YB Kit,

You & the DAP have so far tried to navigate and walk the thin line between (1) collaborating with PAS in an electoral coalition PR to fight the BN and (2) reject, at the same time, PAS’s reiteration of their commitment to form the theocratic Islamic state in deviation from PR’s common manifesto or objectives.

Yours and DAP’s intentions are good. The “good” intentions are to join force with PKR & PAS in a united electoral front, to fight the BN at KT by election to bring the much overdue sky change in Malaysian political landscape by dislodging the moribund BN.

We know the arguments. An electoral coalition like PR – as distinct from a governing coalition – does not, at this stage, require ideologically compatible partners. The main imperative is to win the next election, which neither of the 3 of its alone or even in combination of 2 could otherwise achieve without the combined force of 3.

You are also cheered on by all alienated Malaysians. The prevailing sentiments of many are that the BN has 50 years of proven depredations as compared to ‘yet to be proven’ ‘horrors’ of PAS’s theocratic state, which in any case is not so easily achievable in view of present demographic realities (over 40% Non Muslims) not to count an unknown number of moderate Muslims, Civil Society & NGOs, PKR & DAP and whatever other parties that have joined by then PR, when it wins, as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition. So weighing proven evils against unproven one, subject in any case to the above caveats, many would back the continued collaboration of DAP with PAS within PR, as a lesser unpalatable choice in light of the existing constraints of the absence of viable alternative.

Even then it is clear that yours and DAP actions must not be seen as helping and strengthening PAS to facilitate or accelerate its realisation of its agenda through the platform of collaboration within PR.

This is because your good intentions by themselves alone are not enough or translatable to permissibility of actions. What ultimately matters is the expected probable consequences of the actions that flow from such intentions, and the fact intentions are good make no difference if they result in “bad” consequences of PAS’s agenda being facilitated or accelerated. (Just like providing large quantities of sleeping pills to a neighbour to help in his insomnia when one also knows that he has neurotic and suicidal tendencies does not justify the good intention of helping him sleep, when he actually takes all to go into a permanent sleep!)

Sorry “undermines” not “undermies” . In saying that PKR is not, in principle, opposed to Hudud as applied to Muslims (for now) if they want it, and in admitting that this divisive issue of Hudud had never even been discussed among leaders of the PR coalition, Anwar is admitting to a paradigm shift in position tilting towards PAS (since its candidate is cotesting KT by election) that was never agreed in the common manifesto/understanding of PR forged in early 2008 with the DAP to contest the last election.

If Anwar does so now – as he is apparently doing – it constitutes changing horses in midstream based on expedience than what is right in principle.

It goes to the root of credibility. People will wonder whether it serves any good to replace an unprincipled coalition with another equally unprincipled one.

“Anwar has been riding horses with Mahathir. Let him ride this one out.” Undergrad2.

Anyway I remember reading in Times, Anwar was riding with Mahathir when Mahathir said half in jest that if he were to ride too fast and far ahead of his boss, he would fall.

Anwar did fall from horse in 1993, injuring himself. In 1998 Anwar fell from grace after he was sacked from all government positions, arrested and went on trial … [In one of those days in court, he was wearing a neck brace / cervial spondylosis of the neck which many attributed to his falling after his horse riding accident in 1993.]

So in another way he couldn’t afford to ‘fall’ again this time around from the PR’s horse. Don’t forget there is a pending sodomy case still against him from Saiful’s controversial report – which requires him to lead PR to victory, sure footed and fast.

However even Anwar’s latest statement has generated controversy which the so – called ‘lion of the opposition’ (Karpal Singh).

This is link to today’s report by Mainstream Media (MSM ) NST (quoting Bernama) on the matter (which we have to exercise some skepticism when we read the reportage for obvious reasons) – http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/2449620/Article/index_html

Of interest is this quote/passage attributed to Anwar :-

“In Kuching, Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said non-Muslims need not be unduly worried about the hudud laws being propagated by Pas.

“I have discussed with Pas leaders who gave the assurance that hudud laws would only be applicable to Muslims,” he said at a gathering organised by “Friends of PKR” here on Friday.

“Therefore, there is nothing for (DAP chairman) Karpal Singh to be worried.”

“If the Muslims want to have their own Islamic laws, there is no need for the Christians to be unhappy.

“The same goes for the Muslims, they should not get angry if the Christians want to do things their way,” said Anwar, who is also the Sarawak PKR liasion chief”.

YB, is there a misquote/twisting by MSM of what Anwar said?

If not, I wonder at him. He misses the whole point. Civil society/DAP/PKR (until Anwar’s latest statement) and, even those in BN opposing Hudud, do so on the basis that it ought not to be implemented in respect of both Muslims and non Muslims alike. Nobody but him says selective application of Hudud is OK or feasible.

