‘We’re not confused but outraged over what Hadi’s Bill will do’

YOURSAY | ‘This was pre-planned by BN to divert attention away from 1MDB.’

Confusion on ‘Hadi’s Bill’ is explained in Article 74

Abu Kassim: Lawyer Puthan Perumal, I honestly do not understand the state of confusion that you are in. Nobody is confused about how this bill came into being or how it works. The concern is and always has been related to the effect of the bill if and when it is passed.

You seem to think you are clarifying some doubts here, but you are merely stating the obvious. The obvious which we have all known from the word go.

Quigonbond: I am surprised by Puthan's assertion that he does not see the confusion. For his benefit, there is no confusion what the bill does. There is outrage at what it will do. It will effectively allow PAS to introduce hudud in Kelantan on Muslims.

The danger to non-Muslims is that there is still people who are converted at childhood, adulthood or near death against their will.

Non-Muslims may think it is okay because this only affects their Muslim friends and neighbours, but they will be sorely mistaken. How would you like to find yourself converted against your will and be subject to hudud?

For Muslims, they have to think long and hard about this. The current criminal justice system is allegedly already flawed, especially with the Sodomy I and II trials.

Just imagine how much worse hudud will be - a conspiracy to prosecute a Muslim opposition leader alleged to have committed a serious criminal offence in Kelantan. Isn't that enough to put pause to supporting hudud?

The best part of this saga at the moment is that PM Najib Abdul Razak has a different take on the bill. Is he doing another 1MDB, feigning ignorance for not reading before approving; or is he really that oblivious?

I'd also like to see what Sarawak CM Adenan Satem says about this. Sarawak voters voted overwhelmingly for him because he embraced opposition issues, including the sanctity of religious practices and good governance. Hudud is antithesis to his state manifesto.

Retnam: Puthan, so you don't understand the state of confusion MCA and MIC are in? Let me explain. There is no confusion. This was pre-planned by BN to divert attention away from 1MDB during the run-up to the by-elections in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar.

There is absolutely no way MIC will quarrel with Umno. That the MIC chief has threatened to resign simply means the top leader has allegedly given instructions to the MIC chief to declare so. So, now you understand?

P Dev Anand Pillai: The entire charade is just to show non-Muslims that no matter whom you may vote for, Umno always has the upper hand.

Yes, it may be amendments to the state legislation but what stops the next Parliament from saying that since there are no objections in Kelantan where the law is applicable, let us now make it applicable to the whole peninsula?

A clear line has to be drawn and we have to make sure that the country maintains its secular identity. If that is to be erased, then the rights of the non-Malays will be severely compromised.

Anonymous_3faa: Yes, no amount of explaining is justified. Once any Islamic law, no matter how limited, is passed in Parliament, it is the beginning of more, bit by bit, and once they (Muslims) have a majority in Parliament later, there is no stopping them from introducing syariah law.

Mr KJ John: Puthan, you are misinformed. Criminal law and codes are under the jurisdiction of List 1; it guarantees rights of all citizens.

List 2 must limit itself to personal and family matters (excluding civil incorporation and companies) of Muslim matters.

ConstitutionIsSupreme: Yes, KJ John gave a very good summary of Puthan's article.

Another question for you, Puthan - when the victim of a rape case is a non-Muslim and the perpetrator is a Muslim; is it possible that the perpetrator Muslim can be let free by the Syariah Court as the non-Muslim victim cannot get four good Muslims as witness to the rape?

And thereafter, can the Muslim rapist be charged in the civil court after being freed by the Syariah Court?

Norman Fernandez: Puthan, here is another query. Situation: Muslim thief enters non-Muslim Chinese liquor shop. He for reasons best known to himself steals bottles of whiskey (and smashes the bottles outside).

Under hudud, clearly it is theft and the punishment for theft is amputation. Naturally, the victim of theft will demand amputation as prescribed by hudud.

Now, there are strict criteria before a hudud punishment is imposed and the judge will need to find out the reasons.

Thief's defence: "I admit I stole the whiskey bottles which is ‘haram’ and the breaking of the bottles was to prevent vice.

Question: Will the judge still impose hudud punishment of amputation? Over to you, Puthan.

The amendment to the Shariah Courts Act is simply another way to bring in hudud without amending the federal constitution. Please do not fall into the trap of saying that the Act has no effect on non-Muslims and or hudud is only for Muslims.

Until the removal of Section 56 of the Kelantan Hudud Act, non-Muslims were given the ‘option’ to choose. Despite the removal, there remain other provisions which can still make non-Muslims be subjected to the Act.

JusticeNow!: I think Malaysians are not confused. It is one thing to have another penal code operating relating to a specific group of people, but it is another when politicians build another based on sensitivity and sentiments.

Soon, the groups that are not subject to this code will be asked to be sensitive or asked not to offend the sensitivities or not to insult those who are under the said code.

So, in the end, there is a law where despite there being no law on it, people will be charged with sedition when others’ sensitivity or faith is shaken. Even the sight of a religious symbol can do the trick, what more if there is a legal code.

Anywhere else in the world it would not even raise an eyebrow, but in Malaysia, with continuous erosion of minority rights, everything matters because laws do not necessarily protect you.

Vijay47: Thank you, Puthan, for taking the pains to explain in simple terms the constitution and the powers of the states to come out with laws regarding Islamic matters.

But I must confess that my head is still reeling from the network of Lists, Federal or Concurrent, and Schedules.

I just want to comment on two things. You hold that if a state law is inconsistent with federal law, it must be struck down. But will it?

There will be yahoos like that former judge, and not forgetting our darling inspector-general of police (IGP), who will claim that the law of Allah must prevail over all else.

In Malaysia, there is no such thing as "applicable to Muslims only", if not by law then at least in practice. Like it or not, non-Muslims will be dragged into it.

Simple examples would be lights being not dimmed in cinemas, separate queues for shoppers, and the latest invention, halal trolleys. Once the leak starts, there ain't no going back. -Mkini