Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor’s sarcastic invitation for Ramkarpal Singh to lecture Muslims about gambling is a cheap diversion from the constitutional issue that Sanusi has failed to answer.
Ramkarpal did not ask Muslims to gamble. He asked the Kedah government to respect the court’s decision and focus on preventing Muslims from gambling through education and enforcement.
Federal licensing conditions for these lottery outlets already prohibit Muslims and those below 21 from entering. If Sanusi believes enforcement is inadequate, he should strengthen it, educate Muslims and act firmly against illegal gambling syndicates. He should not use enforcement failures as an excuse to deny non Muslims their lawful choices.
The court case was never about whether gambling is morally desirable. The issue was whether Kedah could use local council licensing powers to impose a statewide ban on an activity regulated by the Federal Government.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Kedah had exceeded its constitutional powers. The Federal Court then refused Kedah permission to appeal, leaving that ruling in force. Sanusi lost the constitutional argument. His response now is to replace legal reasoning with sarcasm and portray anyone defending constitutional limits as supporting gambling. That is dishonest politics.
This is not merely about gambling. It is about defending the constitutional rights of non-Muslims to equality, religious freedom and protection from religious prohibitions applicable only to Muslims being imposed on them by the state. Every government must respect those rights, remain within its constitutional powers and not use local licensing as a back door to control the lawful choices of non-Muslims.
Sanusi must now answer a more fundamental question. If PAS believes that something prohibited or disapproved of by PAS must therefore be prohibited for every Malaysian, where will it stop?
After gambling, will PAS use government and local council powers to close alcohol outlets, ban the sale of pork, restrict dog ownership and prohibit other lawful practices associated with the non-Muslim way of life?
These are not unreasonable questions. They follow directly from the principle Sanusi is advancing, that PAS may use political power to turn its religious and moral preferences into compulsory rules for everyone.
Non-Muslims are not asking PAS to approve of gambling, alcohol, pork or dog ownership. They are asking PAS to respect that Malaysia is a multiracial and multireligious constitutional federation.
Respecting the rights of non-Muslims does not compel any Muslim to gamble, drink alcohol, eat pork or keep a dog. Likewise, protecting Muslims from activities prohibited by their faith does not require those activities to be banned for every non-Muslim.
We recognise that gambling can cause addiction, debt and serious harm to families. Licensed gambling should be strictly regulated, illegal gambling must be fought aggressively, and addiction prevention must be strengthened. Regulation is not endorsement. Opposing an unconstitutional blanket ban is not promoting gambling.
If PAS intends to outlaw all licensed gambling nationwide, it should say so clearly, present its proposal at the federal level and seek an explicit mandate from Malaysians. Voters deserve to decide whether they want a Malaysia in which PAS’s religious prohibitions are imposed on every community. PAS must not use local council licensing powers as a back door to accomplish what a state government has no constitutional authority to do.
Sanusi should stop mocking Ramkarpal and answer Malaysians directly. Does PAS accept that religious prohibitions applicable to Muslims should not automatically be imposed on non-Muslims? If PAS captures Putrajaya, will gambling be only the beginning?