The DPMs folly

The 1957 social construction declares that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of this nation. Either it is or it is not.

In any Islamic state, the supreme law of the land is the Syariah law which encompasses all areas of life and is not simply limited to personal and family law; as is the legal case in Malaysia.

Equally, Islamic jurisprudence would define all aspects of life and living. Strictly also, in an Islamic state, which is organisationally a theocracy, the mullahs or the ayatollahs are the head of state.

In our case the Yang DiPertuan Agong is the head of state, as elected and selected by his peers in the Council of Rulers.

These have all been our constitutional accommodations at our point of birth. Can we now choose to rewrite them without impunity; 50 years after the fact?

I sincerely hope that the deputy prime minister (DPM) will recognise the folly of stating a blatant and total untruth about a historical, legal and legitimate truth full of evidence. He should be ashamed of himself, having been trained as a lawyer. Even politicians are subject to historical facts and legitimate concessions.

While many have argued that he may have been playing to the gallery; that is no excuse for such irresponsible and anti-national behaviour! As the deputy chairperson of the multi-racial Barisan Nasional (BN), he cannot simply shoot his mouth off simply to play to the Umno gallery. His full constituent gallery always includes all invited and already seated members of the BN at the table.

Moreover, based on the Integrity Agenda of the government, it can be assumed that all government leaders must establish congruence between their thoughts, words and deeds. Furthermore they must be integrated with integrity.

Is the DPM therefore really suggesting that he is prepared to come under the spot light of inspection based on Syariah rules in all and every area of his personal and public life? In an Islamic sate these regulations are executed as interpreted by the Council of Ulama. Is he really saying then that one day soon even the Council of Rulers may need to make way for the Council of Ulama? Does he understand what he is really saying?

Withdraw statement

In direct response to this categorical and historic untruth, two religion-based organisations, which are not political parties, but which represent at least 45 percent of the non-Muslim faithful have come out with their explicit statements of disagreement.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia in its statement insisted that \’Malaysia is a constitutional democracy\’. The newspapers were instructed not to sensationalise this issue and therefore readers will probably not read these statements. Ignorance is bliss.

I would like to add to their views and state categorically that Malaysia is both a constitutional democracy and constitutional monarchy. Both these are secular concepts and therefore cannot be considered Islamic ideology by any stretch of imagination.

Malaysia can never become an Islamic state without fundamental and major amendments to the constitution and doing away with the Council of Rulers. The primacy of the constitution means that this defines rules and regulations in the public spaces, not some set of fixed religious rules. Even the air that we breathe is constitutional, not Islamic, air.

This premise of multi-culturalism and multi-religious construction is already embedded in the constitution. It is a reflection of acceptance of diversity in value systems, for instance, accommodating pig-farming as part and parcel of Chinese culture and the building of temples, churches and other places of worship. The constitution guarantees such freedom of religion. This cannot and will not happen in an Islamic state as a theological and ideological entity.

In our particular case, the civil laws define all rights, duties and freedoms, and further define all our civil liberties in the public domain. Religious matters were designed to remain in the private domain, at least as originally constructed.

The concept of an Islamic state is riddled with unresolved issues even among Muslim scholars, with differing opinions and views related to respective interpretive privileges and biases. As is evident from the inability of PAS-led Kelantan government to implement and enforce its version of the Islamic state, the legal issues and constitutional limitations are very obvious.

An ordinary citizen like me cannot understand why the son of our second prime minister would blunder so seriously. I am not sure what his real motivation is. I am thoroughly confused. Is this all another wayang kulit to build up towards the general election?

It would be prudent for the DPM to withdraw his mis-statement and categorically apologise to the nation for this major boo-boo. It is my personal view that he cannot continue as the deputy head of BN and as DPM because he may not command the majority support even within his cabinet.

Even if all the Umno members blindly accept his newfound worldview and interpretation, I am sure that all the 10 ministers who had handed the last protest note to the prime minister may be hard-pushed this time to back off.

Religious groups have delivered their verdict on this issue. The ball is in the DPM\’s court – how does he plead?