Can hudud deter bag snatching?
THE introduction of a form of punishment called hudud (Hudd ‘Allah’) for certain crimes has been the political platform of PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia) for a long time. The policy was pursued vigorously by Dr Burhanuddin after he took over the job of Ketua Agung from Dr Abbas after the Pacific War in 1945.
As an organisation aspiring to rule the country on its own steam or in coalition with others, PAS has been wanting to make – first Malaya, then Malaysia – an Islamic nation. And hudud would be the most suitable criminal code for such a nation.
Seventy years later, sharing power in Selangor, Terengganu and Penang, in full power in Kelantan for most of the past two decades, PAS has somewhat achieved its aim in this regard. More states are on their radar and the ultimate goal is, of course, Putrajaya itself.
The main advocates of this policy are the ulamas who double as politicians. Recently, a crop of professionals and intellectuals has emerged in the party as its leaders. These are dubbed the Erdogans and Anwarists because they are, by and large, moderate and accommodative in their world views and they are posing a challenge to the theocrats. Hence the current manoeuvres for control of that party’s leadership.
With hudud always on their minds, by 1993 there was already in existence such legislation in Kelantan, but the law could not be applied without the blessing of the federal government or federal parliament. So certain amendments had to be made to the state legislation to make it more acceptable to the people as a whole. One way is to assure the non-Muslims in Kelantan that this law does not apply to them.
Thus placated, why do the non-Muslims in the rest of Malaysia have to worry at all? Because they are not so sure that it will not affect them despite the assurances by the framers of the amendments; at any rate, not until the judges have pronounced a decision in a test case in Kelantan in respect of zina (adultery), sariqah (theft) or syurb (intoxication), to name a few offences under hudud.
Umno dilemma
The passing of the amendments to the existing state legislation may be one hurdle done over but the next is a wall. Awaiting are the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, a federal law, and the Federal Constitution itself.
No doubt the hudud proponents will find ways and means to twist the arms of all the Members of Parliament who profess the Muslim Faith to exercise the federal government’s power under Article 76A of the Federal Constitution – extension of legislative powers of states.
As it stands, according to a legal opinion that I consulted, the state enactment may be ultra vires the federal constitution. Anyway, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, one time a Law Minister, has been talking about referring the matter for a ruling by the civil court. We ought to thank Datuk Zaid for his courage to approach the court at his own expense. We shall eagerly wait for some outcome, one way or the other.
Parallel system?
Meanwhile, do we need another criminal code for the country? No, thanks. The existing Penal Code, if handled properly, is good enough for handling the criminals.
The proponents of hudud, some Umno leaders among them, have assured the people that the law does not affect the non-Muslims. That principle sounds similar to that of the Adat Iban 1993. If so its violation does no earthly harm to anybody else as it is only applicable to members of the community having the system of personal law – no more, no less. However, I wonder if hudud is a personal law like the old Undang-Undang Melayu Sarawak in the old days.
If it assumes the function of another criminal law of the country, co-existing and in equal force of law with the existing Penal Code and is sanctioned by the Federal Constitution, that will not be acceptable to the rest of the population while the present constitution is still the mother of all laws in this country.
Don’t panic, people. All indications are that the Private Member’s Bill by PAS will not see the light of day. Common sense and political correctness will surely prevail over dogma.
The Speaker’s dilemma
I was sure that the PM was going to announce the stand of his party this week but this has not been done at the time of writing. Whatever the announcement would be, the poor Speaker of Parliament, having received a notice to table a Private Member’s Bill from PAS, has to decide and find a cogent reason, if any, in the Standing Order to reject the tabling of that Bill. His constituents in Sabah are closely monitoring his moves and have indicated that they would not be happy if he should oblige PAS.
In case the Private Member’s Bill ever reaches the steps of Parliament and its floors, it will be a real dilemma for Umno indeed: To support or not to support the Bill. So will it be for the Members of Parliament from Pakatan Rakyat who are Muslim. The MPs from the other BN components from Sabah and Sarawak will be forced to make a choice as well: to vote according to individual conscience or to toe the party line.
As I see it, PAS is testing the strength of unity of the other parties. It is interesting to see how this drama will play out in the days and weeks ahead. Follow the developments.
On reflection, it would have saved the other BN federal legislators the trouble had the Umno assemblymen in Kelantan abstained from voting for the amendments to the Syariah Criminal Code II. Not a popular move because it would probably cost them votes come election time, but would have saved a lot of embarrassment to their federal leaders. Their votes could not have made a difference anyway. They had to be consistent to be credible. Since they had opposed the original proposal in 1993, they should also have opposed the amendments this year.
It seems that there were other factors to take into consideration in this game. One, politics – a difficult explaining to do during the coming state elections. Two, the interests of the Ummah overriding any other interests. Three, parochialism – typically Kelantanese. What might happen to voting at the federal parliament would be another exercise.’
When hudud would be appropriate?
Last week I heard about snatching of bags from two female foreign tourists in one day in Kuching. In each incident, a man on a motorbike had done the snatching spectacularly well in broad daylight. Important documents were lost, money gone, and I felt like approving hudud for Sarawak immediately! On impulse, cutting one of the fingers from that hand that snatched the bags would be most appropriate in the circumstances!
The problem was to identify the religious affiliation of the man on the bike in two separate spots. There were eyewitnesses, but I doubt if they would be available or willing to testify in court should the culprit be caught and prosecuted. I also doubt that he or they will ever be caught.
Hudud or no hudud.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].