HARD-TALK WITH MALAYSIA’S 7TH PRIME MINISTER

Personally I have no problems with Sharia laws. I admit at times they are in fact better than common laws. And as a Muslim I cannot reject Sharia laws. I am forced to accept them. But I am looking at this issue from the political aspect. Our partners in the coalition do not accept Sharia laws so we can’t openly support them. Privately that is another matter. We support the Sharia. We just can’t admit openly that we do. That is all.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Datuk Seri, your party is touting you as Malaysia’s seventh Prime Minister. But then, if your party wins the next general election, your wife will be taking over as Prime Minister while awaiting your release from jail before you take over. Would that not make her the seventh Prime Minister and you the eighth?

No, officially I will be the seventh Prime Minister and that is why we have listed my wife as the interim Prime Minister. If she is named Malaysia’s seventh Prime Minister then you are right, I will be the eighth Prime Minister. But since she is the interim Prime Minister then I will be the seventh and not the eight Prime Minister.

But why can’t you list her as the seventh Prime Minister and you become the eighth Prime Minister? After all that is what is really happening, is it not?

But then that would make her officially a Prime Minister and I would be listed as her successor. We don’t want that. That is why it is very important that she is not officially a Prime Minister. That would mean after this current Prime Minister I will be the Prime Minister. I am the successor to the current Prime Minister, not a successor to my wife.

Why is it so important that you are the successor to the current Prime Minister and not a successor to your wife?

It’s a matter of image. In other countries such as India and the Philippines, and even almost in the United States quite recently, the wives succeed the husbands and not the other way around. Also there would be allegations of nepotism if my wife is the seventh Prime Minister and I am the eighth. This way there is no nepotism and I would not be succeeding my wife but I would be succeeding the current Prime Minister.

However you may want to do it or label it everyone will still know your wife is the seventh Prime Minister and you are the eighth.

That is okay. That is unofficial. Officially we must not admit this, though. So Malaysia currently has the sixth Prime Minister, my wife will be the interim Prime Minister, and I will be the seventh Prime Minister. That is how history will remember it and that is how the history books will mention it.

Okay, let us move on to a more important topic, the issue of Sharia laws, which caused the breakup up of the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat. How are you going to address this very crucial issue?

What is there to address? Sharia laws are not an issue. We have always had Sharia laws long before the country was granted independence.

Yes, but now it has become an issue.

Only because there are attempts to amend these laws. If we leave those laws alone and do not amend them then there is no issue. The issue is regarding the amendments to the Sharia laws and not about the law itself.

But then those proposing the amendments say that Malaysia’s Sharia laws do not properly follow what Islam stipulates and therefore the need to amend them to follow, say, the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sunnah.

That may be true. But we cannot suddenly start changing things without first explaining to the people, educating them, and preparing them for these changes.

But that is precisely what PAS is saying. PAS said we have been educating and explaining the Sharia to the people since 1951, which is 66 years or three generations ago. How long do you want to keep educating and explaining the Sharia to Malaysians? If these people still oppose the amendments to the Sharia after 66 years is it not because of other reasons rather than because of lack of understanding or education regarding the Sharia?

Maybe so but we cannot force the people to accept these laws. We need them to willingly accept these laws. So we need to explain these laws and educate the people until they are ready and willing to accept them.

Which laws that Malaysia implements are done this way?

What do you mean?

Which laws that have been passed by Parliament over 60 years since 1957 have first been explained to the people and only after the people have been property educated about these laws and accept them does Parliament pass them into law? Take the detention-without-trial or anti-terrorism laws as one example. Did the government first educate Malaysians about these laws and only after Malaysians accept them Parliament passed them into law?

Those are not religious laws. We are talking about Sharia laws, which are religious laws. When it comes to religious laws we must first educate the people and explain these laws to the people and only after they accept these laws can we implement them. For common laws we can pass them into law without consulting the people.

Why?

What do you mean why?

Why do you not need to educate the people and explain to the people and only after they accept these laws do you pass them into law when it comes to religious laws but not for common laws even when the common laws are more draconian than religious laws?

For example?

Well, for example the law regarding the crime of waging war against the King. They will hang you under common laws for this crime but under Sharia laws if you lay down your arms and swear to end the war you will receive a pardon and will not be put to death. Malaysia has hanged people for waging war against the King but if under Sharia laws these people would not have been put to death.

I don’t get your point.

Oh, never mind. So you say Malaysia must not allow the implementation of religious laws unless the people are first consulted and agree to these laws. But you do not need to do this for common laws.

That is correct.

Okay, so what about crimes such as sodomy or homosexuality? Are these not also religious-based laws?

No, they are common laws.

I know they are common laws. But they are religious-based laws. Malaysia’s laws are British laws and British laws originated from church laws. So sodomy or homosexuality are crimes in Malaysia because the church made them crimes. These are basically divine laws.

But those are not officially under Sharia laws.

They may not be called Sharia laws but they are Abrahamic laws and thus in essence are Sharia laws. It is merely a matter of labelling. They are not labelled Sharia laws but they are Sharia laws nevertheless. Why should someone, say like you, be put in jail for sodomy or homosexuality when those crimes are religious crimes and therefore, by your own definition of crimes, should not be considered crimes?

That argument does not apply.

But why not? Did you not try to get the Sharia court to overturn your conviction by the common law court on grounds that your crime comes under religious laws and not common laws? So even you regard sodomy and homosexuality as religious crimes and not common law crimes. Should these crimes not be decriminalised then?

Under Sharia laws I would not be convicted and sent to jail for five years.

So you are admitting that at times Sharia laws are better than common laws.

Well…sort of.

So what is your problem with Sharia laws when you yourself have tried to use them in your defence?

I think you misunderstand me. Personally I have no problems with Sharia laws. I admit at times they are in fact better than common laws. And as a Muslim I cannot reject Sharia laws. I am forced to accept them. But I am looking at this issue from the political aspect. Our partners in the coalition do not accept Sharia laws so we can’t openly support them. Privately that is another matter. We support the Sharia. We just can’t admit openly that we do. That is all.

So you are taking a political and not religious stand regarding the Sharia?

That is correct!