As John Lennon said: IMAGINE

Let us imagine that the debate between Gan Ping Sieu of MCA and Lim Guan Eng of DAP is held. Let us also imagine that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) helped organise this debate and that both leaders accepted the invitation to the debate. Let us then imagine what transpires in this debate.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

MCA vice president challenges Guan Eng to hudud debate

(The Star) -- MCA vice-president Gan Ping Sieu has issued a challenge to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng to a public debate on hudud.

He told reporters in Parliament lobby Tuesday that the debate would be on how DAP was going to stop PAS from implementing hudud law in the country.

Gan said the debate was necessary because during campaigning at various by-elections, DAP had been portraying PAS as a moderate, liberal and professional party.

However, he said PAS' recent statement on implementing hudud law showed that it was “ignoring DAP”, its partner in Pakatan Rakyat.

“I wanted to hand him an official letter on my challenge to him on Monday and today. But he was not around in Parliament. So, I will send my letter via registered mail,” he said.

Gan said for courtesy sake, he would let Guan Eng choose the venue, time and mediator for the debate.

*****************************

Gan Ping Sieu: DAP says that PAS is a moderate, liberal and professional party. However, as the evidence shows, PAS just goes and does what it wants. It does not care about DAP. DAP can say one thing but PAS goes and does the opposite.

This shows that PAS does not respect DAP. In fact, it shows that PAS does not respect the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, as well. Even the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, does not respect DAP when he said that, in principle, he agrees with PAS, in that the Islamic laws of Hudud should be implemented, although he admitted that this is his personal view and not the consensus of Pakatan Rakyat.

DAP has certainly lost face. PAS and Anwar are sending a message to DAP that it is not relevant and that its views are not important. The message that they are sending to DAP is that DAP can take it or leave it. And if DAP is not happy about this matter, then it can leave Pakatan Rakyat, just like it did once before when the same controversy erupted during the time of Barisan Alternatif.

Pakatan Rakyat talks about consensus. DAP talks about consensus. What consensus? When PAS announced that it is still committed to its aspiration of implementing Hudud, was that based on consensus or based on just what PAS wants?

If PAS implements Hudud, how will the Chinese in Malaysia fare? Will the rights of the Chinese be protected? Will prostitution, nightclubs, karaoke joints, pork, gambling and liquor be banned? Will the wishes of the Chinese no longer matter?

DAP is selling out the Chinese just because it seeks power. DAP will do anything just to get into power, even sell out the Chinese. DAP is a traitor to the Chinese community. DAP talks about defending the rights of the Chinese and yet it works with PAS, which is a party that is dangerous to the Chinese.

Maybe Guan Eng can explain what is going to happen to the Chinese community if Hudud is implemented in Malaysia. And if Guan Eng says that Hudud will never be implemented, then maybe he can explain how DAP can prevent that from happening since PAS has not relented in its mission to implement Hudud and still treats this as the priority of the party.

Lim Guan Eng: First of all, MCA must note that while Pakatan Rakyat does things on the basis of consensus, this does not mean we deny each party the right to express its views. Unlike in Barisan Nasional, where no party can make any statement that Umno will not allow and whatever they say is just echoing whatever Umno says, in Pakatan Rakyat we do not stifle the freedom of anyone to express their opinion. That is why PAS is allowed to say what it wants to say, even if the rest of the parties in Pakatan Rakyat may not share this view.

Democracy is not about allowing you to say something that I agree with. That is not democracy. Democracy is about allowing you to say something that I disagree with. No doubt DAP does not agree with Hudud. PAS, however, supports Hudud. So we allow PAS to talk about Hudud and to state its aspirations regarding Hudud. If we stop PAS from saying all this, then DAP would be violating the principles of democracy.

You cannot view this as PAS not respecting DAP by saying something that DAP does not agree with. You have to view it as DAP respecting the right of PAS to say something that DAP does not agree with. To agree is easy. Anyone can do that. But to agree to disagree is the hard thing to do. And that is what Pakatan Rakyat is able to do and which Barisan Nasional is not able to.

I know this is a very difficult concept for MCA to understand because this is not practiced in Barisan Nasional. In Barisan Nasional, MCA can’t say something that Umno is opposed to. MCA can only say something that Umno likes to hear. If MCA says something that Umno is unhappy with, then there will be screams for MCA to get out of Barisan Nasional or that MCA should be sacked from Barisan Nasional or that the Chinese should go back to China and so on. This is not how we do things in Pakatan Rakyat.

