MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

Is the Trengganu Syariah Criminal Bill legal?

The deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, challenges the PAS state administration in Trengganu to refer its Syariah criminal enactment bill to the Attorney-General to attest its legality. Lawyers insist the state has no constitutional or legal authority to enact it. Women groups are up in arms. But none can do anything about it. The time for challenge is past. The National Front (BN) amended the character and form of the Federal constitution to give equal primacy to civil and syariah law. None objected when it was passed into law. The states now can enact Islamic criminah law as part of its powers in the administration of Islamic law. UMNO, when in power in Kelantan and Trengganu, set the ball rolling. And other states the BN controlled followed suit.

The MCA, MIC and Gerakan representatives went along, raising no objection, the opposition given too little time to when the changes were rushed through, often on certificates or urgency. So arrogantly was this done that BN and UMNO cannot in principle object to what Trengganu does. The BN presumption that it alone holds the key to enforcing desirable Islamic laws was misplaced from the start. Once the principle is accepted, BN cannot now complain nor accuse, as Dato' Seri Abdullah did yesterday (07 June 2002), the Trengganu government of arrogance. Where is the arrogance if the state could constitutionally do as it did? Whether it was desirable the law should be enacted is a different matter. And that is where the counter-attack should have been focussed. As it is, the BN is hoist on its own petard. So all it can do is to accuse PAS in Trengganu of arrogance or bad faith. The constitutional principle that it is can is unchallenged.

Dato' Seri Abdullah is right about the Trengganu government's arrogance in forcing the law through. But is this not the same arrogance the BN exhibit when it rushes through important legislation through Parliament on certificates or urgency with the MPs given copies of the bill a few minutes before the session begins? Unfortunately, arrogance is the norm when in power. More so when the aim is to neutralise, frustrate and frighten the non-Malay by introducing laws and constitutional amendments that frightens him to death? BN now stands as the champion of the non-Malay against PAS's deliberate policy of a theocratic state. But who is there to protect the non-Malay from the persistent BN push for one?

The arrest of the DAP chairman, Mr Lim Kit Siang, in Ipoh for sedition, because he distributed a leaflet opposing the imposition of Islamic law, raises an interesting conundrum: it now appears discussing the imposition of Islamic law is a seditious offence. Until now it had to do with questioning Malay rights and privileges, the position of the sultans (unless it is UMNO and BN which questions it), Islam as the official religion, and Malay as the official language. Suddenly, it is now verboten for Malaysians to question if Malaysia is an Islamic state. The police in Ipoh would not have acted except under orders. Did the police consult the Attorney-General Chambers that what it did was correct? If it did, as one must assume it did, it is, willy nilly, now official policy. If it did not, the Attorney-General Chambers should have struck it down. Since that did not, it is fair to assume what the police did had the government's unalloyed blessings.

This is where the frightening reality strikes. The Information Ministry was forced last year to withdraw a publication, written by a religious leader, justifying Malaysia's new status as an Islamic state. It was hastily withdrawn once it became public. Why is it that when Malaysia as an Islamic state is discussed, why do the politicians, including the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, abdicate the defining to the mullahs? Since Malaysia is a multiracial and multireligious country, why is there no serious discussion amongst the various religious and political leaders about what the intention is? As it is, it is forced down one's throat, with no recourse whatsoever. When it is discussed publicly, as Mr Lim discovered, one is arrested for sedition.

At least PAS is honest to make no bones of its theocratic intention, gave sufficient time for public responses before it tabled the bill. Malaysia's emergence as an Islamic state is via an off-the-cuff statement by Dr Mahathir, which the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament) would now allow to be discussed in the House. So, Dato' Seri Abdullah and those who oppose the Syariah Criminal Enactment Bill in Trengganu barks up the wrong tree. All they can is score minor political points of form and raise non-Malay anger; they cannot prevent it. Unless Dato' Seri Abdullah and the BN can come up with cogent constitutional reasons why what Trengganu does is unconstitutional. Because that is the BN's hidden agenda. But when important constitutional and legal enactments are rushed into law without debate or discussion, all that guarantees is a mess. As this issue of Islamic state and law. Whatever the propriety of enacting the syariah criminal law in Trengganu, it does have constitutional sanction. None of those who now object to the Trengganu bill thought to oppose this sanction. And now pays the price.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my