CHINESE SHOULD STOP TRYING TO PROVE THEY ARE STUPID

The non-Muslim Chinese and Indians may have earned the right to call themselves Malaysian citizens but that does not mean they have also earned the right to tell Muslims how they should practice Islam. Andy Yong needs to do a reality check and not assume that his Malaysian citizenship means he can define Islam. Islam is defined by the Qur’an and not by people like Andy Yong.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

First of all, where did this stupid Chinaman (Andy Yong, the deputy chief of Gerakan Youth) read that RUU355 is a law to implement Hudud in Malaysia? Does Andy Yong not know that, first of all, religion is a state matter and it is within the powers of the state to regulate religion?

Did Lim Guan Eng not sign into law back in 2010 a Bill that bans non-Muslims from using dozens of ‘Islamic words’, Allah being one of them? Why is Andy Yong not whacking DAP or Lim Guan Eng and ask that the Penang State Government un-ban all those words so that Christians in Penang can use “Jesus the Son of Allah” in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible?

Secondly, any crime that is already covered by federal laws takes precedence over state laws and in the event of a conflict or contradiction then federal laws override state laws. For example, Sabah and Sarawak have powers over immigration and they can ban foreigners from entering their states but they cannot declare war on Indonesia or the Philippines. Only the federal government can do that.

Thirdly, rape does not come under Hudud, which Andy Yong seems to not know. Furthermore, there are already federal laws to take care of the crime of rape. So federal laws apply and even if Hudud is implemented federal laws will still apply for crimes of rape. And for cases of robbery you report that crime to the police and not to the religious department, as Andy Yong alleges.

What Andy Yong wrote below is full of nonsense and even a kampung person can tell him that he is being downright stupid. Anyway, what Andy Yong failed to mention is that Islam became established as the religion of Tanah Melayu back in the 1400s and the Syariah became the law of the land 600 years ago.

The non-Muslim Chinese and Indians came to Malaya only since the 1850s, 450 years later, and were given citizenship around 100 years after that. And now they want to tell the Malays what they can and cannot do with regards to Islam.

The non-Muslim Chinese and Indians may have earned the right to call themselves Malaysian citizens but that does not mean they have also earned the right to tell Muslims how they should practice Islam. Andy Yong needs to do a reality check and not assume that his Malaysian citizenship means he can define Islam. Islam is defined by the Qur’an and not by people like Andy Yong.

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

Non-Muslims affected by amendments on hudud law

Which law will be upheld if a Muslim raped a non-Muslim, or a Muslim thief broke into the home of a non-Muslim or vice-versa?

Andy Yong, Free Malaysia Today

Recently many Muslims especially politicians, have expressed intrigue over the brouhaha among non-Muslims arising from the Private Member’s Bill, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) 2016 tabled by PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang at the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday.

These politicians have claimed that the Private Member’s Bill has nothing to do with non-Muslims and so everyone should not making a big fuss over it.

The key concerns here are not about race or religion but about the legal and constitutional aspects of Syariah law.

If PAS’s Private Member’s Bill, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) 2016 is allowed to be implemented, it will have serious implications on all Malaysians including non-Muslims. It will give rise to the inequality of laws and this is clearly disallowed by the Federal Constitution.

More importantly, the supreme law does not allow other legislation to encroach into the offences provided in the federal law i.e. Penal Code. Offences and punishment for rape, theft, etc., are already provided for in the Penal Code.

So the Bill that seeks to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court i.e. Act 355 is actually a legislation to allow Hudud to be implemented through the back door.

A classic example – if the victim in a rape case is a non-Muslim and the rapist is a Muslim, which law applies? Vice-versa if the rapist is a Chinese and the victim Muslim, will there be justice?

The same goes for theft or robbery. Do we expect non-Muslim victims to lodge reports at the Islamic Affairs authorities and subsequently be subjected to the Syariah Court if the suspect is a Muslim? The non-Muslim victims cannot lodge reports at the police station as the latter would have no jurisdiction.

Another example is insurance laws that do not recognise hudud. This means that in personal injury claims in a road accident, the non-Muslim insured will not be covered if the other party is a Muslim and sues under the enactment.

Religious conversion, custody issues, etc., have already caused so much problems in the country.

Andy Yong is deputy chief of Gerakan Youth.