This talk about Chinese rights is outdated. In Pakatan Rakyat, we do not talk about Chinese rights or Indian rights or Malay rights like you do in Barisan Nasional. In Pakatan Rakyat, we talk about the rights of all Malaysians irrespective or ethnicity. Even when we talk about Hudud we talk about how it will be accepted by all Malaysians and not how it is accepted or reject by any one ethnicity.

What MCA does not seem to understand is that Islamic Sharia laws have been around since before Merdeka. This law used to be the secondary laws in Malaysia and only touches on Islamic matters, and even then only in cases where the common laws do not address, in particular matters concerning marriage, divorce, death, inheritance, and so on. It does not cover crimes, traffic offenses, and whatnot. For that we have the common laws, which override the Sharia laws.

In the past, the common law courts took precedence over the Sharia courts. However, Barisan Nasional, which MCA is a member of, changed this when it made the Sharia courts at par with the common law courts. This confusion was something that Barisan Nasional created and MCA is part of Barisan Nasional. Why did MCA support this move to upgrade the status of the Sharia courts and now we have ambiguity between which court has more power to decide on matters concerning the Sharia?

Can you see that Barisan Nasional, meaning also MCA, is the culprit that started all this confusion? Now you blame us for what you did.

The Sharia laws of Hudud are very specific. It covers only certain violent and serious crimes like robbery, murder, rebellion, apostasy, consuming of intoxicating substances, illicit sex, and slander.

Now, we already have laws governing robbery, murder and rebellion. So these laws will take precedence over Hudud. In fact, the common law punishment for rebellion is even worse. Can you remember we hanged the Al Maunah people who were charged for rebellion a few years ago? Under Hudud, they would not have been hanged. They would have been given a chance to repent and if they repented then they would be pardoned and allowed back into society. But instead we hanged them for rebellion.

Under Hudud, even Chin Peng would have been allowed home since he has already signed a peace treaty with Malaysia back in 1989. Would not Hudud have been better in cases such as these?

On the consumption of intoxicating substances, we already have laws for that as well. If you were to be arrested with drugs above a certain limit, even if you do not consume it but only possessed it, you would be hanged. Under Hudud, possession is not a crime. Only consumption is. And you would not be hanged.

However, with or without Hudud, intoxication and illicit sex are already crimes under the Sharia. Muslims would be punished for this, even now. Non-Muslims are not covered under these laws just like they would not be under Hudud as well.

We must remember, pork, liquor, gambling, illicit sex, and any activities that Islam considers immoral, are only forbidden for Muslims. Non-Muslims can continue being as immoral as they would like to be. Chua Soi Lek admitted publicly that he was the man in the porn video. Since he is not a Muslim, nothing happened to him. If he is a Muslim, then he would have been brought before the Sharia court since he had confessed to being the man in the video.

According to the Constitution, Islam is the religion of the Federation. According to the Constitution, the Rulers are the head of Islam. According to the Constitution, each state has power over Islam, and this means Islamic Sharia laws as well. So it is up to the states how it would like Islam to be implemented.

If MCA finds this unacceptable, and since MCA is part of the government, then MCA can always get Parliament to amend the Constitution to rectify this. Why does MCA not do this? Why keep quiet?

DAP and PAS are not part of the government. MCA and Umno are. So go amend the Constitution to remove the powers of the states as well as the Rulers and bring Islam under the federal government. MCA and Umno have the power to do this. Why is this not being done? Then, once this is done, PAS can no longer talk about Hudud because Islam will no longer come under the states but will be under the Prime Minister and Parliament.

Anyway, PAS normally contests only one-third the seats in Parliament and it never wins all the seats it contests. It is, therefore, impossible for PAS to amend the Constitution that will allow Hudud to be implemented. PAS will need Umno and the other Muslim MPS from Pakatan Rakyat to combine their votes to get a majority in Parliament. And we all know this will never happen.

So what is the issue here? Is this a real issue or a red herring? MCA is just trying to distract the people from the fact that it is irrelevant and is going to get wiped out in the coming general election. MCA is trying to treat this Hudud issue as its ‘talian hayat’. Let’s see whether the voters buy this ploy.