The hidden costs of the hudud law — Roger Teoh

MARCH 22 — All eyes were on the Kelantan State Assembly last Monday where the hudud bill amendments were unanimously approved by all 44 state assemblymen. This is seen as a “backstabbing” move from the Islamic Party of PAS as it is not in accordance to the common framework of Pakatan Rakyat policies.

First of all, it is important to define hudud before proceeding to any further discussion. According to the Oxford Islamic Studies Online, hudud is defined as a class of punishments which some Muslims believe are ordained by God. The punishments range from public execution, stoning to death, lashing and amputation of body parts.

It is clear that many leaders from all sectors have voiced their opinion on the hudud matter, stating that it is not suitable for a multicultural Malaysian society. Despite that, it is important to point out that current discussions of the hudud law does not take into account various other consequences after punishments are carried out to a particular individual.

Economic costs

The main economic costs of the hudud law is the relegation of an individual to being a disabled person, in other words, becoming an Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU). This would almost certainly mean that an amputee will find it more difficult to start their lives again, obstructing their progress to secure a proper job in the future, again contributing to further consequences.

Although hudud may serve as a good deterrence and lessen the repetition of crimes, but does this warrant a seriously aggressive punishment such that it could possibly permanently disable a person, figuratively and literally?

Looking at a particular issue on theft, I strongly believe the authorities should first try to understand the cause of a particular individual committing a crime. For instance, it could not be the intention for someone to steal, but due to the bad economy, high cost of living and unemployment, these factors would leave a theft no choice but to commit a crime.

As a result of that, the aftermath of hudud law is equivalent to reducing a potential useful labour from society. This is not to discriminate disabled people, but it would definitely hinder the chances of a particular individual from re-contributing to society and the Malaysian economy.

Not only that, the government and society too has to bear the unaccounted and unnecessary cost of permanent lifetime support for an amputee since they would not, or have, minimal income. Therefore, this is a double whammy for both the authorities and the convict.

Social costs

Most of the religious practices in this world teache its followers to be forgiving, as well as having an ideology of a forgiving God. However, in comparison with current accepted laws of jail punishment, the hudud law is seen as an irreversible scar which permanently robs the future and freedom of a convict.

Not to forget, there were even suggestions by Datuk Mohd Amar Abdullah from the Kelantan State Hudud Law Technical Committee on November 2014, suggesting the use of small guillotines to carry out hudud amputations without anaesthetics.

By using such cruel, inhumane, uncivilised and primitive ways to carry out punishments, is there even a difference between the hudud proposers and the mindset of the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria? What would the implementation of hudud law then mean to international observers? This will definitely tarnish the image of Malaysia, who will be viewed as a moderate Islamic country, no longer.

Finally, the most important factor surrounding the hudud debate is the presence of a free and fair judiciary system. Regardless of any laws or policies that are proposed, it would certainly not work without a fair judiciary system in Malaysia.

The hudud law will almost certainly have the potential to be misused by certain quarters for their own benefits, which the consequences of it will be even greater than current practices.

Final thoughts

In this era of globalisation, rather than moving into regression and hinder the development for human rights and society, it is vital for traditional ulamas in PAS to think of ways to ensure the values of Islam is upheld at present day and maintains its relevance in the 21^st century.

Perhaps too, that the proposers of hudud should look into the modernisation of progressive and moderate Islamic countries around the world such as Turkey, Indonesia, Bahrain and so on, with the countries transforming and prospering without any negative consequences.

* Roger Teoh is a third-year undergraduate studying civil engineering at The University of Manchester.

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