Is Malaysia An Islamic or Secular Country (Part II)??

Continuing from my Is Malaysia An Islamic or Secular Country?? published early yesterday, which discussed RPK's question on whether a crescent in a nation's flag would indicate that nation's Islamic status quo, we examine the flags of a few nations which possess a crescent or even a full moon but which surprisingly reveal themselves each to be secular in their respective constitutions.

One (Pakistan) subsequently, 26 years after her secular inception, proclaimed herself officially to be an Islamic nation; noteworthy, it took another 4 years for Pakistan to fully implement syariah laws, then only forcefully under the dictatorship of General Zia.

Just a slight diversion to talk about General Zia. Zia was of course, like most Indian-Pakistan military veterans before the Partition, trained by the British Army. He was stationed in Jordan from 1967 to 1971 to help train Jordanian troops. Controversially, Zia not only did that but led Jordan's Army 2nd Division troops in the Black September crisis (a war within Jordan between Jordanian troops and Palestinian militants) in which 25,000 Palestinians were massacred.

Zia was nearly court-martialed in Pakistan for his involvement in Jordanian affairs beyond that of a training consultant but due to heavy lobbying by his Army mates he escaped indictment to eventually become Pakistan's military dictator just half a decade later.

Strangely, Zia was an admirer to Israel and was quoted in 1981 as saying:

“Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state. Take out the Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.”

Anyway, back to Malaysia - as I mentioned in my previous post, the question and history of Malaysia's constitutional secularity is not unlike that of Bangladesh. Indeed, Malaysia had gone through the exact same process as Bangladesh, that of the formation of a constitutionally secular nation with Islam as the official religion, and that our highest Courts had twice re-affirmed the secularity of our Constitution and nation.

The clearest evidence that Malaysia is a secular nation would be the structure of our Courts.

Take note that the syariah courts are SUBORDINATE to the civil (secular) courts, and limited or restricted to trialing ONLY Islamic moral and family laws, BUT not criminal or constitutional laws.

It's a small sub-branch of the national judiciary with limited duties and powers, unlike the secular civil laws which can trial criminal and constitutional issues. Thus secular civil courts rule supreme in Malaysian judiciary.

In short, syariah courts are limited to dealing with Islamic morality and Muslim family laws such as inheritance. Syariah courts are NOT allowed to deal with criminal or constitutional matters.

Furthermore, syariah courts are limited to court punishments they can award for offenders of Islamic morality laws such as khalwat, adultery, drinking alcohol and not fasting during official fasting periods and such likes.

Above indirectly saying Malaya /Malaysia has always been a secular nation - why? Because one could NOT make Malaysia into an Islamic State unless it was NOT yet an Islamic State (thus a secular state)

Those Islamic morality issues (mentioned just above) are not criminal offences in the civil jurisdiction and unless someone drive after drinking beyond police prescribed upper limits (80 milligrams per decilitre or 100 millilitres) which is considered dangerous driving or sometimes referred to as driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), it's not a criminal offence for non-Muslims to yamseng, wakakaka.

Syariah courts are only allowed to pass down punishments for offenders of Islamic morality issues up to what is popularly known as 3-5-6 (3 years imprisonment, RM5000 fine, 6 strokes of caning).

OTOH, secular civil courts have unlimited latitude in the punishments they can award, including up to the death sentence, the last of which syariah courts are NOT permitted. In fact, to reiterate, syariah courts may NOT trial criminal offences.

So which is far more superior, the Islamic syariah courts or the secular civil courts?

Do not be confused by some civil court judges who are Muslims and who deferred to the jurisdiction of syariah courts especially on cases like custody of the child of mixed marriages (between Muslim and non-Muslim).

As a former AG and once Suhakam Chairman Abu Talib was reported to have said, when informed by human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz that some civil court judges, the moment they detected the faintest whiff of any Islamic element in a case, even though the Islamic connection wasn't the core issue, they would freeze into gutless abdication of their judicial responsibility:

Abu Talib accused the civil court judges of worrying about their promotional prospects as the possible reason for lacking the courage. He said: “The courts have failed to do so (interpret boldly) for the slightest unreasonable reasons in many cases where Islam is merely seen on the surface.”

Anyway, back to topic, the limitation of punishments permitted to syariah courts a la 3-5-6 has been the precise reason PAS party president Hadi Awang has been proposing a private members bill to increase the punishments allowed for the syariah courts from 3-5-6 to 30-100-100, namely:

• from 3 years imprisonment to 30 years
• from RM5000 fine to RM100,000
• from 6 strokes of whipping to 100 lashes

Oh, the poor Muslims. Also see my post PAS loves whipping Muslims kau kau?

But hasn't the very fact of Hadi Awang passing a Bill to amend Act 355 for parliament's approval showed clear evidence of the subordinate nature of the syariah courts, in that they need permission to increase whipping from a mere 6 to a scary horrendous 100 lashes of flogging?

All the above differences between Islamic syariah courts and secular civil courts indicate in no uncertain terms, indeed very explicitly, the superiority of the secular civil courts over the subordinate nature of the Islamic syariah courts, which in turn is clear cut evidence of Malaysia being a secular nation.

If Malaysia is an Islamic nation, then Hadi Awang's private member's Bill to amend Act 355 would have been totally irrelevant, and full Islamic laws would have displaced civil laws long long ago, say, in 2001 when Mahathir declared Malaysia as an Islamic State, and one year later in 2002 when he further announced that Malaysia was not only an Islamic State but a Fundamentalist Islamic State.

See what Lim Kit Siang said regarding that in his post on Mahathir's 617 & 929 Declarations. But don't bother to ask him as by now he mudah lupa macam Melayu, wakakaka.

Additionally, the legal FACT that Malaysia is a secular nation had been attested to on several occasions by at least two Lord Presidents of our Judiciary.

Mahathir was not a judge, let alone a Lord President so his unilateral kerbau in 2002 about Malaysia being a Fundamentalist Islamic State was just opportunistic political hogwash.

Mind you, PAS under Hadi has been stealthily attempting to transform the syariah courts to be equal to the civil courts. We need to watch out for PAS underhanded nastiness.

Conclusion: Malaysia is a secular nation, full stop.