On the 5th of September, Sinar Harian organised a Forum between, PAS,UMNO, DAP and MCA, each of the Parties were represented by Datuk Takiyuddin Hasan, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir, Tan Seng Giaw and Gang Ping Sieu respectively. To maintain brevity we shall refer to the panelists as the parties they represent. The forum went well, with both PAS and UMNO explaining their stance well.
However there was a slight problem when DAP and MCA chose to steer off topic whenever given the wheel. DAP veered off to the ISIS issue and MCA chose to stick to hudud which in essence is a different topic altogether. Both of them successfully maintained off course during the question and answer session.
They were worried about the sentiments of the non-Muslim minority if this bill is passed. One has to ask them, “How about the massive Muslim majority that will be offended the bill did not get passed?”. Both chose to remain silent, as though hinting the minority has a greater right in a democracy.
Coming from MCA, a failing if not a failed party, that won six of its seats in Malay majority areas. It was the Malays who actually voted for MCA as “wakil rakyat”, i.e. representative of the people. However when MCA goes into the parliament, they do not represent the Muslim majority. They choose to put forth the views of MCA ahead of the people’s wishes.
Chinese don’t vote for MCA, period, only the Malays do. Hopefully in the next general elections the Malay populace will be more cautious when voting for MCA. MCA has effectively betrayed their voters by not supporting the amendment to Act 355. Despite having only 7 seats in the parliament, MCA managed to threaten UMNO that it will leave Barisan Nasional (BN) if the bill goes forward.
Firstly they need to county, MCA has 7 seats, MIC has 4 seats and then Gerakan has 1, all of them put together can’t compete with PAS. In a way it is more beneficial for BN for MCA and MIC to leave and absorb PAS. MCA has to look into the idea of being a “wakil rakyat” for the Malays, or all of us can vote for PAS in the next general elections.
During the question and answer session, MCA was asked about the Malay sensitivities and feelings, and their answer was simple. There was no answer with regards to the question, I am sorry if you were expecting an answer at all. Apart from their terrible failures as “wakil rakyat”, MCA was just as incompetent as a panelist in the forum. Is MCA merely trying to portray that they could champion the Chinese cause by accepting the challenge from DAP to stop the private bill 355?
DAP on the other hand was better than MCA, at least our “wakil rakyat” from Kepong was very positive on the bill to amend Act 355. This was proven during his turn to speak, he took on a different topic altogether, “The threat of ISIS”. His confidence in the bill could not have been displayed in a better way, silencing himself from the topic and discussing totally different.
I would suggest DAP to have a forum with Datuk Ayub Khan or the Minister of Home Affair, instead of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department if they want to continue talking about ISIS.
Assuming that DAP represented the Chinese community, their basis to go against the Private Member’s Bill to amend 355 is unfounded. Their arguments are based on mere assumptions and loosely linked references. One has to wonder what is the real reason behind such behaviour.
It has to be noted that in 1984 when Act was amended for the last time, Tan Seng Giaw was already a member of parliament for Kepong. At that time he sat down quietly as the debate went on. Interesting to note that in 1984, non-Muslim MPs did not voice out their opinion on the matter. They knew that it was not in their interest to debate the matter as it was limited to the Muslims.
Why stand up now? Did the Syariah court start to implicate members of DAP? I guess winning 37 seats does make a difference on your stance. When you have a bit more power, you might be compelled to assume that the sensitivities of the majority is not a concern anymore.
A fight for an amendment is different from fighting to introduce something new. The law already exists, and it is just the matter of amending the current act. Labelling the amendment as a backdoor for hudud is an unfounded objection. And having support from a small number of liberal Muslims does not make it right either. This is what we call petitio principii, i.e. when you make a conclusion without having a premise prior to making that conclusion.
Since the matter is related to Islam and Muslims, those who are against the bill can abstain or be absent when bill matter will be debated. Anything against would trigger the anger of Malays and Muslims.
Rehan Ahmad Bin Jamaluddin Ahmad
Research Fellow, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)
