2014 but the Great Flood of Kelantan prevented it from happening.

The passing of the hudud enactment on March 19, 2015 would not end there. It will be more intense in the months to come with PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill as the PAS election heats up.

Interests of two groups

The hudud plot serves the interests of two groups.

First, the pro-Umno leaders in PAS would be able to enhance their Islamic credential vis-à-vis the pro-Pakatan group in the upcoming party election in June 2015.

It is important to note that PAS divisional meetings which would choose the delegates to the June muktamar are being held between March 1 and April 24, 2015.

The media debate and attention on hudud serve the pro-Umno group well so that they could tell the party grassroots that it is much better to work with an ‘Islamic’ Umno than an ‘infidel’ DAP.

As the pro-Umno leaders are not confident of winning at the muktamar, breaking up Pakatan before the June muktamar would mean their nemesis the pro-Pakatan leaders within PAS would lose their raison d’etre even before June.

Second,  Umno is to gain the most from the collapse of Pakatan Rakyat. From what I gathered, Umno strategists believe that the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat’s destruction would mean Umno would be in an unassailable position without an alternative to replace the grand old party.

Such an advantagous position is neccesary with the introduction of the unpopular goods and services tax (GST) on April 1, 2015, exposes on Najib Abdul Razak-linked scandals, heightening of Umno’s internal battle, and declining economic fortune.

If one follows the thinking of the pro-Umno group in PAS and also the hardliners in Umno, the anti-democracy streak is unmistakeably clear. To this group, a ‘PAS-Umno’ alliance means there is no need for real elections any longer. To them, this nation belongs to the Malays/Muslims, democracy is inconvenient and troublesome.

The question for all Malaysians to ponder upon is whether we still treat PAS as a single coherent entity or to acknowledge that the pro-Umno group is plotting to push the nation to the brink and to eliminate elections altogether.

Like the Umno party election, the PAS election is affecting national politics in a way previously not seen and yet to be understood. It deserves as much national attention as Umno party election. All Malaysians need to take these into consideration when reacting to such extraordinary scenarios.

This is not a religious doctrinal issue, it is political expediency.

LIEW CHIN TONG is DAP director of political education and MP for Kluang.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 6:16 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stoning law sees Umno, PAS chase Islamic vote

By Bloomberg

Malaysiakini

Mar 23, 2015

Six months after Prime Minister Najib Razak stood before the United Nations and urged Muslims worldwide to be moderate in their religion, members of his own party are supporting a law that punishes adulterers with death and thieves with amputation.

Lawmakers from Najib’s Umno joined the opposition PAS to pass Islamic criminal law, or hudud, in the opposition-held state of Kelantan. The move has drawn criticism from other parties in their respective coalitions, while human rights groups say it’s an unconstitutional step for secular Malaysia.

Umno officials are burnishing their Islamic credentials to safeguard support among the ethnic Malay majority after the coalition retained power in 2013 by the narrowest margin since independence. The swing by Najib’s party to the right risks worsening race relations at a time economic growth is forecast to slow.

“What Umno and PAS are doing on hudud is not about Islam, it is about politics and staying in power,” said Noraini Othman, a retired sociology professor who co-founded a group promoting progressive views of Islam.

“Religious indoctrination has created extremist voices in these parties, in these governments, that have succeeded in becoming louder while the so-called moderates are now a silent majority.”

Najib, 61, has seen his approval rating slide to around 40 percent as he seeks to undertake unpopular economic measures to plug a budget gap, and has been publicly criticized by ex-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed over his stewardship. His predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi stepped down in 2009 after Mahathir led calls for his resignation.

Sedition law

In November, Najib dropped a pledge to repeal sedition laws because the act is said to have broad support within the Malay community, which accounts for more than half of voters.

The parties in the ruling BN coalition have made public shows of support for Najib, even as some condemned the passing of the hudud law. BN party leaders gathered in parliament on Thursday and declared their “full and undivided” backing of Najib.

No reason was given for the impromptu vote of confidence, and Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai wouldn’t say if it was related to criticisms of Najib’s leadership.

Najib hasn’t commented about the passing of hudud in Kelantan even as Umno ministers in his Cabinet said Friday they agree with their assemblymen in the northern state because it’s “Allah’s law which we must support.”

The implementation must be improved, Bernama news service reported, citing Rural and Regional Development Minister Mohd Shafie Apdal.

‘Double speak’

“There will be a lot of double speak within Umno because I think by and large, they don’t want hudud but they can’t say it openly,” said Fui K Soong, a director at the Centre for Strategic Engagement in Kuala Lumpur. “The conservatives and radicals within his party are the ones who’ll make some noise but Najib will still need to take a firmer stance and say the country is not ready for that.”

Islam is recognized as the official religion of Malaysia, which Najib describes as a “moderate” Islamic nation, and non-Muslims have the right to choose and practice their own faith. The country has a dual legal system with a British-style civil court system and a Shariah legal system that governs marriage, inheritance and other family matters for Muslims.

Signs of rising religious intolerance in the Southeast Asian nation include Malaysia’s top court in January dismissing a final bid by the Catholic church to use the word “Allah” in its newspaper, and the investigation of a social activist who organized a dog-touching event for Muslims.

While the bill was approved in the Kelantan assembly and would apply only to Muslims, it needs to be tabled at the national parliament before it can be enforced, as criminal law lies under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is expected to fail there as Umno and PAS won’t have enough votes between them to get the simple majority of 112 that’s needed.

The bill may also have damaged the opposition coalition, known as the Pakatan Rakyat alliance. The group’s biggest shared goal has been to unseat a coalition in office since independence in 1957, even as members disagree among themselves on everything from its agenda to municipal elections.

