K. SILADASS

HADI’S BILL AND THE CONSEQUENCES

by

K. Siladass

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s explanation on the private member’s bill submitted by PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang is a gloss with all its trappings to mislead Barisan Nasional component parties and the general public.

          Najib says that they (Barisan Nasional component parties) see the private Bill as hudud laws. He went on to explain that the Bill was on reforming the punishment meted out by the Shariah court. Hadi himself has said that non-Muslims need not fear the implementation of hudud, as it was only for Muslim. Hadi went on to cite Banda Acheh in Indonesia as an example where, many non-Muslims had chosen to be tried under the Shariah law, even though they had the option to be tried under civil law (NST 28 May 2016). The real intention is out, and that is, the Bill to increase penalties for Muslims if passed would give PAS and its supporters, including UMNO, the impetus to introduce hudud in a larger scale and eventually it will be implemented throughout the country.  

          We must not forget that when amendments were introduced in 1988 to remove the judicial power from the High Courts under Article 121 of the Constitution, and the introduction of a new clause 121(1A), the objective was to overcome some disturbing decisions by the Civil Courts, so said, the then Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad (then Datuk Seri) when speaking on the proposed amendments. But experience has shown that the entire amendments were distorted and different interpretations were given, thus the harmony that exited in religious matters became too complicated and then began the hate culture, the culture of arrogance, in that no one could challenge any wrong that had been committed.

          It is therefore important that no one should take Najib’s words for granted, or for that matter UMNO. UMNO is known for reneging on the promises it makes. Najib is not any better. Once bitten twice shy. The 1988 amendments are still afresh in our minds, and the aftermath had seen justice being denied, and we do not want another judicial stalemate. Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill must be rejected. It has no place in a multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia, and it is against the Constitution which has, right from its conception, maintained that every person is equal before law. It would be appropriate to recall the story of the camel and the Arab. The camel, because of the cold outside, asked permission to put its nose inside the tent to which the Arab agreed, eventually the whole of camel’s body was inside the tent, which had no place for two, and the Arab was kicked out. Hadi’s Private Bill to enhance the punishment is the initial move, and he himself has admitted that at the end it is hudud for whole Malaysia which was not the intention of all the people when Merdeka was achieved in 1957 and the creation of Malaysia in 1963.