Efforts to associate the amendment of Act 355 to Hudud are ongoing. Though it is a non-sequitur i.e. both are not related to each other. The liberal movements and some Islamophobic quarters are very diligent to prove otherwise. As explained time and time again Hudud punishments cannot be carried out under the amendment.
Hudud includes robbery and theft, both are crimes that fall under the Federal Courts and are not judged by the Syariah Courts. However the efforts to demonise Islam and Muslims are regularly carried out by irresponsible groups. These are people, who have no concern over the credibility nor veracity of their claims and opinions.
The latest issue stirred has been to display the oppression faced by the non-Muslim community living in Brunei. Firstly we should observe the viability of Hudud in Brunei. 78.8% of the people are Muslims. This simply means that an overwhelming majority of people living in Brunei are Muslims.
Having said that, there is a clear difference between Malaysia and Brunei. We are governed by the principles of Constitutional Monarchy, whereas Brunei has an Absolute Monarchy in place. We have two legal systems, the Federal Courts and the Syariah Courts.
The Syariah Courts are under the purview of the respective states. For the states with a King, the Syariah Courts are under His Majesy’s authority. At the federal level we have the Parliament to decide on policies.
The Malay Kings had to forgo a lot of their powers for this nation to be established as a Federation. Without the blessings from the Malay Kings we would have been separate nations instead of one unified country. We will not be discussing the division of power between the Federal and State governments in this article.
Back to Brunei, a country that has always been a monarchy. The legal system there is very different. Some of the issues rendered were about eating in public during the fasting month. Eating in public during the fasting month is prohibited for everyone, including non-Muslims and tourists.
Eateries however are allowed to do business and prepare packed food instead. The contention is merely because these people couldn’t eat in public during the holy month. We don’t mind people eating in front of us in public or otherwise. Personally I am indifferent when people eat in front of me, but we are talking about Brunei not Malaysia.
If not being able to eat out at restaurants is such a big contention, one has to wonder why the fuss? You can always eat the very same meal at home. Unless you don’t like to eat at home for whatever reason. There is no prohibition on what you want to eat. The issue is, eating in public during the holy month.
When you choose to live in Brunei, you also have to abide by their legal system. Muslims in India have a hard time eating beef, in private or otherwise. In 2015, Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched in Dadri, India, because of rumours that he consumed beef.
He was killed because of mere rumours. As usual we don’t see the liberals crying out loud when a so called secular nation implements a religiously motivated law. So India has banned beef, the world’s largest democracy and a secular one for that matter. Guess what? The Muslims there have to abide by the laws enacted in India.
We don’t see them making such a big fuss at the ban. Why can’t the non-Muslims of Brunei do the same? Though they might not be citizens but they have a responsibility to behave and act according to the legal system there.
A restaurant owner claimed that she lost 80% of her business during the month of Ramadhan. She blames it on the lack of tourists after the implementation of hudud in 2014. However according to The Brunei Times, the number of tourists in 2015 increased 8.6% as compared to 2014. And in 2016 the growth is projected at 2.5%.
Hence the shop owner’s idea, that tourism in Brunei slowed down after the implementation of hudud is unfounded. Furthermore, a drop in customers does not necessitate a blame on the legal system. People can still order takeaway food and eat elsewhere. The fall in income of any business has to be kept in check by an evolving business model.
Since the legal system has changed so should the business model, in order to suit the chaning scenario. One can’t simply blame others for their loss. There should be some form of responsibility from the business owner. Truthfulness and honesty is not a privilege but a responsibility of every citizen.
Residents of a country should abide by its legal and cultural norms in order to maintain harmony. Understanding and mutual respect among citizens are imperative for the stability and peace of a nation. Media has a great responsibility to maintain, if not enhance the values of the citizens in any nation.
Hopefully we can all respect each other and abide by the laws and regulations that are present. If one find the situation in a particular country challenging, then they should always find ways to to adapt. In Malaysia, the majority of the populace are Muslims,likewise we seek to enhance Act 355 not for the non-Muslims but for our brethren.
We hope that the amendment will provide measures to prevent crimes rather than as a mechanism to punish those who do. With less crimes hopefully Malaysia will become a better place for everyone. Allah knows best.
Rehan Ahmad Bin Jamaluddin Ahmad
Research Fellow, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, and should not be attributed to, Isma or Ismaweb.