A weakened opposition would benefit Najib and his coalition after it missed out on a majority of the popular vote in 2013 for the first time since 1969. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is serving a five-year prison sentence for sodomy.

DAP meeting

Members of the mostly ethnic-Chinese Democratic Action Party said the hudud move could lead to a breakup of the disparate opposition group. DAP’s top officials will hold an emergency meeting this week to discuss what they called a “betrayal” by the PAS faction in Kelantan.

“DAP firmly opposes the implementation of hudud laws not because it is Islamic, but because hudud is unconstitutional and contrary to our federal constitution,” Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng said. “The federal constitution clearly spells out that even though Islam is the religion of Malaysia, Malaysia is not an Islamic state.”

PAS has sought to enforce the Muslim justice system in Kelantan for decades, having earlier banned nightclubs and snooker parlors. When it first tabled and passed hudud laws in 1993, then-premier Mahathir threatened the state government with legal action if the laws were enforced.

‘Run Away’

“Some people say ‘Oh if we implement this, investors will run away,’” Mohd Amar Abdullah, deputy chief minister of Kelantan state, said in an interview. “I say to you – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Emirates – all these three countries implement the Shariah but investors flock to their countries. So what’s the problem?”

The politicization of Islam will be a mainstay in the run-up to the next general election due by 2018, said Clive Kessler, sociology professor at the University of New South Wales.

“The champions of hudud law will say God wants it, the constitution permits and assumes it, but there is political resistance and obstruction,” said Kessler, who has studied the politics of Islam in Malaysia for five decades. To them, “that resistance must be defeated, removed. That is the scenario of politics in the next three years.”

– Bloomberg

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 6:28 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who can be the new Prime Minister of a new coalition government in Malaysia to defend the Malaysian Constitution?

DAP fully endorses the stand of G25 of prominent Malay former civil servants urging Putrajaya to uphold the Federal Constitution and that the implementation of hudud law means the abandonment of the path of moderation chosen by the country since Independence in 1957 and the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

The G25 statement said:

“The imposition of PAS’ hudud laws will signify to the world that Malaysia has abandoned the moderate path.

“We will be seen as a country governed by religious laws which are subjected to the vagaries of interpretation of the ulama who are also fallible human beings.”

I am not a Muslim but I am fortified by the G25 group’s citation of Islamic scholars for this position, especially Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who is chairperson of the World Union of Muslim Scholars, who said the application of Syariah must be governed by Ijtihad or creative thought, to determine how it would be enforced today as it would not be helpful to take rulings from ancient texts and apply them in totality to modern societies.

The G25 group said the problem which Sheikh Qaradawi noted is that hudud is being enforced before the conditions for its application are met and these includes:-

•	Establish true Islam where society is pious and God-fearing;

•	Ensure the economic needs of the people are met;

•	Provide employment opportunities for all; and

•	Reduce the income gap and ensure there is no poverty.

In light of the above elucidation by Sheikh Qaradawi, they further posed whether any state in Malaysia can claim to have satisfied the preconditions in order to allow for the implementation of hudud?

PAS Kelantan Deputy Mentri Besar Datuk Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah had earlier refuted this position, claiming that implementing hudud only when a particular state is free from poverty would be impossible.

Responding  to criticisms that Kelantan should only implement hudud when the poverty problem had been resolved, Nik Amar asked: “Can you tell me where in the world which has such a state?

“It’s like utopia; utopia is something which cannot be achieved, it’s impossible.”

Before the 13th General Election in May 2013, PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang went round the country and said hudud could only be implemented if there were adequate conditions, giving as examples that if there was no minimum wage provision or resolution of the poverty and  unemployment problem, the conditions for implementation for hudud did not exist.

Was Hadi guilty of pursuing utopia or was he not being honest and truthful in his promises to the voters?

DAP also fully agree with the G25 Group statement that hudud implementation would violate the 20 Point Agreement and 18 Point Agreement which the Federal Government had negotiated with Sabah and Sarawak respectively before the formation of Malaysia.

For Sabah the first point states “while there is no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no state religion in Sabah, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present constitution of Malaya should not apply to Sabah”.

Similarly, Sarawak’s 18 Point Agreement stressed that “everyone shall be entitled to worship as he pleases”.

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Federal Constitution would be seriously violated if PAS’ hudud law is implemented.

In fact, if Najib announces that UMNO/BN supports the private member’s bill moved by the PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, Najib would have lost all credentials and credibility with regard to his international initiative of a Global Movement of Moderates – a subject he had advocated at various international forums including the United Nations General Assembly in the past few years.

This is why the flirtation of UMNO “UG” conspirators with PAS with the lure of hudud implementation in Kelantan has become a double-edged sword, capable of destroying both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional.

So long as Najib’s “labour pains” preventing him from declaring clearly and definitively the stand of the previous five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah that hudud law is against the Malaysian Constitution and not suitable for a multi-racial, multi-religious nation like Malaysia, the time has come to explore who  could be the new Prime Minister of a new coalition government to “Save Malaysia“ to defend the Malaysian Constitution.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 3:38 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A New Coalition Post-BN and Post-PR with new Prime Minister should be based on five fundamental principles starting with defending the Malaysian Constitution

Time is running out for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the next 24 hours when the Cabinet holds its weekly meeting on Friday (during Parliamentary meetings) as to whether Najib has deviated from the stand of the first five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah and the bedrock UMNO/Barisan Nasional nation-building principle and policy that hudud law is against Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia.

