Recently the Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM) made a plea to the Members of Parliament (MP). In their effort to go against the proposed amendment to Act 355. Those who are against the Bill often accuse the Bill as a struggle to introduce Hudud. Apart from that, there is also an effort to declare Malaysia as a secular liberal nation.
According to Hermen Shastri the Secretary General for CCM, this Bill will rewrite the Constitution in a radical way. We write in order to explain to the masses about the realities of Islam and Malaysia. How can the Constitution be rewritten when there is no motion to amend? The proposed amendment is for Act 355 and not for any part of the Constitution.
Apparently many do not know that an amendment to the Federal Constitution requires a two thirds majority. An amendment to an Act can not rewrite or change anything in the Federal Constitution. Claiming otherwise would be a straw man fallacy.
If an amendment to the constitution was to proceed, the amendment would not be referred to as an amendment of an Act. It would be referred to as an amendment of the Constitution. The current scenario is pertaining to the amendment of an Act.
There was a reminder for the MPs, in the article, guiding those who might have forgotten that they have been entrusted by the people to uphold the Federal Constitution and protecting fundamental rights and liberties.
We too have to remember that the Bill is not about amending the constitution but an Act. The MPs have a responsibility towards the voters in their constituencies. Most of the Parliamentary constituencies have a Muslim majority. Denying a vote in favour of the amendment will be against the wishes of the voters. Is that not a form of treachery?
Hermen’s reminder insinuates a betrayal in the wishes of the populace. After all the MPs are also referred to as “Wakil Rakyat” or people’s representatives. How would an MP represent his people if he goes against their wishes? As we know, the amendment is only for the Syariah Courts and hence only applicable to Muslims.
If an MP wishes to represent his or her party then it is not befitting. An MP that wishes to uphold his or her personal desires is definitely not representing his constituents. Similarly if one was to uphold the aspirations of certain quarters then he or she have not fulfilled the wishes of the voters.
We agree that people need to be reminded about their responsibilities from time to time lest they forget. That is, the MPs indeed have a job to not only defend but also uphold the Federal Constitution. Rest assured the support for the amendment to Act 355 is in the sprit of the constitution. Unless of course if someone is not familiar with the Federal Constitution. Article 3(1) clearly mentions “Islam is the religion of the Federation”.
Last time I checked there was not mention of Protestants anywhere in the constitution. Supporting the amendment is inline with the spirit of the constitution. Islam as the religion of the Federation is to be defended at all times. Hermen went on to say that the proposed amendment will remove limitation on civil courts’ sentencing powers. Another straw man.
Unfortunately many Malaysians are not well versed with the Federal Constitution. The statement is an oxymoron and does not make sense whatsoever. How can an amendment to an Act remove limitation on civil court’s sentencing powers? The amendment is for Syariah Courts and it does not make sense to involve the civil courts.
Let us review the Federal Constitution. Syariah Courts’ powers are limited by the first order of the state list in the ninth schedule. There is an exhaustive list of offences that can be tried under the Syariah Courts. And here is the list,
1. Except with respect to the Federal territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and putrajaya, Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions and non-charitable trusts; wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious trusts, the appointment of trustees and the incorporation of persons in respect of Islamic religious and charitable endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State; Malay customs; Zakat, Fitrah and baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue; mosques or any Islamic public place of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List; the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law; the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam; the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine and Malay custom.
As can be clearly seen in the list, there is no mention of robbery, theft, murder or other crimes that fall under Hudud. The act will elevate the ceiling punishments currently under the Syariah Courts. The Bill does not seek to extend the powers of the Syariah Courts. One more time, any amendment to the Federal Constitution requires 2/3 majority.
In addition to that, Hermen also said the amendment will lead to punishments not acceptable in modern societies. So according to him Syariah punishments are not acceptable in today’s world. Wonder where he got that from? Some people have to understand that the punishments are meant to deter and prevent. The goal is never to punish.
But if education fails, and the crime still goes on, the culprits have to be brought to justice. Though the article contained many fallacies. He is definitely right about the MPs’ responsibility towards the constitution. We will give him credit for that.
By all means we have the right to amend and impose Syariah Laws on Muslims. When democracy does not work for some, they misguide the already confused souls. Nothing beyond rhetorics and conjectures.
David Hume enquired on the veracity of claims, whereas Reid merely assumed veracity. Given the circumstances of the claims, there is an absence of credibility in his arguments. It would have been better for anyone to seek explanation about the amendment rather than spreading false news. If still in the darks, he or she could have consulted the knowledgeable.
Taking advantage of a society that is credulous, does not fit a holy man. He should have been more responsible with his views. More time should have spent thinking about the consequences of his claims.
Hopefully in the near future we would not need such xenophobic arguments. Striving for an agenda at the cost of national unity is despicable. Donald Trump has managed to spread Islamophobia very successfully in America. A seven year old student was beaten up for his belief. A man was thrown off a plane for saying “insyaAllah”.
This nation was built with Islam as her foundation, embedded in the Federal Constitution. We hope that all citizens regardless of their race and religion can respect the Federal Constitution and the sprit within
Rehan Ahmad Bin Jamaluddin Ahmad
Research Fellow, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)
