Nasruddin and Ariff are wrong about Shariah laws

ARCHIVES 2013

By admin-s On Oct 23, 2013

Ravinder Singh, TMI

Sorry to say that both PAS MP Nasruddin Hassan Tantawi and DAP’s Raub MP Ariff Sabri are wrong about what Shariah law could achieve that our criminal law has failed to. Their suggestion or proposal is based on perception as it does not take into account important factors leading to the breakdown of law and order. Any law can suffer the same fate when those factors are present.

Enforcement is the key to the effectiveness or otherwise of any laws or rules, at any level. I once heard a senior officer of the Housing Ministry relate what he discovered while on a study visit to Germany. His entourage visited a local authority and were told it had about 30 laws to enforce. When asked about the number of non-compliance cases, the answer was “zero”.

The secret? When a law is passed and implemented (after being given wide publicity), there is full compliance because no second chance is given to any law-breaker. The full weight of the law is brought to bear on the lawbreaker the very first time it is broken.

How does this fare with our law-enforcement? Why is our law-enforcement not effective? This is what the proponents of Shariah law need to look at very closely.

Does Malaysia have the political will to enforce laws strictly? Take the case of road-traffic summonses. It has become a culture to give discounts around festival times. What when our courts rule that “motive” is not necessary in a certain murder case, but is necessary in every other murder case. Or when the AG finds that the two young police palace guards against whom a report for snatch theft was made had a strong alibi that they were not at the place of the snatch theft, without allowing the court to put the alibi to test?

Then we have laws that have gaping loopholes. For example, overloaded lorries that stop short of the JPJ road block cannot be summoned as they are stationary! How did they get to that place if they had not been moving on the road? What is the extra weight doing on the lorries if not being transported from one place to another? Similarly with lorries using unapproved re-threaded tyres the torn-off casings of which can often be seen lying on the highways. They are only checked during the six-monthly Puspakom Inspection. So they rent good tyres for the inspection, then replace the bad ones. Why is it not an offence for the lorries to be using bad tyres between the Puspakom inspections? What is the logic of this?

It would appear that the loopholes are deliberate to provide an escape for the law-breakers. Is the theory of “presumption” only good in the case of drug-related cases where if you are caught with more than a certain amount of the stuff, you are presumed to be a trafficker? So if an overloaded lorry is stationary short of the road-block, why is it not presumed to be running overloaded on the road?

Then there is the question of corruption. Does it not affect the quality of enforcement?