For nearly 60 years, every Prime Minister if asked will have no hesitation to declaring the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 will not permit the implementation of hudud laws.

The question is why the fifth Prime Minister has been agonizing for a week as to whether to reiterate what is UMNO/Barisan Nasional/Alliance policy for 58 years from Merdeka and 52 years since the formation of Malaysia.

If under Najib, UMNO/BN policies have taken a tectonic shift whereby the Prime Minister cannot open reiterate and reaffirm what had been UMNO/BN/Alliance bedrock nation-building principles for 58 years, in accordance with the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and the 1963 Malaysia Agreement that hudud law is against the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and unsuitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia, then I invite all Malaysians to seriously think of the possibility of a new Malaysia coalition which is post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia” to defend the Federal Constitution and the rule of law.

A New Coalition Post-BN and Post-PR with a  new Prime Minister should be based on five fundamental principles, namely:

1. Defend the Federal Constitution, Islam as the religion of the Federation while other religions can be practiced peacefully anywhere in the country and protecting the special position of the Malays and the indigenous peoples anywhere including Sabah and Sarawak, and the legitimate interests of other races in accordance to Article 153.

2. Defend the role and responsibility of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy.

3. Uphold the use of Bahasa Malaysia in accordance to Article 152 of the Constitution and promote Bahasa Malaysia as the regional lingua franca, while protecting and strengthening the use of mother tongue languages for all races.

4. Abolish or amend all other oppressive laws and regulations that are repressive and contravene fundamental rights.

5. Guarantee the spirit of Federalism and a just relationship between the Federation and states, including a review of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement pertaining to Sabah and Sarawak.

Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) has announced that it would break ranks with BN should the coalition support PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill on  hudud implementation.

PRS President James Masing said unequivocally that PRS’ six MPs will not support   the bill.

I believe that overwhelming majority of Sarawak and Sabah MPs from Barisan Nasional would break ranks with UMNO/BN if Najib announces UMNO/BN support for Hadi’s private member’s bill.

This however would not be the case with MCA or Gerakan, who would not have the conviction or courage like the PRS President to announce well in advance that they would break ranks with UMNO/BN should the coalition support Hadi’s private member’s bill.

After all, MCA and Gerakan had already set a precedent, when they raised no objections whatsoever to Kelantan UMNO State Assemblymen violating the fundamental UMNO/BN nation-building policies and voted in support of PAS Kelantan’s hudud implementation in the Kelantan State Assembly on March 19, 2015.

Although Najib can depend on  acquiescene and obedience from MCA and Gerakan on whatever stand he takes on Hadi’s private member’s bill, he must be prepared for an open revolt from the BN MPs in Sarawak and Sabah if he supports Hadi’s private member’s bill.

After the 2013 General Elections, MCA which  had been reduced to 7/11 representation and Gerakan are completely dispensable in BN coalition but this is not the case with Sarawak and Sabah MPs.

In fact, without the support of the 27 Sarawak and 22 Sabah BN MPs, Najib would today be the Parliamentary Opposition Leader (if he survives as UMNO President) and not be the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Having allowed UMNO “UG” conspirators to lead Kelantan PAS “up the garden’s path” that UMNO will support PAS in hudud law and implementation, Najib will probably opt for a position where he would neither say “yes” or “no” to Hadi’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation.

This, by itself, would be a major deviation from the founding principles of the five previous Prime Ministers, UMNO/BN coalition, Federal Constitution and Malaysia Agreement that hudud law and implementation is against the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

This ambivalent stand by Najib is  completely unacceptable, and justifies the exploration of a new political landscape involving a new Malaysian coalition with a new Prime Minister, which is post-BN and post-PR.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 March 2015, 8:52 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Proposal of a new coalition government post-BN and post-PR with new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia” has drawn interest, support and encouragement from MPs from both BN and PR, former Ministers and public intellectuals

The proposal of a new coalition government post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia” has drawn interest, support and encouragement from MPs from both  BN and PR divide, former Ministers and public intellectuals.

For instance, this is one of the messages of support and encouragement which I have received for the idea of a new coalition government post-BN and post PR:

“I read your five fundamental principles for a new government.  I fully support them. You might also need an agenda to address inequalities and opportunities for all. All the best.”

I fully agree.

I first broached the idea of a new coalition government post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia” at the Bukit Bintang DAP Branch anniversary dinner four days ago last Sunday.

This path-breaking political initiative can only come about if the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak deviated from the stand of the first five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah and the bedrock UMNO/Barisan Nasional nation-building principle and policy that hudud law is against Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia – either by going against this principle or not daring to reiterate and reaffirm this core nation-building principle.

The ball as to whether Malaysians should seriously explore the idea of a new coalition government post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia is now in Najib’s court.

Apart from the five fundamental principles of such a new coalition government post-BN and post-PR which I have outlined, the  new coalition government post-BN and post-PR must also fulfil two other criteria if it is to be a viable and sustainable government.

These two criteria are:

Firstly, it must be fully inclusive of all Malaysian races, religions and regions, in other words, a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-regional new Malaysian coalition government comprising Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays, and Malaysians from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah.

Secondly, it must issue a visionary and forward-looking programme to restore Malaysia’s greatness and allow Malaysia to punch above its weight in many areas of human endeavor, whether political, economic, social, educational, information technology or environmental.

It must for instance be able to incorporate a 10-Point Programme for a High-Performance, Sustainable and Equitable Economy, viz:

(i)	Workforce that is knowledge-based, competent and high-skilled.

(ii)	Economy  free from corruption, abuse of power and cronyism in order to enhance efficiency, accountability, transparency and good governance.

