The Status of Malaysia as ISLAMIC STATE or SECULAR STATE Was Determined By Only Five Supreme Court Judges?
It looks like, out of a sudden, the Pakatan coalition is in DEEP TROUBLE. PKR divisional ‘cabang’ general meetings have been marred by FRACAS, BRAWLS, and even PHYSICAL ATTACKS AND FIGHTINGS. What a ‘revealation’ for a party which was formed mainly to promore DEMOCRACY, JUSTICE and RULES OF LAW. Events of the past few days did not only tarnish the image of PKR, but the events TARNISHED the image of Malaysia too in the eyes of the world.
Not enough with that, PAS and DAP, the other two partners in the Pakatan coalition, out of a sudden, are deeply embroiled in ‘constitutional debate’ on the subject of Islamic laws, hudud and questions as to whether Malaysia is ISLAMIC STATE or SECULAR STATE. Today, Malaysia Today, highlighted the ISLAMIC STATE or SECULAR STATE debates again by taking up the newspiece as follows:
DAP will not compromise on hudud issue, says Karpal
(The Star) – DAP will not depart from its stand that Malaysia should not be an Islamic country.
DAP chairman Karpal Singh said PAS should not infringe the ruling by the five-men bench Supreme Court ruling in 1988, which decreed that the country is governed by secular laws.
“This ruling is not overturned and therefore the decision still stands.
“PAS has to accept the Supreme Court’s pronunciation,” he told a press conference at the Air Itam market yesterday.
He was commenting on PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi’s statement that it would continue to push for the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia despite fierce objection from the DAP…..”
What tickled me in the above newspiece is the BASIS of argument used by Karpal Singh to support his STRONG CONTENTION that Malaysia is a SECULAR STATE…… a ruling in 1988 by a panel of 5 Supreme Court(now Federal Court) judges. From what we understand, the ruling was made on a ‘specific and isolated case’. The panel of 5 judges DID NOT sit down specifically to determine whether Malaysia was ISLAMIC STATE or SECULAR STATE. Despite that, Karpal Singh seems to depend mainly on this ruling to support his obsessionbe for SECULAR STATE.
What Karpal fails to see is that, our Federal Constitution accomodated BOTH, the British Common Laws and certain Islamic Laws. Besides spelling out that ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’, our Constitution also allows for ‘parallel existence’ of both the SYARIAH COURT and the CIVIL/CRIMINAL COURTS. In certain matters, the SYARIAH COURT reigns supreme. He also fails to note how the Federal Constitution allows the ISLAMIC MATTERS beeing administered by respectives states in the Federation under the Malay Sultans.
There will be no end to LEGAL ARGUMENTS on whether Malaysia is ISLAMIC OR SECULAR. Besides the ‘court ruling’ on specific and isolated case which Karpal Singh holds firmly as the ‘final verdict’ on the issue, the re IS NOT even a single word ‘secular’ in our Constitution. Had Karpal been a PRO-Islamic State lawyer, I’m certain that he would find more evidence in our Constitution itself confirming that MALAYSIA IS AN ISLAMIC STATE.
I wonder how much of Karpal Singh interpretation of our laws is DRIVEN by his political affiliations. The way he MISUSED the legal processes in DELAYING Anwar’s ‘sodomy trial’ is enough clue as to where he stands.comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.