from: Rama Ramanathan, via email
Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy allows for laws to be initiated or changed by MPs who are not Ministers. They can introduce (“table”) private members bills.
Before a bill can be tabled in Parliament, it must be listed on the agenda, the “Order Paper.” By convention, government business has priority. Therefore, private members bills are last on the Order Paper.
A private member’s Bill can only be tabled if the government “gives way” to it.
At last week’s sitting of Parliament two rare, but desirable events occurred. First, the Speaker, Pandikar Amin Mulia, allowed a private member’s Bill on the agenda. Second, the bill was tabled during the sitting. It could be tabled because Azalina Othman Said, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, told the Dewan that the government would give way to it.
Proposed by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of PAS, the Bill proposes changes to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 which is also known as Act 355. This bill had not been on the Order Paper at previous meetings.
The bill was allowed to jump 14 places in a packed agenda on the last day of the current session of parliament. If the government hadn’t given way, it wouldn’t have been tabled.
Clearly the government considered the bill a matter of the utmost urgency. Yet Hadi was surprised. He instantly asked for debate to be deferred to October.
The Bill concerns Syariah Courts and laws. It’s in three pages, the English version of which is poorly edited.
Political and civil society analysts think the government saw that “giving way” to Hadi’s bill was like “giving way” to two raging bulls knowing they would fall off a cliff.
The two bulls are PAS and its discontents who formed Parti Amanah Negara. Both parties are eager for Malaysia to adopt their (common) understanding of what they consider “Islamic.”
By giving way to Hadi’s bill against the background of the coming by-elections in the opposition-friendly states of Selangor and Perak, the government sought to shift the conversation from the national issues of corruption, rising cost of living, stifling of dissent and failed institutions to contestations over Islamic law and courts.
The “giving way” had been carefully orchestrated, because the government managed to get Hadi’s bill into a form which it can support.
Since the government supports Hadi’s bill, I will refer to it as the Hadi-BN bill.
The government claims the Hadi-BN bill merely transfers the setting of limits on the punishments for syariah offences from the federal parliament to state assemblies (except for the Federal Territories).
Currently Act 355 limits the sentencing power of Syariah Courts to 3 years in jail, RM 5,000 in fines and 6 strokes of the whip (versus a limit of 5 years, RM 10,000 and 12 strokes in magistrate’s courts).
The Hadi-BN bill deletes those limits and gives Syariah Courts the power to impose any punishments other than death.
If the Hadi-BN bill becomes law, states can legislate punishments including amputation, confiscation of property and indefinite imprisonment. The Kelantan syariah enactment, passed by PAS and BN, already includes these punishments.
The Hadi-BN bill raises many questions. When the government leapfrogged it over other business, did it abuse parliamentary process? How should Muslims, whether or not they live in Kelantan, respond to it? How should non-Muslims, who recognise domestic and international commitments to equality, respond to it?
Some who profess Islam have said non-Muslims should keep out of matters such as the Hadi-BN bill. My response is to remind them that Islam is a way of life. Muslim jurists through the centuries have made it abundantly clear that there is nothing which is not subject to the precepts of Islam. Should I keep out of every discussion?
What constitutes a crime? What’s an appropriate punishment for a shoplifter? For a car thief? For pilfering public funds? For a repeat offender? What constitutes reliable and sufficient evidence? How will investments be impacted if hands are chopped off for theft?
Note: The Hadi-BN bill is restricted to Muslim family law, trusts, charities, Malay customs, religious revenue, Muslim places of worship, “right of belief” and apostasy.
As a citizen I have a responsibility to call upon my government to minimise the differences between states. The government must not create conditions which will cause people to migrate between states in order to escape coercive Muslims.
Muslims, just like Buddhists, Christians and Hindus, are not homogenous. Many Muslims think punishments such as amputation were appropriate centuries ago, but no longer. Why should we empower those who wish to coerce them?
I do understand the need to review the limits on punishments: money is worth so little now, new crimes have arisen, some crimes are more prevalent; but I must ask: have Hadi-BN considered the impact of the proposed removal of the federal limit on jail sentences, fines, lashes and other non-capital punishments? Which crimes by Muslims warrant different or higher punishments than current limits?
Rama Ramanathan is an FMT reader
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.