(iii)	Decentralisation and the Empowerment of State Economic Management in keeping with the spirit of federalism and efficient expenditure to boost efficiency and productivity.

(iv)	Affirmative action policies based on need.

(v)	Just treatment for Workers to  ensure their welfare and prosperity, including minimum wage for all Malaysian workers.

(vi)	Social safety net to ensure life with dignity at all times for Malaysians, strengthen the Employees Fund system, introduce a pension scheme for private sector employees and a National Retrenchment Fund to provide temporary financial support for those who have lost their jobs.

(vii)	Increase the number of affordable housing and achieve the goal of “One Family, One House”.

(viii)	Guarantee good public infrastructure and facilities without burdening the people or profit certain cronies, like clean water and electricity at reasonable rates; review of all highway toll agreements to improve to improve efficiency and reduce cost of public transport system.

(ix)	 Protect environment and promote the practice of recycling, control deforestation and ensure smooth transition to the use of alternative energy resources.

(x)	Sustainable growth and green development by introducing modern, comprehensive and appropriate infrastructure for a low-carbon economy.

There are many aspects of Malaysian nation-building which should be the concern and focus of the new coalition government post-BN and post-PR.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 March 2015, 3:47 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is secularism a ‘non-argument’?

By Wong Chin Huat

Malaysiakini

Mar 23, 2015

COMMENT
 Many human right lawyers, minority rights advocates, women right advocates and liberals have vigorously and rigorously defended the secular nature of the Malaysian state.

The most outstanding examples include the late parliamentarian Karpal Singh, Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) chairperson Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa and Noor Farida Arifin who leads the Group of 25 Eminent Malays (G25).

Their courageous defence of secularism, while cheered by many members of minorities and liberals, change little the debate amongst the Malay-Muslims.

As the ultimate defence on secularism lies with the judiciary, that increasingly Muslim judges are observing a trend of religious political correctness suggests this may be a losing battle.

Former top judges championing Malay-Muslim ultra-nationalism certainly leaves no room for optimism.

Is Malaysia a secular state?

Some commentators try to argue that Malaysia is not a secular state but rather a hybrid system based on two grounds, that Malaysia has Islam as the ‘religion of the federation’ and Syariah laws governing the personal and familial affairs of Muslims.

This ‘hybrid’ thesis ignores the fact that there are different strands of secularism.

By this narrow argument, the United Kingdom would not be secular because she has the Anglican Church as the established faith. Similarly, India and Singapore would not be secular because they, too, have Syariah laws for personal and familial affairs of Muslims.

However, not every secular country needs to be completely disassociated from religion like France is to be secular.

The fundamental defining feature of a secular system is whether the government’s decision-making power is subject to any religious authority.

One only needs to look at Tunisia post-Arab Spring to understand this nuance.

Under its Islamist ruling party Ennahda Movement, Tunisia passed a secular constitution in January 2014. Article 1 of the new constitution makes Islam her official religion but Article 2 immediately states that “is a civil state that is based on citizenship, the will of the people and the supremacy of law.”

For all intents and purposes, Tunisia is not a hybrid state. It is secular.

Likewise, Malaysia is secular notwithstanding the status of Islam as the official faith and the presence of Syariah personal laws.

Malaysia only becomes ‘desecularised’ when the decision-making power of political leaders is subject to the approval of religious authority. This is exactly what Kelantan MB did when he decided for all Muslims that they must support hudud and the critics are “immoral liars”.

The legitimacy deficit of secularism

The challenge faced by secularism is not those hair-splitting ‘exceptionalist’ attempts to reclassify Malaysia as a ‘hybrid system’, but the internal contradiction between secularism and the official narrative of nationhood.

At the core of secularism is state impartiality towards religion, which is in turn based on state impartiality towards and equality of citizens.

While the founding fathers of Malaya like Tunku Abdul Rahman (left) and Abdul Razak Hussein rejected completely a clerical elite supervising the political class, they did not accept state impartiality as the foundation of Malaya, and later Malaysia.

They only wanted secularism to mean non-clergy rule, not state impartiality on religion.

State impartiality and citizen equality were long ruled out when the Malayan Union that offered citizenship to all long-term residents ended in 1948 due to the vehement objection of Umno.

While the subsequent communist insurgency and Umno’s need to form a multi-ethnic coalition to win elections led the Malay nationalist party to water down its ethnocratic ideal, the nation-making discourse was essentially a Malay-centric one.

Dominant from school textbooks, mainstream media to official indoctrination programme a la Biro Tata Negara (BTN), this official discourse contains three main elements:

(1) The multi-ethnic population was purely the result of colonial rule;

(2) The enfranchisement of non-Malays was an act of generousity by the Malays; and

(3) In return for the extension of citizenship, the Malays deserve ‘special rights’ as a compensation.

The third element was vital in securing Umno’s dominance in securing Malay votes and both the extensiveness and intensiveness of ‘Malay special rights’ were enhanced after 1969.

To strengthen the moral ground of such nativist privileges, both the Malays’ ‘generousity’ and the ‘colonial’ origin of the minorities have to be stressed.

The inconvenient truth that some non-Malays were brought in by the Malay rulers before the British colonialisation – from the Chinese miners brought in by Malay chieftains and who later fought by their sides in civil wars in Perak and Selangor, to the Chinese peasants brought in by Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor – is conveniently ignored in the discourse.

That Sarawak and Sabah are/were not Malay or Muslim-majority states is also conveniently forgotten.

Now, if the presence of a multi-ethnic populace is a historical mistake “imposed” by the colonial power, why should secularism – which inevitably means state impartiality to Malay-Muslims and the minorities – be cherished?

