Press Statement by Karpal Singh in Kuala Lumpur on
Sunday, 11th January 2009:
Civil law for all Malaysians
It appears that both PAS and PKR are
for the introduction of hudud laws in the country. Yesterday in Kuching,
PKR adviser, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, said, “If the Muslims want to
have their own Islamic laws, there is no need for the Christians to be
unhappy. The same goes for the Muslims, they should not get angry if the
Christians want to do thing their way.”
I find it extremely difficult to comprehend what Anwar means by the
phrase “Muslims should not get angry if the Christians want to do things
their way”. He does not say that Muslims should not get angry if
Christians wanted to have their own Christian laws.
PAS president, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, says hudud laws would be for
Muslims and non-Muslims could opt to be tried by hudud law or civil law.
This argument is illogical. What would happen if there are two
co-accused, a Muslim and a non-Muslim, with the Muslim opting for hudud
law and the non-Muslim for civil law? How would the courts get out of
this dilemma?
But the point which ought not to be missed, which has been missed by
both Anwar and Hadi Awang is that the Federal Constitution provides for
one uniform law, namely, civil law for both Muslims and non-Muslims
across the board.
The framers of the Federal Constitution did not envisage parallel
criminal laws for Muslims and non-Muslims. What was intended was a
uniform criminal law on both Muslims and non-Muslims with that
jurisdiction conferred on the courts in the country by Federal law. It
should not be forgotten that the framers of the Federal Constitution
included two eminent Muslim jurists, namely, Hakim B. Malik of India and
Hakim Abdul Hamid of Pakistan with Lord William Reid together with Sir
Ivor Jennings of Britain and Sir William McKell of Australia. The
Constitution, therefore, was a product of the best brains in the
Commonwealth who were not solely Christians. Both the Muslim jurists who
worked on what was to be included in the Constitution were well aware of
the multi-religious set up of the country in 1957 with the paramount
need to have Islam as the official religion of the country not
forgetting that the basic structure of the Constitution had to be
secular in nature.
The Federal Constitution is required to be amended only through a
two-third majority in Parliament. An amendment cannot include
destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution. That would go
beyond amendment. The framers of the Constitution did not have in mind a
complete substitution of the basic structure of that sacred document
even by a two-third majority in Parliament.
The call by both PAS and PKR to have hudud laws applicable to Muslims
with an option given to non-Muslims to choose between hudud law and
civil law would, and must, mean the introduction of an Islamic state
which would mean destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution.
That eventuality cannot come about even with any party having a
two-third majority in Parliament.
The political statement by Dr Mahathir Mohammad, when he was Prime
Minister in September 2001, that Malaysia was an Islamic state is devoid
of any meaning or substance and cannot withstand close scrutiny. Dr
Mahathir is obviously ignorant of the provisions relating to Malaysia
being a secular state.
After 51 years of independences, secular law has been accepted by both
Muslims and non-Muslims in the country. Any attempt by any quarter to
bring about a change in that equation would mean a defiance of the
Constitution.
I call upon both PAS and PKR to cease and desist from further clamouring
for the impossible and accept that hudud laws have no place in our
statute books. The peace and harmony among the races of different faiths
in the country should not be threatened by attempts to emasculate the
Federal Constitution.
The DAP is prepared to cooperate with PAS and the Pakatan Rakyat subject
to the caveat that both PAS and PKR do not attempt to destroy the
Federal Constitution by insisting on introduction of hudud laws, the
prerequisite of which is the setting up of an Islamic state, which is
unacceptable to the DAP as a matter of principle. It has been said in
politics there are no permanent enemies or friends, but the need to have
permanent principles must remain sacrosanct for any political party
worth its name to be acceptable to the rakyat.
* Karpal Singh, DAP National Chairman & MP for Bukit
Gelugor
http://dapmalaysia.org