The Politics of RUU 355

PAS has had their parade in support of the RUU 355 amendments and those opposed to it had theirs too.

Both sides refuse to yield their position even though one rally was clearly larger than the other. There is no in-between for this fight – everyone should either support or oppose it.

But what about a third option for those of us who don’t exactly support or oppose it?

As a non-Muslim, I support the right of PAS to table their proposal to amend the Shariah Act (RUU 355) in Parliament for debate.

PAS is not going against our Federal Constitution as alleged by simply proposing to amend an existing piece of legislature. Even retired judges have even stepped forward to explain that what PAS is doing is allowed under our law, although they do argue whether there is a need for it.

And this is one point that many Malaysians who are against PAS fail to recognise; PAS is acting in accordance with the law by bringing the proposal to Parliament for discussion.

They want a law amended and they are applying through the right channels to get it done. PAS is not saying “we rule Kelantan so we will enforce the Shariah Act as we see fit regardless of what you think.”

Of course, PAS is not helping the situation because they have not provided specific details of the proposed amendments.

Everything about Hadi’s Bill is inconclusive because the bill isn’t available for scrutiny. Even though the increase in punishment is reported by the media, it is still uncertain if that is actually what will be proposed.

Moreover, PAS clerics and politicians just issue flat out denials that non-Muslims will not be affected. There are no discussions to assure non-Muslims that there will be specific save clauses that clearly prevent the law from being used against non-Muslims.

And because this lack of information is fueling the dissent, PAS adds to the flames by declaring that people who oppose Hadi’s Bill don’t know what they are talking about.

How could people not reach a preconceived, prejudiced and bias conclusion when the debate is devoid of details for the bill itself? So, PAS is equally guilty of inciting the heated response.

Regardless of how RUU 355 is dressed up though, it is still just politics.

Catchphrases and slogans have replaced real political arguments in the RUU 355 debate. It is a warped discussion that serves little purpose other than to distract the public.

For all we know, PAS could be engaging a reverse psychological warfare of sorts by deliberately stating extremely harsh punishment only to tone it down to more acceptable levels when the bill is presented to gain more support.

So, let’s just cool off with the discussion. Let the matter be brought to Parliament first and continue the discussion then when we are all armed with precise details and facts.

Let’s appreciate that PAS plays by the rules in which all of us agreed to abide by.

Let us deal with the issue in accordance with the democratic rules of our nation.