If secularism is seen as accommodation of the minorities, then affirming secularism is conceding to the minorities, which cannot be right from the standpoint of Malay-Muslim nationalism.

Secularism needs to be ‘legitimised’ amongst Muslims

Secularism can only become ‘legitimate’ when it is deemed as advantaging the majority and not the minorities.

In fact, that was how secularism was born. Its foundation was laid by the Treaty of Westphalia to end the inter-Christian civil wars, not to accommodate the Muslims or the Jews.

From Indonesia to Tunisia, secularism is cherished by Muslims because the Muslims which make up some 90 percent of population. They see the the benefit of accommodating intra-Muslim differences.

This is however not the case for Malaysia – that the Muslims constitute some 60 percent of population leads to a fear of internal pluralism – that diversity will fragment the Malay-Muslims and render them vulnerable to the rivalry of the minorities.

Secularism hence becomes double-illegitimate from a Malay-centric position. And this cannot possibly be shifted until economic empowerment of the Malays can be secured without reliance to the special rights.

Remember Amanat Hadi?

The “legitimacy deficit” of secularism in fact has long been exploited by Umno’s Islamist rivals. The later smartly defines the Umno-PAS competition on the restoration of the imagined pre-colonial political order – ‘Islamic state’ in its full form and ‘Syariah criminal law’ as its basic version.

The clearest political statement was in fact made by Tuan Guru Hadi Awang, presently president of PAS, in his famous ‘Amanat Hadi’ in 1985 which stated amongst other,

“Kita menentang Umno bukan kerana nama dia Umno. Kita menentang Barisan Nasional bukan kerana dia lama memerintah kerajaan. Kita menentang dia ialah kerana dia mengekalkan perlembagaan penjajah, mengekalkan undang-undang kafir, mengekalkan peraturan jahiliyah.”

(We fight Umno not because its name is Umno. We fight Barisan Nasional not because it has ruled for long time. We fight it because it retains the colonial constitution, retains the infidel laws, and retains the rules of ignorance.)

By 2001, Umno basically gave up its secularist pretence altogether when Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad tried to dismiss PAS’ ideological challenge by claiming Malaysia is already an Islamic state and hence has no need for formal transformation.

Until such anti-secular narrative is effectively re-examined, secularism is basically a dirty word for both Umno and PAS constituencies which dominate the Malay mass. How can Syariah criminal law be successfully dismissed with secularism?

Part I: Impact of Kelantan’s hudud on all of us

Part II: Going beyond the obvious in hudud discourse

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 March 2015, 4:30 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Half-hour row in Parliament yesterday marked the end of one-year UMNO trap for PAS set by Jamil Khir  in Parliament on March 27 last year claiming that Federal government ready to work with PAS Kelantan state government to implement hudud in Kelantan

The half-hour row in Parliament yesterday between the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom and the PAS MP for Pokok Sena, Datuk Mahfuz Omar, resulting in the latter’s ejection from the Dewan Rakyat, marked the end of the one-year UMNO trap for  PAS set by Jamil in Parliament on March 27 last year claiming that the Federal government was ready to work with PAS Kelantan State Government to implement hudud in Kelantan.

Cleary, there was no such intention, but all Jamil Khir and the UMNO conspirators really wanted was to achieve their objective to destabilize, divide and destroy PAS and Pakatan Rakyat, which they had achieved to a great extent in the past 12 months.

But what Jamil Khir and the entire UMNO/Barisan Nasional  leadership did not realise was that  the trap they set directly for PAS and indirectly for Pakatan Rakyat was in fact a double-edged sword which could not only cause grave damage to Pakatan Rakyat but also to Barisan Nasional as well.

The UMNO conspirators have succeeded in their damage for Pakatan Rakyat, but they suddenly realized that the price of the success of such a plot against PAS and Pakatan Rakyat was to create a situation where the UMNO/BN coalition is also on the brink of unprecedented disaster.

This is the reason why the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is suffering record-long “labour pains” in being unable to reiterate and reaffirm what had been the core nation-building policy of the first five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah and the UMNO/BN (previously Alliance) for 58 years – that hudud laws are against the Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia.

I expect Najib to continue to duck from taking a clear stand that UMNO/BN opposes the PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation, although MCA and Gerakan Presidents and leaders had been claiming in the past week that Najib would announce the clear BN stand that UMNO/BN MPs would not support Hadi’s private member’s bill.

If Pakatan Rakyat is damaged, and Barisan Nasional is as good as damaged although MCA and Gerakan leaders will still cling to UMNO, then Malaysians must look into a post-BN, post-PR political landscape to explore the possibility of a new Federal government coalition with a new Prime Minister to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

This is the time for a national discussion and debate for such a new post-BN, post-PR political landscape.

As I have said, the new Prime Minister for such a post-BN, post-PR federal government coalition with support from MPs from both sides of the BN and PR divide,  will not be Najib, and can be from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak or Sabah and can be a man or a woman.

Such a post-BN, post-PR federal government coalition must repair the multitude of wrongs,  weaknesses and scandals  that have crept into Malaysian governance in the past decades – in particular the principle that the Prime Minister is primus inter pares,  “first among equals”.

In the present  Cabinet, Najib is not “primus inter pares” but has almost a master-and-servant relationship with his Cabinet Ministers, which is totally against the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

Two important objectives of a post-BN, post-PR coalition must be the  restoration of the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and the judiciary  and the restoration of the  independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of national institutions.