If one were to follow Anwar’s statements :

· “If the Muslims want to have their own Islamic laws, there is no need for the Christians to be unhappy;
· “The same goes for the Muslims, they should not get angry if the Christians want; to do things their way,”

we will have in Malaysia two criminal law systems, Muslims based on Hudud, and existing Penal Code for non muslims…..This is ridiculous.

Is it practicable for example, that a muslim thief gets his hands chopped off, a non muslim, let off with a month jail; or two married persons committing adultery together, where the Muslim adulteress has her pretty head decapitated and non Muslim adulterer let off because its not an offence under Penal Code? What about where the two streams overlap as when a Muslim man is alleged to have raped a non-muslim woman, will the former be let off (even i f the rape victim has his DNA) because in his case there are no 4 male witnesses of the rape?

Is Anwar for real, can we take him seriously, talking like that? You tell me!

If he is not careful, he will fall from the Pakatan Rakyat this time around, with DAP, the collateral damage.

OrangRojak asks, what is the current status of race/religious courts in Malaysia? today, 16: 34.00 (1 hour ago) and why hudud cannot apply to willing muslims, acording to freedom of choice/conscience, while others submit to common law simultaneously.

In Malaysia family law & succession laws of Muslims are based on Sharia/Islamic law as provided by constitution. “One standard” is easier to apply here because non muslims are required to convert when they marry a muslims, hence when Islamic family law & succession laws are applied, they are considered applied to muslims, including converts deemed to have embraced it.

As for the rest, civil laws pertaining to contracts, civil wrongs etc as well as criminal laws under the Penal Code, they are based on common law applicable to all communities.

The prevailing wisdom is that criminal laws (especially) and administration of criminal justice have to be structured around one system (either common law exclusively or hudud exclusively for all) in a society. By “ administration of criminal justice” I mean the concept of c rime, prevention of crime, adjudication by courts of when it is committed, and after commission and adjudication of it, the appropriate punishment of it.

Your question why both systems cannot co-exist simultaneously within one society is a difficult as well as interesting one. (I have not really thought about it until now)

My best guess as to why administration of criminal justice should be based on one common standard and not two or more is based on the following thoughts :

1. unlike Islamic family law & succession laws as are applied to all muslims, the crime phenomenon, as it occurs in a society, is an interaction between all kinds of people (offenders and victims) in one geographical area within multi-racial/religious/cultural society. (Two systems one country in Hong Kong is facilitated by geographical demarcation and separate cultural developments of Hong Kongers from their counterparts of same race in People Republic of China). Here imagine an offender is subject to one set of ru les, and the victim aniother set). We can’t have a non muslim offender doing something he considers not wicked or serious whilst the muslim victim thinks it is or vice versa; we can ‘t have a rape victim thinking that a heinous crime has been committed to her person, for which she has proof of the offenders semen/DNA whilst the muslim offender thinks that he could exculpate himself because under the other system to which he is subject, the absence of 4 reliable male witnesses would exonerate him o r that his offence may be recompensed by an apropriate sum of money. That is concerning offender/victim : what about the judge who is supposed to administer justice? He will be confused as to how to balance justice to victim and offender when they are respectively subject to different laws/norms.

2. Because administration of criminal justice involves punishment, a taking away of a person’s civil liberties due to his misapplication of his freedoms, it evokes strong emotions on the part of both offender/victim as well as t he community at large by extension. Therefore the apportionment of guilt /blame, feeling that the punishment is deserved must be unequivocal, clear and not contentious, tearing at the very fragile fabric of various races, religions, cultures subsisting within a society. The conventional wisdom is that administration of criminal justice is best proceeded upo n without confusion based on a bedrock of shared norms and one standard as to what innocence, guilt and appropriate punishment should be.

The Caveat : please take what I say as mere thoughts as they occur to me off the cuff – without benefit of further study/contemplation which your provocative question probably deserves more.

“Hudud law would only be applied when all involved (perpetrator, victim, courts) agreed to it. This would cover your suggestion of the rape victim (she might choose a federal court)” – OrangRojak

It wouldn’t work that way. When a crime is being committed, offender will want the law (between the two) that gives him best chance to escape scot free or with minimum punishment, whilst the victim will want the opposite. The judge/ court is supposed to mete justice balancing between offender’s and victim’s rights, which under a dual system, each is entitled to request for that most favourable to him/her.

So how could there be, in practical terms, an agreement, when a commission of crime comes to light, in which perpetrator, victim, courts could agree on ? I don’t think so.
ri

‘Off the cuff’ to me means in relation to what I think or say, something thought or said out by me imprompu with little or no advance preparation, study, research or forethought on my part on the issue raised rather than the other side’s suggestion is not welcome.

