Malay Mail Online - DAP, MCA, Gerakan can meet, so why not PAS and Umno? Hadi asks (extracts):
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 27 — Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang has written a scathing remark today against critics of his private member’s Bill calling for the upgrade of the Shariah courts, ahead of a rally in support of himself next month.
The PAS president has defended his party and Umno for coming together on the issue, comparing the cooperation to other purported meets between opposition party DAP and Barisan Nasional components MCA and Gerakan.
“It is very unfortunate for those who are uneasy with the meeting between two parties Umno, PAS and Islamic NGOs because of the discussion on the issue of RUU355, but is easy with the meeting between DAP, MCA, Gerakan and so on?” he said in a statement.
RUU355 is the Malay acronym for the Bill for Act 355, or the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, that Hadi aims to amend.
Of course you can, Pak Haji, but I thought I would remind you (as Maddy said Melayu mudah lupa, wakakaka) that the last time the DAP, MCA and Gerakan met in a significant manner was in October 1987 which as we all know, ended up in Ops Lalang, under Mahathir's government.
Thus those DAP, MCA and Gerakan did meet but Ops Lalang saw the ISA-ing of those Chinese leaders.
Yes, Lim Kit Siang was one of those who was incarcerated by Mahathir's government.
But I doubt when you and Najib meet, the current PM will ISA you and himself, wakakaka, though mind you, it may not be a bad idea, wakakaka again.
Secondly, the meeting you proposed to have with, in the words of your own party, the Iblis-ish party, wakakaka, has to do with your bill to amend Act 355, which allows the syariah courts to impose punishments on offenders of Islamic laws on social morality such as Khalwat, adultery, fasting, etc, and ...
... of course Muslim family laws such as inheritance issue eg. when a person who was supposedly a Hindu dies, but whose only brother, a Muslim, said the deceased covertly converted to Islam before he died, to wit, became a Muslim, do his properties go to his Muslim brother or his Hindu wife who has no idea of the deceased's conversion to Islam?
Anyway, your proposed Bill to amend Act 355 (in Bahasa UUC355) seeks to allow the subordinate syariah courts to award hudud style punishment (short of the death penalty which in Islamic countries is known to be either by decapitation or stoning). I have to admit I am not sure about amputation, but rest assure, a few Muslim doctors will do the necessary.
Currently the subordinate syariah court is only allowed to award limited punishments popularly known as 3-5-6, those being 3 years imprisonment, fines up to RM5,000 and no more than 6 stroke of the cane.
Your proposed Bill seeks to increase 3-5-6 to what will undeniably be a most unpopular 30-100-100.
Obviously you like to add noughts on to simple numerals. I wonder what Freudian hang ups you have had from your mathematics class or teacher?
The last time the Act was amended was about 20 years ago which saw no one interested in its amendment and which passed quietly, unlike your recent proposed private member Bill.
The reason being, as Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, former chief justice of Malaysia, tells us, is that the 1st amendment to Act 355 was proposed by the judiciary, members of the bench who based their proposal twenty years ago based on their experiences on the bench.
Now in your case, you are NOT a member of the bench who has considerable experience on all sorts of crimes and offences and what punishments would be commensurate with those naughtiness. You are but a politician who, as we all know of most politicians, is either proposing the amendment for ulterior political purposes, as Mahathir did in 2002, when he arbitrarily declared Malaysia a fundamentalist Islamic nation (as was informed to us by Lim Kit Siang who is just another bloody politician today) or ...
Oh, one of your ardent supporters said you merely want to increase whipping from 6 to 100 lashes to conform to Islamic requirements. Does that mean you will NEXT ask for the syariah courts to also deal with criminal offences (which they are not allowed to currently as crimes are the domain of the civil courts while syariah courts are restricted to Islamic moral offences) including punishments such as amputation of limbs and stoning to death or by decapitation?
By the by, the Law Council stated: There is no need for the bill to specifically mention the term “Hudud”, or any other offence for that matter. As long as it provides for punishment that corresponds to Hudud offences, the State Legislative Assemblies are free to create Hudud offences ...
In other words, if the Bill is passed as amended, Kelantan can still proceed to implement three hudud offences. The Deputy Prime Minister was therefore wrong in saying that the Bill is not about Hudud. The Bill does not need to mention Hudud, to be about Hudud. All it has to do is to provide for the sentence as prescribed under the Quran and Sunnah.
Lastly but not least, when Act 355 is amended, it is not only Kelantan which can have hudud-type punishments but also other states (if they wish to) because Act 355 is a federal bill which applies to every state.