There are nine important agendas for this programme:

i.	Restore the integrity of the judicial system and guarantee transparency and full independence of the Judicial Appointment Commission.

ii.	Restructure the workings in Parliament to make it more transparent, democratic and able to perform its role of “check and balance”.

iii.	Guarantee the direct accountability to Parliament of bodies such as the Election Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, Human Rights Commission, Petronas, Khazanah and others.

iv.	Ensure that the appointment of positions such as the Inspector General of Police, the Attorney General, the Anti-Corruption Commissioner and the Auditor General requires the approval of Parliament.

v.	Create a National Ombudsman Department.

vi.	Strengthen local government democracy and democratically enhance the competency and effectiveness of the delivery system and guarantee transparency at all levels.

vii.	Free all media, amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, enact a Freedom of Information Act and ensure Internet freedom.

viii.	Enhance the performance of public service sector and ensure the welfare of its members. Ensure that the institution remains independent and able to perform its responsibilities competently.

ix.	Empower and enhance civil society. Increase the participation of people through dialogues and consultations.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 March 2015, 1:39 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Kelantan
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has the IGP gone bonkers as to order the police probe of UM lecturer raising the most legitimate questions about political protest and protest policing?

I read, re-read and read a third time the article
“Who owns the police”
 by University of Malaya senior lecturer, Dr. Khoo Ying Hooi in The Malaysian Insider on 16th March 2015 and I still cannot fathom how it could be the basis for two police officers to question Khoo for one-and-a-half hours under Section 500 of the Penal Code for criminal defamation of the police – without committing a gross abuse of police power.

Has the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Bakar gone bonkers in his latest tweet-trigger happy response to Khoo’s article on the same day, saying

“KYH’s article in MI is misleading the readers, When did @PDRMsia allow the 7th street protest?”

Khoo, in her article, had said that police “had earlier allowed the #KitaLawan rally on March 7 to carry on smoothly, but began their ‘arrest spree’ the next day”  – with  11 people, including DAP Youth leader and MP for Rasah Teo Kok Seong, PKR Secretary-General and MP for Pandan, Rafizi Ramli, PKR Youth Chief and Selangor State Exco Member Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad arrested over the March 7 rally.

When Khoo said the police had earlier “allowed” the March 7 rally to be held smoothly, it did not and need not mean that the Police had issued a police permit to hold a rally, as all that it meant was that the Police did not disturb or disrupt the rally and permitted it to be held smoothly.

What is wrong with that statement?

What is the “criminal defamation” against the police in such a statement?

Will the IGP now set the police after me for asking whether he has gone bonkers in ordering the police to investigate Khoo under Section 500 of the Penal Code for criminal defamation of the police, when Khoo’s article is a very innocuous piece raising the most legitimate questions about political protests and protest policing?

I have said in Parliament that Khalid’s grasp and comprehension of the English language is far from what a top cop in Malaysia should possess – or he would not have thought that DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua’s tweet “Royal my foot” was an attack on the royalty, a mistake no person with minimum grasp of English language would commit.

Let the IGP not give Malaysians reasons to believe that his general grasp and comprehension of the written material like Khoo’s article “Who owns the police” is also questionable when he can find something criminal in her article when  ordinary Malaysians cannot find anything remotely “criminal intimidation” about it!

Malaysians want an IGP who share the same understanding as ordinary Malaysians, in particular on  what is right and wrong – not an IGP who regards as wrong what all Malaysians think is normal and right, while regarding as right what all Malaysians think as wrong and reprehensible.

Are we having an Inspector-General of Police who is going to start policing lecturers and Malaysians violating their freedom of  speech and expressions guaranteed under the Malaysian Constitution – in  which case, we may have to appoint another IGP whose job is just to read writings on the Internet as we have already an IGP who seem to spend 24/7 on tweets.

The IGP should realise that he is bringing odium and disrepute to Malaysia’s good name internationally, for he is violating not only the freedom of speech and expression of Malaysians, but also violating academic freedom – one important reason why Malaysian universities remain at the bottom of the pile every year in world rankings of universities.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 March 2015, 12:33 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A new post-BN, post-PR political scenario in Sabah could mean a new Chief Minister for Sabah – with Joseph Pairin or  Salleh back as CM or Hajiji and Masidi as new CM

Yesterday, March 27, 2015, must go down as one the blackest days for Barisan Nasional for despite the Friday Cabinet meeting (replacing the weekly Wednesday Cabinet meeting when Parliament is in session), the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak continues to keep mum for the eighth day about UMNO/BN position on PAS President and MP for Marang Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation.

This is indeed most extraordinary for two reasons:

Firstly,  Barisan Nasional leaders in particular from MCA and Gerakan had been telling the press that Najib would be making an announcement of UMNO/BN position on Hadi’s private member’s bill for the past week, with one national daily even publishing a front-page “exclusive” headline eight days ago that Najib would be making such a statement on that very same day;

Secondly, why should there be doubt about the UMNO/BN  position on hudud law in Malaysia, when for 58 years, the first five Prime Ministers of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah would have no hesitation in declaring that hudud law is against the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and unsuitable for the multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia, as this had  always been one of the core nation-building principles of UMN/Barisan Nasional and previously Alliance for nearly six decades.

Why is Najib suffering such prolonged “labour pains”, now entering into the ninth day, to announce something which previous Prime Ministers and UMNO Presidents had no hesitation or problem in announcing?

Has the UMNO/BN position on hudud laws changed from those of previous Prime Ministers as well as of the BN coalition until March 2015, and if so, when did the Barisan Nasional

Supreme Council meet to authorise such a change, whereby the Prime Minister could either announce support of Hadi’s private member’s bill or to “duck” the issue by not saying “yes” or “no” to Hadi’s private member’s bill?

