JUNE 7 — I was aghast, not to mention appalled, to read the report of Free Malaysia Today recently quoting our Federal Minister charged with legal affairs, YB Hajjah Nancy Shukri, stating that there is no need to expand the powers of the Syariah courts and that she will not vote if the so-called Hudud Bill is tabled (Nancy will not vote if hudud Bill is tabled, Free Malaysia Today, June 7, 2016)

In justifying her unwarranted and uncalled for actions above, she purports to follow the precedent set by the Chief Minister of her home state of Sarawak, Tan Sri Adenan Satem, who was quoted in the same report as saying that Hudud will never be practised in Sarawak.  “We will not support the so-called hudud Bill. We are a multiracial country. Muslims only constitute 25 per cent of Sarawak’s population. We are not Kelantan. On principle, we are against the hudud Bill,” he was quoted by the above report as saying after chairing a meeting of the PBB Supreme Council.

False and misleading arguments on the Bill’s constitutionality and imagined consequences for human rights aside, both these politicians seem to be ignoring one very salient fact here: that the purported Bill in question has nothing to do with Sarawak in any way whatsoever.

The Bill does, however, have to do with Kelantan, which, unlike Sarawak, is overwhelmingly Malay Muslim in population. The people of Kelantan, by a large majority, also favour the implementation of Hudud law in their state. This is evident from their consistent return of PAS as their party of choice to helm their state government for more than 20 years. PAS in turn has made the implementation of Hudud an unswerving goal of theirs throughout their existence as a political party for 67 years. All the other Malaysian political parties, particularly those who have feigned opposition towards that goal such as PBB, Umno, MCA and DAP, know this full well, and should not pretend otherwise. In a democracy, where the electorate have spoken, their decision should be respected and duly implemented, not stopped or sidestepped based on flimsy reasons as would seem to be the case in our country.  

While, as Tan Sri Adenan rightly pointed out, Sarawak is not Kelantan, he appears to forget that the converse is equally true, namely that Kelantan is not Sarawak. Kelantan, besides being more than 95 per cent Malay Muslim, was a sovereign Malay Muslim Sultanate in the past. As such, Islam and its way of life have long been practised throughout the state’s history, evident by the state’s description of itself as the veranda of Mecca (serambi Mekkah) as well as still widespread use of Arabic script in the state. Islamic ideals were, and still are, the ideals of most of its populace. This may be likened to the state of Utah in the United States, which is founded by those of the Mormon faith and is a haven for Mormonism. But the difference is that while in the United States, the rights of Utah and its Mormon inhabitants to practise their religion freely, including in the public sphere, is generally respected, here, the Kelantanese electorate have consistently been denied by others their own religious liberty to be governed by Islamic laws, including its criminal justice system of Hudud.

Such opposition by these two Sarawakian leaders is all the more baffling when one considers that the same leaders have for a while now asserted, along with their other fellow Sarawakian as well as Sabahan counterparts, that Malaysia was formed in 1963 by an agreement between four states, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, and that the states of Malaya should respect this distinction, as well as the 18 point agreement outlined as the basis for relations between Sarawak and us here in the Peninsula. While this is to be noted, why should only Sarawak be respected, but particular distinctions not be highlighted when it comes to other states, such as Kelantan?

The truth is, the points in the 18 point agreement have already been implemented. Immigration for Sarawak, for example, is controlled by the state government, members of whom have unabashedly abused this power to bar their political opponents from entering the state at practically their own whim and fancy, in spite of the fact that this is certainly not the purpose for letting Sarawak retain its own immigration control. Yet there is almost no question of this power by anyone from the Peninsula outside of Opposition circles.

Further, Nancy and Adanem may talk about defending human rights protected by the Federal Constitution when it comes to this Bill which, besides being wholly constitutional, doesn’t affect them, but one doesn’t remember them voicing out their concern on the suppression of free speech of those political leaders of the Peninsula such as dATUK Seri Azmin Ali, Mentri Besar of Selangor who came over to Sarawak to campaign in his capacity as a PKR leader for the Sarawak state elections only to be barred from entering the state due to what can only be properly described as abuse of Sarawak’s immigration authority by its state government. In case Nancy, in particular, has forgotten, freedom of speech is a constitutional right, too.

Why not reciprocate by extending to Kelantan the same courtesy? Given that the Kelantanese have consistently demanded the implementation of Hudud in their state for more than 20 years, why not accede to their request in the name of democracy as well as mutual respect between states of this federation? Since both have reminded everyone that each state in the federation is to be judged upon its own particular circumstances, it is the only right thing to do. So these leaders should let the Bill pass, then, as well as vote for the same, as the expansion of Shariah court powers has nothing to do with Sarawak if the intention is to provide for the implementation of hudud in Kelantan and only Kelantan.

After all, that is what we are, a federation, not a unitary state. History tells us that all of the states of Malaya, like Sabah and Sarawak previously, have their origins in the form of sovereign entities, but as Malay Muslim Sultanates, each with their own unique set of local circumstances, cultures and values. It was only later, during the rule of the British, that these heretofore independent states were federated into one single entity named Malaya. Later, this entity was itself federated into a larger entity formed with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore and this entity was named Malaysia. Our nature as a federation is in due recognition that while we are united now, such must be subject to the circumstances and distinctions that were in existence prior, not only with respect to Sabah and Sarawak vis-à-vis the Peninsula, but also between the states of the Peninsula themselves. This includes mutual respect for different circumstances in place, not just for Sarawak but also Kelantan.

One supposes however that Kelantan itself must have seen this coming. Hence their decision back in 1963 to challenge the admission of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore into the federation and the creation of Malaysia. Fortunately for those states but unfortunately for Kelantan, the challenge failed and it is not a stretch to conclude that this is the consequence of the failure, namely that the Kelantanese are denied the criminal justice system of their choice in their own territory. Nancy Shukri’s decision to consider only the circumstances of her fellow Sarawakians only, and not our whole federation despite her position as a federal minister, also speaks volumes about how we have a long way to go before respect for state rights throughout our federation becomes a reality.

But this is where we must not let up in our quest for tolerance and mutual respect for one another’s differences. In the name of democracy and religious liberty, particularly the right of Muslims to practice their faith in accordance with Article 11(1) of the Constitution, we, in particular those of us who are Sarawakians but also all other Malaysians, must demand from Nancy and Adenan due respect for the rights of Kelantanese and other Muslim Malaysians to abide by their tenets of their faith, including the realisation of Hudud and the right of Kelantan, as well as any other state, to implement Hudud should they do so in accordance with our democratic structure.

Respect is a two way street, not one, so peoples of all states should work together to realise the kind of federation that is plural, diverse and respects the differences between states as envisioned by our forefathers. This is done not by empty talk of defending supposed violations of human rights where non occur, but by genuinely allowing others to have their own set of laws that accord with their own values and religious beliefs, even those different from one’s own.

*Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi is a lawyer and Chief Executive of Young Professionals, a non-governmental organisation formed for the purpose of defending the supremacy of constitutional ideals in the determination of public affairs.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.