Introduction
Let me state my stance before entering into the discussion below, so that it helps the readers to follow my arguments easier. My position on Act 355, also known as Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, and the recent Kelantan government’s ruling on the dress code for Muslim women is that, although I do not object to these, I would not actively pledge my support for it. However, I object to the recent controversy pertaining Timah Whiskey (including seeking for a name change and for the closure of production).
Avoid Objecting for the Sake of Objecting
Why do my positions differ on these issues? This is because I believe that rationality should prevail when differentiating between Islamic Law and Islamic public policy. Freedom of religion is mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia through Article 11 and its sub-clauses while Act 355 has clearly stated that Syariah Law can only be confined to Muslims. Therefore, I do not object to both the amendment of Act 355 that was and will be brought up by PAS, or the current ruling by the state government of Kelantan on the wearing of women by invoking Syariah Law. This is mainly because these issues that derived from Syariah Law or its relevance has no impact and cannot have any repercussion on me as a non-Muslim. It will be a different debate if I, or any other non-Muslim, wish to argue for the welfare and interest of the Muslim community on whether those Syariah Laws are reasonable. Such debate will centre on whether those provisions are ideal to govern the Muslim community in such a way. However, if the non-Muslim community opposes these two rulings for the interest of non-Muslims, then my response is that the two issues have no jurisdiction onto us. So, I do not see the locus standi for the non-Muslim community to object to such rulings which again, clearly states that it will only affect Muslims.
So, what if religious extremists amended the law to include non-Muslims? Under such circumstances, non-Muslims will have the locus standi to oppose such amendments. I, however, feel that it is unfair to presume that because such extremists are doing A now, they will be doing B in the future. First, it is not certain that because extremists succeed in getting A passed, B will be passed easily in the future as well. An example will be the amendment of Act 355 (A) and the introduction of Hudud Law (B). To amend Act 355, only a simple majority is needed, which is highly possible. However, this does not mean that the passing of Act 355 Amendment will clear the passageway for Hudud Law to be passed. This is because the requirement for Hudud Law to be passed is that the Bill must gain two-third majority support in the Parliament. Second, if a government stubbornly insists on pushing for Islamic public policy to be materialised (such as closing down non-Syariah compliant industries or giving such industries a hard time during licencing and monitoring), the government does not even need to get A (using back the example above, Act 355) to be passed in the first place. In short, stopping a Syariah law (or its amendments) to be passed does little in helping safeguard the interest of non-Muslims. It is reasonable to object if the objection is intended to oppose such an amendment or ruling, but if objection is conducted for the sake of objecting and without understanding the issue well, this is going to incite tensions between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. A simple mental exercise is to switching roles; what will the Chinese community feel when Malay extremists object Chinese education (be it vernacular school and UEC recognition) for the sake of objecting and without understanding why.
The above argument leads to my next argument on Islamic public policy. When we talk about public policy, such as the production of alcohol, the operation of bars and pubs, the legalisation of gambling outlets, and the attire worn by non-Muslims, it is reasonable for the community to object such public policy that they deem unfavourable. This is because such ruling is no longer confined to Muslims but has impinge on the interest of non-Muslims.
Timah Whiskey Controversy: A Problem-Solution Mismatch
A case in point is the recent Timah Whiskey controversy. One of the reasons put forth by Muslim groups (which I doubt their representativeness) is because the name and the picture may mislead Muslims and challenge their faith. For the sake of argument, will these groups retract their objections if the situation is unchanged except for the inclusion of clearly positioned labels that either state it is an alcoholic beverage or meant for consumption by non-Muslims? There is a Malay saying, if you do not know how to dance, you blame that the floor is moving. However, in multi-religious Malaysia, it is essential to not look down on any religion. Every adherent of faith understands the religious restrictions that are obligated on them. We also must believe and acknowledge each other’s strong faith in our respective religions that should remain unshaken for menial acts. For example, I believe that food consumed by non-Muslims during Ramadhan will not cause their Muslim counterparts to breach their fast. Similarly, the operation of alcohol production factories and gambling outlets will not cause Muslims to lose their faith. In the unlikely event that they do, then the problem is a weakness of faith which should be of primary concern for groups objecting to such factories and outlets. Closing down alcohol production to protect Muslim’s faith is akin to asking women to fully cover to control the lust of rapists; banning mobile phones to avoid people from gaming addiction; and banning all vehicles on the road to avoid accidents. There is a saying in Chinese; there is no need to use a knife meant to slay a cow to slaughter a chicken. In short, this is a problem-solution mismatch.
In conclusion, I urge non-Muslims to be rational in their objection. Do not hijack the Syariah Laws or its rulings and objecting to it for the sake of objecting without understand whether they have the locus standi to do so or whether such rulings have repercussions on them. Similarly, to the Muslim groups, do not blame the freedom of non-Muslims as a threat to their Muslim faith. Elucidate the cause of the problem empirically and deal with the solution scientifically, instead of randomly pointing fingers.