It is in the face of such an eventuality, where both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional are gravely damaged by the hudud law controversy, that I discussed the possibility of a new political landscape which is post-BN and post-PR before the 14th General Election, where there is a complete re-alignment of political forces based on upholding the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and promoting good governance, freedom, justice and the rule of law in Malaysia.

Such a new political scenario will come about, for instance, if MPs from both sides of the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat divide are prepared to take a common stand to defend the constitution and promote the rule of law and good governance.

In such a post-BN and post-PR  new political scenario before the 14GE, we will be talking about a new Prime Minister, a new Malaysian Government and a new Cabinet.

Whether such a new post-BN, post-PR political landscape before 14GE  can emerge will depend on the political wisdom of the political leaders in Malaysia.

Sabah will not be unaffected if there is such a new post-BN, post-PR political landscape before 14GE.

Yesterday, the Sabah Council of Churches  declared that Putrajaya has an obligation to East Malaysia on the hudud law controversy.

Sabah Council of Churches president Jerry Dusing said  that while the push for hudud is only for Muslims in Kelantan, the Sabah Christian community has a duty to voice concern.

“Our intention here is not to enter the political or legal debates, but to emphasise that the Federation of Malaysia, at her inception, is first and foremost a multi-religious and pluralistic society with rich varieties of culture,” Dusing said in a statement.

He added that it is on this basis, and guarantees from Malaysia’s forefathers, that Sabah and Sarawak had agreed to form the federation with Malaya.

“Hence, it would be inconsistent, and indeed a betrayal of the trust placed by Sabah’s forefathers in the Federation of Malaysia, for laws such as Kelantan’s hudud enactment – which would have a huge impact on the public as well as upon the multi-religious Malaysians society as a whole – to find a place in our federation, a nation envisaged to be secular at its formation,” he said.

Dusing cited the Cobbold Commission’s report which agreed that Islam would be the federation’s national religion but it would not jeopardise freedom of religion as the federation would be secular.

He added this was likewise expressed in the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee memorandum a few months before the Cobbold Commission’s report.

Malaya’s representative on the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee which  drafted the memorandum to the Cobbold Commission was Cabinet Minister Khir Johari. The memorandum declared that “it is satisfied that the acceptance of Islam as the religion of the Federation would not endanger religious freedom within Malaysia nor will it make Malaysia a state less secular”.

Dusing said: “Therefore, the Sabah Council of Churches urges and calls upon all patriotic Malaysians, irrespective of religious persuasions and including the Kelantan state government, to honour and defend the original intention of our founding fathers and to strengthen the foundation of our federation, and above all, to focus and build on what unite us rather than what divide us.”

In failing to reaffirm loud and clear that hudud laws are against the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963, Najib will be reneging on a five-decade-old commitment and core nation-building principle and  policy.

It will also be a violation of the first guarantee of the triple guarantees in the famous Keningau Batu Sumpah on freedom of religion.

In these circumstances, Sabahans should also consider the possibility of a new political landscape which is post-BN and post-PR before the 14GE.

What such a new political scenario, post-BN, post-PR in Sabah before the 14 GE really imports  is something to be worked out by political leaders in Sabah who have the vision, principles and honesty of purpose to  envisage such a new political landscape.

A new post-BN, post-PR political scenario in Sabah could mean a new Chief Minister for Sabah – with Joseph Pairin Kitingan or  Salleh  Keruak back as CM or Hajiji Noor (Minister for Local Government and Housing) or  Masidi Manjum (Minister for Tourism, Culture and Environment)  as new CM.

The possibiities could be endless.

(Speech officiating the completion of the Impian Sabah Road Construction in Pitas on Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 12 noon)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 March 2015, 10:03 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Sabahan  or Sarawakian can also be Prime Minister of Malaysia in post-BN, post-PR new coalition before 14 GE, and possible candidates include Anifah Musa, Rosnah Rashid Shirlin, Abdul Ghapur Salleh from Sabah and Fadhlah Yusuf, Nancy Shukri and Rohaini Abdul Karim from Sarawak

There are two political coalitions in the country, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) which won 53% of the national vote in the 13th general elections in May 2013 but denied the opportunity to form the Federal Government in Putrajaya; and the Barisan Nasional (BN), the first minority Federal Government in Malaysia but won 60% of the parliamentary seats by gerrymandering and undemocratic redelineation of electoral constituencies.

Both political coalitions suffered grave and unprecedented damage this month because of the latest  political game played by UMNO conspirators exactly one year ago, when the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom told Parliament on March 27 last year that the Federal Government was ready to work with PAS Kelantan State Government to implement hudud in Kelantan.

This has resulted in the Kelantan State Assembly re-enacting the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code 1993 with amendments on March 19 (with the support of UMNO Kelantan State Assemblymen)  and the March 18 private member’s bill by the PAS President and MP for Marang Datuk Seri Hadi Awang on hudud implementation.

This has caused enormous damage to Pakatan Rakyat as Hadi’s private member’s bill was a multiple violation of both the spirit and letter of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition – violating the PR Common Policy Framework which committed all PR parties to defend the fundamental principles of the Malaysian Constitution as well as the consensus principle as the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council at its meeting of Feb. 8 decided unanimously that proposed amendments to the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code and any private member’s bill in Parliament should first to brought to the PR Leadership Council for discussion.

Neither of the two PAS commitments, made in the presence of the PAS President, was honoured. In fact, up to now, after a passage of 11 days, DAP and PKR MPs have not even been shown a copy of Hadi’s proposed private member’s bill!

