IS hudud tearing Pakatan Rakyat asunder?
Are people asking this question merely trying to create something out of nothing? Surely, there must be a big iota of truth as to what they are asking, given the frequent incendiary public flare-ups among the proponents and opponents of the controversial Islamic law within the same party.
It is quite clear that the simmering hudud feud within the opposition has imploded after a top PKR leader openly backed the Kelantan government’s push for implementation of the Islamic law in that state. The endorsement caught DAP, a Pakatan component, by surprise.
Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Nik Aziz Nik Mat has declared the state government will not budge from its position on hudud and setting up an Islamic state “with or without the support of its partners.”
By the same token, Terengganu PAS Youth has reportedly called on DAP chairman Karpal Singh to resign because it said the latter holds outdated views on hudud and has become ‘a liability’ to Pakatan.
The split over hudud in the loose opposition group widened even more when DAP Youth leapt to the defence of its party chairman by reportedly rebuking its PAS counterpart for interfering in DAP’s internal affairs and issuing statements against DAP leaders.
According to Karpal Singh, PAS bringing up the issue again runs counter to its resolve during the recent muktamar to push for a welfare state.
The DAP chairman, the most vocal in his party’s opposition to huhud even as his fellow party leaders at the federal level seem contented to adopt a wait-and-see attitude, stressed that PAS must understand the hudud objective is not in the coalition’s Buku Jingga common manifesto.
Responding to accusations that he was outdated and a liability to Pakatan, Karpal Singh retorted that “it is PAS that is outdated if it insists on implementing hudud.”
Far from abating, the heated war of words over hudud between the two factions in the same camp is still raging with no visible conclusion in sight.
Law experts said enforcing hudud in a multi-racial country will not be fair to both Muslims and non-Muslims in that “equality before the law could not be served if hudud and the current law co-exist.”
The burning question is that if hudud only applies to Muslims, under what authority is the distinction made? Since a criminal law must apply to everyone, it is the same for hudud. But, as the experts pointed out, that would be impossible because if you applied hudud to non-Muslims, it would violate their constitutional rights.
Pakatan’s inability to close the chapter on Islamic state and hudud even after the introduction of its Buku Jingga does seem to suggest that these two issues are much more serious within the opposition camp than they have been made out to be.
There are some who said hudud should apply to Kelantan since the Kelantanese want it. But on what basis is such reasoning reached? Is it based solely on the demographics of the state?
If so, as the experts contended, a precedent is being created towards the dictatorship of the majority, which could be applied to other states when the time comes, creating two set of laws in a country where different ethnic and religious groups live side by side in an urban environment.
Moreover, the argument that hudud is only for Muslims does not hold up because even within the Muslim community, there is no consensus on the context of its application.
At midweek, PRS president Tan Sri Dr James Jemut Masing challenged DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang and his son Lim Guan Eng, the party secretary-general and Penang Chief Minister, to state their stand on hudud.
Masing said both father and son must make a stand on this very important religious issue which would affect every Malaysian, pointing out that their ‘deafening silence’ means they consent to PAS’ agenda on hudud if Pakatan comes into power.
In response, State DAP chief Wong Ho Leng said hudud would never be implemented in the country even if Pakatan came into power after the next general election. He added that based on Buku Jingga (Orange Book), DAP, as a partner of Pakatan, would not allow hudud to be implemented.
Still, people would like to hear such outright rejection of hudud directly from the horse’s mouth rather from a third party. Otherwise who could be blamed for thinking that ‘silence means consent’ as Dr Masing has pointed out.