For me, the recent co-announcement by
Malaysia’s Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) and the Home Ministry
pertaining to the establishment of “Syariah police” is seen as detrimental and
unconstitutional. As relayed by the Ministry, these would-be formed Syariah cops will “help to facilitate the
incumbent police system vis-à-vis Syariah law’s implementation in Malaysia”.
This matter particularly needs
attention from each and every Malaysian, and not only Muslims per se. The
Malaysian Government is intentionally trying to bring another enforcement
agency into the national picture to further fortify security and objectives of
Syariah laws. Constitutionally, Islamic affairs, as dictated by the Ninth
Schedule of Federal Constitution, fall under the jurisdiction of the states.
Establishing Syariah cops, will only infringe on this provision of the
Constitution as this Syariah police will be placed under JAKIM (which is a
federal department) and will have its status in par with the existing police
system. Plus, JAKIM not being an enforcement authority cannot train and hold
power over an enforcement agency.
Enforcement of Islamic affairs is best
and ought to be left at the hands of the State Governments. Enough already the
“intrusion” of the Federal Government in the matters of Islam through the
establishment of JAKIM and National Fatwa Council (which are not under the
control of the State Governments). And now, Syariah Police?
Concerns on the Constitution aside, will
the formation of Syariah police be significant to the process of Malaysia’s
Islamisation? It will be extremely, like it or not. These Syariah cops will be
powered to enforce their authority on anyone who offends the state from the
Syariah perspective. And let just say, the Allah term imbroglio is re-ignited
or it could just be any other case, concerning to Islam and other religions,
these Syariah police will be tasked to intervene and this could apparently trouble
the non-Muslims in practising their freedom of religion. Even without these
“religious police”, we already had an issue in Selangor where the Bible Society
of Malaysia was raided with the help of ordinary police. Do we want to see a
repetition, perhaps a more severe one?
MALAYSIA’S
ISLAMISATION
Contrary to the popular belief,
Malaysia is NOT an Islamic state. Proponents of the “Islamic Malaysia” often
cite Article 3 of the Constitution which proclaims Islam as the official
religion of the administration. However, these people fail to understand that
there are three solid points to deny the “hopeful hope”:
11. A
“White Paper” titled Constitutional Proposal for The Federation of Malaya which
acts as precedent to the Constitution after negotiations with various
stakeholder, clearly dictates Malaysia to be a SECULAR STATE.
22. Islam’s
role in Malaysia is only to be ceremonial i.e. in the solemnisation of the
King.
33. The
first three Prime Ministers of Malaysia have referred to Malaysia as secular
state in their public statements until the fourth PM “declares” Malaysia as an
Islamic state “illegally” in September 2001.
The process of Islamising Malaysia has
taken us into the job of creating two systems in many areas; one for the
Muslims and another for the non-Muslims. For this article, let me just touch on
the Syariah Law system. Since the genesis of a parallel Syariah Legal System in
1988, this has inevitably created disparity amongst the Muslims and
non-Muslims.
Non-Muslims cannot be represented in
Syariah courts as it is exclusive to our Muslim brothers and sisters only.
Therefore, this has created confusion and many on-going complexities in our
judiciary system, and leaving the non-Muslims in most situations, troubled.
For example, the case of Shyamala
Sathiaseelan. Following her husband’s conversion into Islam, he sought for the
religion conversion and custodial rights of the children. Poor Shyamala who
could not be represented in the Syariah Court, has been denied for a fair legal
service. In the end, the court has given her husband the rights to take the
children into care. This is certainly lop-sided, in which judgement is meted
out only by hearing from one side.
Second, the case of M.Moorthy, a crew member of
the first two Malaysians who scaled Mt. Everest. After his death, Syariah
officers came to “seize” his body, claiming that late Moorthy has converted
into Islam previously. No thanks to the Syariah legal system, once again,
Moorthy’s family was denied a fair trial and like anyone could guess, late
Moorthy was given an Islamic burial.
Thirdly, the case of M. Indira which
is an on-going case. After her husband’s conversion, he managed to get
custodial rights and religion conversion for his children through the Syariah
Court. However, as Indira filed a suit in the civil court, she was given the
custodial rights by the High Court judge. This has led to contradicting judgements
from the two legal systems. From one point, the husband is the victor and from
the another, M.Indira is the victor. The fact that Article 121 says that Civil
Courts cannot interfere into the jurisdictions of the Syariah Courts, further
aggravates the fiasco.
HUDUD LAW?
Then, there are proponents of a
Syariah-based punishment system in Malaysia. Ruling coalition and oppositions
alike, have both supported and denied the establishment of hudud law in
Malaysia. The supporters, like always ambitious, claim that Hudud will be
exclusive to the Muslims only, and the non-Muslims will not be subjected to
this Islamic law. My question, while Syariah
legal system is meant to be exclusive to Muslims only, didn’t it cause trouble
in the lives of the non-Muslims?
CONCLUSION
Malaysia is best to be left as a
secular state. Yes, Muslims are the majority (60%), but it doesn’t mean that
the nation has to be conferred with an Islamic status. Let us all, Muslims and
non-Muslims alike, strive to create a fair and equal Malaysia for everyone.
Say NO to
Syariah police and any other system that seeks to differentiate the brothers
and sisters of Malaysia.