However, while succeeding in causing enormous damage to Pakatan Rakyat in its latest effort to destabilise, divide and destroy the PR, Prime Minister and UMNO/BN President Datuk Seri Najib Razak has found that  this ploy is a double-edged sword, as it is also inflicting enormous damage to Barisan Nasional – testified by Najib’s record length of tenth-day “labour pains” in the issue of a statement on UMNO/BN stand on Hadi’s private member’s bill.

The country was promised that Najib would issue such a statement last Friday, 20th March 2015, but ten days have passed and the Prime Minister is still suffering “labour pains” to produce such a statement.

Could the Barisan Nasional salvage its integrity, credibility and legitimcy when the Prime Minister could not even come out with a statement on UMNO/BN stand on Hadi’s private member’s bill when the first five Prime Ministers,  Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah would have no hesitation in reiterating and reaffirming the core nation-building principle of BN and previously Alliance that hudud laws are against the Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia?

In continuing to “duck” the issue, to avoid taking a clear stand to oppose Hadi’s private member’s bill in the name of UMNO and BN, Najib is destroying UMNO/BN’s commitment both to the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

Najib may be confident that finally the Peninsular-based BN component parties like MCA, Gerakan and MIC would be obedient to UMNO’s wishes and dictates, but he cannot be so sure about the position of the Sarawak and Sabah BN component parties, as well as the support of the people of Sarawak and Sabah, as Sarawak and Sabah’s total of 49 Parliamentary seats made Najib the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.k Najib  would be the Parliamentary Opposition Leader if  the support of Sarawak and Sabah BN’s 49 parliamentary seats are withdrawn.

Can the enormous damage done to both the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional be undone?

Strangely enough, the solution to both PR and BN’s unprecedented damage are the same – whether PR and BN component parties are prepared to recommit themselves to the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

In the case of BN, whether Najib is prepared to immediately reaffirm a clear and unequivocal stand of BN and Alliance in the past 58 years that hudud laws are against the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and  unsuitable for a multi-racial and multi-religious nation like Malaysia.

In the case of PR, whether all PR component parties are prepared to reiterate commitment to the PR Common Policy Framework and the consensus principle that no single party or party leader can veto or overrule the unanimous decision of the PR Leadership Council, which Hadi had tried to do more than once.

There have recently been attempts to justify the PAS Kelantan State Government re-enacting the 1993 Syariah Criminal Code and Hadi’s private member’s bill by arguing that the PR Leadership Council Joint Statement of 28th September 2011 had “agreed to disagree” on the hudud issue.

This is distorting the meaning of “agree to disagree” in the Joint Statement – which was an acknowledgement that the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Enactment 1993 and the Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment 2003 were passed before the formation of Pakatan Rakyat, but took the clear position that while it was unreasonable to require PAS to abandon the agenda, the three PR component parties would give priority to the PR Common Policy Framework and that all policies involving PR and their implementation must have the agreement of all three parties.

The “agree to disagree” clause referred to DAP’s differences with PAS on the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Enactmet and the 2003 Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment, which took place before the formation of Pakatan Rakyat in 2008, and cannot be used as justification for violation of PR Common Policy Framework and the consensus operational principle of PR, as otherwise, there would be no meaning or purpose in setting PR to topple UMNO/BN.

It is in the context of both political coalitions, BN and PR, being  irretrievably damaged because their original fundamental principles had been destroyed, that I had asked Malaysians to think the unthinkable –  for MPs from both sides of the BN and PR political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea to take a stand to “Save Malaysia” to defend constitutionalism by coming together in a new coalition before 14 General Elections.

If such a new coalition gets the support of the majority of the 222 Members of Parliament, then there will be a new Prime Minister, and clearly it will not be Najib.

The new PM can be from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak or Sabah, can be a man or a woman, but he or she must be one who is committed to defend the bedrock constitutional principles like the first five Prime Ministers of Malaysia.

A Sabahan  or Sarawakian can also be Prime Minister of Malaysia in post-BN, post-PR new coalition before 14 GE, and possible candidates include Anifah Musa (Foreign Minister), Rosnah Rashid Shirlin (Deputy Works Minister), Abdul Ghapur Salleh (MP Kalabakan) from Sabah and  Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusuf (Works Minister),  Datuk Nancy Shukri (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) and Rohaini Abdul Karim (Minister for Women, Family and Community Development) from Sarawak.

Such a Prime Ministerial possibility must currently be a Member of Parliament as we are talking about the present batch of MPs. If a new general election is to be held, then it is a different ball game altogether.

I have not mentioned Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal or Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, two current Cabinet Ministers from Sabah, as they seem to either support Hadi’s private member’s bill or Najib’s foot-dragging on the issue in not coming out with a clear reiteration and reaffirmation of a 58-year-old Barisan Nasional/Alliance stand.

Yesterday, I had said that a new post-BN, post-PR political scenario in Sabah could mean a new Chief Minister for Sabah – with Joseph Pairin Kitingan or Salleh Keruak back as CM or Hajiji Noor (Minister for Local Government and Housing) or Masidi Manjum (Minister for Tourism, Culture and Environment) as new CM.

Immediately, I was queried why I did not name PKR Sabah leader Datuk Lajim Ukin. It is not because I  think Lajim is not  qualified to be Sabah Chief Minister, but going by the present configuration in the Sabah State Assembly, it is clearly unlikely that it would be possible to get support for a nominee from PR.  If if we go by the results of the 14th GE, then it is a different proposition altogether.

(Media Conference Statement at Shangrila Hotel, Kota Kinabalu on Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 8.30 a.m)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 29 March 2015, 8:36 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.