OrangRojak,

In response to two of your statements in your latest posting – assuming there are in existence two systems of criminal law side by side, ie Hudud and secular based on common law –

1. “The idea is to permit Malaysian Muslims who wish to submit to Hudud law the opportunity to do so” – problem is, in multi racial/religious society, it is just as likely to happen in any crime situation for the offender and the victim to be of different race/religion. So what happens if the offender wants to submit to Hudud law and the victim to secular common law? Whose wish should prevail, it being impossible to apply Hudud to the offender and secular law to the victim at the same time for the same crime?

2. However even assuming both offender and victim are Muslims – your statement “Before a case went to Hudud court, every interested party would have to agree to submit to its ruling (because of the beyond-Constitutional sentences for some crimes). The idea is to permit Malaysian Muslims who wish to submit to Hudud law the opportunity to do so, without diminishing the role of federal courts”.

The question here is : would there be a case where both Muslims would submit to Hudud law (given the opportunity) in the first place?

For people to submit voluntarily to same standard each must believe the same standard or law (and not another set of standard/law) will give him or her equal opportunity/access to the justice he believes he deserves or is entitled.

When a society has a system like Hudud, so different from common law on crimes, existing side by side, it is bound to happen that offender will want one system favouring him whilst the victim will prefer the other, against. (The interests of offender/victim are conflicting, so there is serious doubt whether in practical terms there will be sufficient reciprocal community of interest for both Muslim to agree to submit to a common standard of law of Hudud, where Hudud will favour one side, and secular law the other).

According to The MalaysiaInsider just published report 11th Jan: –

· DAP national chairman Karpal Singh said that DAP “was prepared to cooperate with PAS and Pakatan Rakyat on condition that both PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) do not insist on the introduction of hudud laws.”

· “Yesterday, PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said if the Muslims wanted to have their own Islamic laws, there was no need for the Christians to be unhappy while PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang said hudud laws would be for Muslims while non-Muslims could opt to be tried by the hudud or civil law.”

· Karpal said: “This argument is illogical. What would happen if there are two co-accused, a Muslim and a non-Muslim with the Muslim opting for hudud law and the non-Muslim for civil law? How would the courts get out of this dilemma?”
[This is third argument given by Karpal as to why we cannot have a dual criminal system besides the other two I gave to OrangRojak]

· “The call by both PAS and PKR to have hudud laws applicable to Muslims with an option given to non-Muslims to choose between hudud law and civil law would, and must, mean the introduction of an Islamic state which would mean destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution,” he said.

YB Kit,

You are aware that article 121A of our Federal Constitution allows for separation between the Civil and Syariah courts, which has been construed (or miscontrued) as meaning whenever Shariah conflicts or overlaps with secular law, Sharia prevails.

Can you therefore pose the question to Anwar, in my hypothetical case of the offender of a rape case being a muslim wanting to proceed by Shariah and the non muslim victim wanting the rigours of secular Penal Code to apply, wouldn’t existing article 121A of our Federal Constitution imply that the non muslim victim have to submit, in a case of conflict, to the dominance/application of Sharia favouring the offender?

We have a spate of controversial body snatching cases to amply show that the existence of dual system prejudice the non Malay party.

So by what logic is the Pakatan Rakyat leader/opposition head talking when he said in Sarawak “if the Muslims wanted to have their own Islamic laws, there was no need for the Christians to be unhappy” as if Christians or any other non Muslims will not be prejudiced?

Doesn’t he know about the “conversion cases” and the mess created by interpretation of article 121A – or he just chooses to do double talk and triple speak here to get both PAS’s supporters’ as well as non Muslim votes’ in KT by elections without caring a hoot about the implications logic or integrity of what he, as PR’s leader, says?

I want you to know that it is not our criticisms here that is undermining the Pakatan Rakyat’s cause to unseat the BN.

It is Anwar’s chameleon statements and certain lack of principled approach in what he said that is undermining the Pakatan Rakyat’s cause.

Not only his statements cannot stand rigorous scrutiny and challenge of Mainstream BN bias media reporters, they also cannot stand the test of reason and fairness that will be put up by the Bar Council, Civil Society and the NGO(s) that have so far supported Pakatan Rakyat meaning that by the way he is going , he, dragging the DAP down as collateral damage, if you go along with him, will alienate support of moderate Muslims and non Muslims in this country to the detriment of the PR cause, with every possibility of unwittingly benefit Barisan Nasional, who would exploit his garbled talk, the other way instead.

The many body snatching cases relating to converts in recent times bearing on interpretation of article 121A of our Federal Constitution prove what I said in preceding posting.

Looks like you are applying logical inference :)