Amputation and stoning disappear into a
committee
It is
beginning to look like the issue of implementing seventh-century Islamic law
requiring the amputation of limbs and stoning of adulterers has crested in
Malaysia and is receding.
The
issue attracted widespread concern among human rights groups and the
international investing community as well as within the country itself, with
Chinese, Indians and other minorities loudly objecting to any attempts to enact
such a law, not only because they deemed it as barbaric, but because they fear
it would spread from Muslims to wider segments of the population.
Parti
Islam se-Malaysia, the rural-based fundamentalist Islamic party with its roots
in the poverty-stricken east coast of the country, had threatened to introduce
two private member’s bills in the parliament in June when Parliament reopened
its session. PAS, as the party is known, had been pushing for introduction of
hudud, the Islamic system of punishment under Shariah law, in the state of
Kelantan, which it controls. It needs federal approval for implementation,
however.
Under
its provisions, hudud would impose age-old punishments for certain classes of
crimes under Shariah law including theft, sex out of wedlock, consumption of
liquor and drugs and apostasy. As an indication of the modern inapplicability
of the laws, there appear to be no punishments for corporate crime, which is
rife in Malaysia. Corporate crime hadn’t been thought of when the Shariah laws
were written hundreds of years ago.
But
with a rising crime rate and concerns especially over violent street crime, the
issue caught fire with the Malay public, egged on by such Malay nationalist
organizations as Perkasa. One United Malays National Organization source said
UMNO members of parliament were being intimidated into agreeing to vote for it
or being thought of as “bad Muslims” by the country’s rural population.
However,
it has horrified the 35 percent of other races that make up the country’s
polyglot population of 29.6 million. It also posed a huge problem for the
Pakatan Rakyat, the three-party opposition coalition made up of the
Chinese-majority Democratic Action Party, the moderate urban Malay Parti
Keadilan Rakyat headed by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, and the
fundamentalist PAS.
How
much real political momentum was behind the measure is uncertain. PAS President
Abdul Hadi Awang announced in April that he would introduce a private member’s
bill in the Dewan Rakyat, or parliament, to pave the way for the introduction
in Kelantan. Shortly after, despite the fact that PAS is an opposition party,
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom told local media
that the Federal Government would back PAS on the matter, an almost unheard of
parliamentary action, especially in Malaysia.
Muhyiddin
Yassin, the deputy prime minister, later proposed the establishment of a
national-level committee to study the effect of the law, including bringing in
experts from overseas, and that PAS and UMNO would participate in the formation
of the committee. But three months later, no committee has been announced, and
it appears unlikely that it will be.
There
is some thought that the threat of backing the hudud bill was a subterfuge on
the part of UMNO strategists because of its potential to split the opposition.
Especially the Democratic Action Party headed by Lim Kit Siang and his son, Lim
Guan Eng, were outraged by the thought of such a law, as were most urban
Malays. Indeed, referring an issue to a committee is a time-honored and
effective way to bury such a plan. The threat of implementation drove Chinese
voters to stay from polls in an Perak by-election when DAP, in an effort to
widen its appeal, ran a Malay candidate. Although she was attractive and
intelligent, she lost.
The
UMNO source said at the time Hadi Awang was considering introducing the bills
that he feared the northern tier of Malay-dominated states would likely
implement it on their own if it passed for Kelantan.
It was
also to apply only to Malays and not the Chinese, who make up 23 percent of the
population, Indians, who make up 8 percent, or ethnic groups in East Malaysia,
most of whom are Christian.
But, as
former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad – who became a prominent voice against
enactment of the law, said: “There are Muslims and non-Muslims in our country.
If a Muslim steals, his hand will be chopped off but when a non-Muslim steals,
he goes to jail. Is that justice or not?"
Mahathir
has been perhaps the strongest voice opposing any such law, ironically despite
the fact that he has been a moving force behind the strident Malay nationalists
who have been calling for its passage. It has once again shone a spotlight on
Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who has once again backed away from taking a
strong stance.
Najib
stood in the presence of President Barack Obama while Obama praised the country
as a modern, moderate Malay society, but he has sent contradictory signals. He
has said there would be no hudud in Malaysia but at a meeting of a religious
group in June, Najib said the federal government has never rejected
implementation of hudud although there are “loopholes and shortcomings” that
must be addressed. He called for a meeting of Islamic scholars to interpret
shariah law to ”scrutinize and to exercise ijtihad (an Islamic term for
independent reasoning) so that justice can be served.”
“When
they ask Najib to stand up, he holds his balls and looks the other way,” said a
longtime western observer who asked not to be named.
In
recent weeks, a wider spectrum of Muslims has come out against implementation.
Anwar, who himself has been relatively muted on the subject, has come out
against it in force as well, telling the PAS contingent of his coalition that
any attempt to pass it would wreck the coalition.
As
Mahathir has said, although the law would apply only to Muslims, it sets up the
specter of a dual class of punishments, with a Chinese, Indian or other
minority facing perhaps two months in jail for theft, for instance, and a Malay
facing the prospect of losing his hand. Adultery in Malaysia is rarely punished
today for any of the races and although it is not talked about, it is rampant
among the leaders of UMNO. Under hudud, ethnic Malays would face death by
stoning.
Other
Islamic organizations with a less harsh agenda have suddenly found their
voices. That has included Sisters in Islam, whose executive director Ratna
Osman said hudud punishments were not necessarily Islamic but instead were
common in medieval society. Islamic Renaissance Front chairman Ahmad Farouk
Musa questioned whether hudud is applicable in today’s society.
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated
in Singapore since 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment