Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Penang On 8.5.2014.
MCA deputy president Wee Ka Siong had said that if Umno votes in favour of the hudud Bill expected to be tabled by Kelantan, MCA and other component parties in BN, made up of non-Muslims, might review their position in the BN coalition. However, Wee also told Chinese Malaysiakini later that a review of MCA’s position did not mean that MCA would withdraw from BN.
Wee’s verbal acrobatics is confusing as if review is not withdrawal what does Wee exactly means by review? MCA should say what it means and means what it says. Unless MCA makes a clear and definite clarification that review of MCA’s position in BN is withdrawal from BN, this is another meaningless political sandiwara. Why should MCA go back into Cabinet now when Wee is talking about review when UMNO has flip-flopped its position from opposing the implementation of hudud to fully supporting PAS implementing hudud in Kelantan?
Wee is wrong and dishonest when he said that Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom did not represent BN when Jamil started the entire controversy by instigating PAS in Parliament on March 27 2014 to implement hudud on Muslims in Kelantan. Jamil had said that “the federal government will be ready to work with any state government that is ready to implement hudud including Kelantan, because Umno Kelantan assemblypersons had supported the passing of Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment II to implement hudud in 1993”.
Jamil even suggested that it is up to the non-government members of Parliament to table a private member’s’ bill for that purpose and that any state government that plans to implement hudud was welcome to do so. How can Wee say that Jamil did not represent BN when Jamil was replying on behalf of the BN government in Parliament? As as former Deputy Minister himself, Wee should know that any replies given in Parliament is made on behalf of the BN government not just on behalf of MCA or UMNO. This is the principle of collective responsibility in government.
Jamil Khir even went a step further by forming a joint central technical committee comprising PAS, Putrajaya and the Kelantan government to look into the implementation of hudud in Kelantan in a joint press conference with Kelantan Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah on 2.5.2014.
Instead of criticising UMNO, MCA President Liow Tiong Lai has chosen to pin the blame of DAP and PAS despite DAP openly criticising PAS for openly working with UMNO to implement hudud, after failing to secure support from DAP and PR. Can Liow explain the perverse logic and double-standards of MCA not daring to criticise UMNO for instigating PAS to implement hudud laws in Kelantan but yet attacking DAP that had openly criticised both PAS and UMNO for wanting to do so?
To cover-up MCA’s lack of courage to criticise UMNO for supporting the implementation of hudud in Kelantan, MCA is relying on their control of the mainstream media to distort and lie as well as question DAP for refusing to work with MCA to oppose PAS implementing hudud. In view of the difficulty of DAP’s explanation getting printed in the mainstream media, DAP urges the public to read the online news media that DAP refuses to co-operate with a MCA that still dare not criticise UMNO for co-operating with PAS to implement hudud in Kelantan.
The mainstream media did not print former MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek’s full agreement with the DAP that only UMNO with the largest number of MPs(88) in Parliament, has the power to determine success or failure in PAS’ attempt to implement hudud in Kelantan. For that reason Chua said that it is only logical that MCA must first convince Umno not to support PAS implementing hudud.
Wee’s fudging on the position of whether MCA will withdraw from BN if UMNO votes for the hudud bill
contrasts with the clear and unequivocal stand of DAP in opposing the hudud bill whether it is implemented by PAS or UMNO, whether in or outside Kelantan, whether on Muslim or non-Muslims because it is unconstitutional. DAP does not agree with PAS that it is okay for a Muslim to be subject to the harsher punishment of amputation of limb for theft under hudud laws whereas a non-Muslim will only be jailed for theft.
There cannot be two separate laws for criminal offences as it is a discrimination on ground only of religion and therefore, unconstitutional. As stressed the former Chief Justice, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, hudud as a Federal criminal law must apply to all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, because it is “criminal law” and not “offences relating to percepts of Islam” as provided by List II (State List) Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. If it is made applicable to Muslims only, it would be contrary to Article 8 as it is a discrimination on ground only of religion and therefore, unconstitutional, null and void.
LIM GUAN ENG
——BM Version—-
民主行动党秘书长兼峇眼区国会议员林冠英于2014年5月8日在槟城发表声明：
魏家祥不应该出尔反尔、咬文嚼字，如果巫统选择支持吉兰丹针对穆斯林推行伊斯兰刑事法的法案，马华应该勇敢正视马华在国阵的地位，那就是退出国阵。
马华副总会长曾经说过，如果巫统选择支持吉兰丹针对穆斯林推行伊斯兰刑事法的法案，马华及其它非穆斯林组成的国阵成员党必须重新检讨他们在国阵的地位。但是，过后魏家祥也告诉中文版《当今大马》，马华检讨在国阵里在地位不代表要退出国阵。
魏家祥咬文嚼字让人混淆，彷彿“检讨”不是“退出”，那么他所谓的检讨是什么？马华应该言出必行。除非马华明确地表明立场，即检讨马华在国阵的地位、退出国阵，否则他的言论只是毫无意义的政治幌子。当巫统出尔反尔，从原本推行推行伊斯兰刑事法到支持伊斯兰党在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法，魏家祥讲着要重新检讨在国阵的地位，为什么马华要在这个时候入阁？
当魏家祥说首相署部长加米尔不代表国阵时，他错了，并且也不老实，2014年3月27日是加米尔在国会挑起整件事，唆使伊斯兰党在吉兰丹向穆斯林推行伊斯兰刑事法。加米尔也说，“联邦政府愿意与任何准备推行伊斯兰刑事法的州政府合作，包括吉兰丹，因为巫统吉兰丹州议员已经在1993年支持通过吉兰丹伊斯兰刑事法修正案II，在该州推行伊斯兰刑事法。”
加米尔甚至建议由非政府成员的国会议员提呈私人法案，也欢迎任何州政府计划推行伊斯兰刑事法。当加米尔代表国阵政府在国会回答提问，魏家祥怎么可以说加米尔并不代表国阵？而身为前副部长，魏家祥应该知道任何在国会期间回答的问题都是代表国阵政府，而不是马华或巫统。这是政府成员党集体负责的原则。
加米尔基尔甚至进一步于2014年5月2日与吉兰丹副州务大臣拿督莫哈末阿玛尔的联合记者会上，宣布成立一个联合中央技术委员会，包含伊斯兰党、布城及吉兰丹政府，以研究如何在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法。
廖中莱没有批评巫统，却选择怪罪行动党及伊斯兰党，尽管行动党公开批评伊斯兰党在得不到行动党与民联的支持下，与巫统合作推行伊斯兰刑事法。行动党已经公开批评伊斯兰党及巫统在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法，廖中莱能不能解释他为何批评行动党却不批评巫统唆使伊斯兰党的错误逻辑及双重标准？
为了掩饰他自己无法批评巫统唆使伊斯兰党在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法的凄凉，廖中莱唯有依赖主流媒体，全面发起对付行动党的谎言及扭曲。虽然他们指行动党必须对伊斯兰党要在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法负起责任，没有提及巫统的角色的谎言已经被揭穿及反驳，但是，有关谎言继续在主流媒体上流传。行动党建议公众参考网络媒体，以获得更公平、平衡及准确的报道。
主流媒体也没有刊登前马华总会长蔡细历医生完全同意行动党，那就是只要拥有88名国会议员的巫统，有权力决定伊斯兰党能否在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法。因此，蔡细历说，只有马华首先说服巫统不支持伊斯兰党推行伊斯兰刑事法才是符合逻辑的。
魏家祥针对马华是否会因巫统支持伊斯兰刑事法而退出国阵的立场模棱两可，与行动党一贯坚持反对伊斯兰刑事法（无论是伊斯兰党还是巫统的）形成强烈对比，无论是吉兰丹以内或以外地区、针对穆斯林或非穆斯林，因为那是不符合联邦宪 法的。行动党不赞同伊斯兰党，因为在伊斯兰刑事法，一名犯偷窃罪者，会面对砍手的残忍罪罚，而非穆斯林只是被判监禁的两种不同的刑罚。
国家不能有两种刑事法，因为这不只会在现实的宗教信仰中导致差别待遇，同时也违宪。如前联邦首席大法官敦阿督哈密所言，伊斯兰刑事法若作为联邦刑事法的话，穆斯林及非穆斯林都应该受到一样的刑罚，而不是根据联邦宪法下第二明细第九项州属权限下所谓的“伊斯兰观念上的罪责”。如果伊刑法只是向穆斯林实施，这将违反联邦宪法第八条文宗教信仰导致差别待遇，同时也违宪，无法律效力的。
林冠英