And are you trying to tell the Rulers how to do their job or are you trying to take over the job of the Rulers by telling them what they can and cannot do regarding the Syariah? And this is what DAP, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the others are doing — they are telling the Rulers what they can and cannot do. They are twisting the Syariah issue by saying that this is not about religion but about the Constitution.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I am not sure if this is the correct channel to ask Mr. Raja Petra on his point of view below. I was hoping that Malaysia Today can pass this email to him. I was wondering if I can send in my questions to RPK to understand some of his thoughts on:
As a reader, I agree to his views on hudud as PAS has all the right under the constitution to submit a Private Member’s Bill to debate on certain points of Islamic Law as part of a healthy parliamentary process.
I believe (I’m not sure) where there are provisions given in the Federal Constitution that contradicts Syariah Laws provision, the Federal Constitution provisions should prevail.
I have come across certain articles in the past that under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Despite being difficult to prove under Islamic Law, the criminal law may find the suspect guilty of rape.
Hence, this means that the criminal law may supersede Islamic law. In my own humble interpretation, a Muslim may be subjected to both Islamic and Criminal law.
Can a person be subject to both laws at the same time and punished twice should the Islamic and Criminal law finds the suspect guilty?
Regards,
Chew Eu Min
*******************************************
Under the Westminster system of Parliament, which Malaysia practices, Private Members’ Bills are allowed and are part of the democratic process. Private Members’ Bills are Public Bills introduced by MPs who are not government ministers. As with other Public Bills, their purpose is to change the law as it applies to the general population.
There are, of course, certain procedures and protocols to observe before this Bill can be accepted for debate. If the MP tabling the Bill does not observe these procedures then the Speaker of the Parliament can reject it. But the Speaker or Parliament cannot reject the Bill just because it comes from the opposition or because they personally do not like the Bill.
The main issue would be whether the proposed Bill is of public interest or whether it is frivolous in nature. For example, an MP may want to debate the lowering of the voting age to 18, or to set the minimum wage at RM2,000 a month, and so on. If it were considered important enough to debate then this Bill would be allowed.
If the very essence of a Bill violates the Federal Constitution of Malaysia (such as a Bill to turn Malaysia into a Republic with the abolishing of the Monarchy) the Speaker or Parliament can reject it because such a Bill would, in fact, be considered seditious in nature.
There are many who would not support Malaysia being turned into a theocratic state, even amongst Muslims, and any Bill that smacks of that would never get voted into law. The question, though, would be even if you oppose such a move, is it within the rights of an MP to table such a Bill?
We may be very strongly in opposition to something but we must be very careful to not be seen as disrupting the democratic process by denying others to have the opposite view to ours. If we say we have the right to decide what does and does not get debated in Parliament, then we would be opening the Pandora’s box that would apply to anything we do not like from being brought to Parliament.
We cannot allege that Malaysia’s Parliament does not respect democracy and at the same time be guilty of not allowing democracy to be fully practiced. In a democracy you may disagree with what someone says but you have to defend the right of that person to say it. And just because you defend that person’s right it does not mean you agree with that person’s view. And is this not what the opposition has been crying out for?
Anyway, where there are contradictions between Federal and State laws, for example for the crime of murder, then Federal laws would apply. Federal laws override State laws and States cannot implement any other laws (even in matters of religion) when there are already Federal laws.
Rape does not come under Hudud so there is no issue of four witnesses. And there are already Federal laws dealing with rape so the State cannot introduce its own laws, either further to or in contradiction to Federal laws.
Actually this whole issue is very simple but purposely made to appear complex, especially by DAP. Federal laws come first. Where Federal laws are silent then you may introduce State laws. Laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Islam is a State matter that comes under the Rulers. The Ruler decides how Islam is practiced in their Royal Highnesses’ States.
With so many lawyers and even constitutional experts in the opposition they still cannot understand a simple thing like this and explain it to the voters? Actually they are intentionally making the whole issue murky. And many are actually suffering from Islamophobia and need professional help.
And are you trying to tell the Rulers how to do their job or are you trying to take over the job of the Rulers by telling them what they can and cannot do regarding the Syariah? And this is what DAP, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the others are doing — they are telling the Rulers what they can and cannot do. They are twisting the Syariah issue by saying that this is not about religion but about the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.