Nation’s legal system doesn’t permit two sets of parallel laws.

MCA upholds the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and the Malaysian spirit which does not allow two parallel legal systems, the latter’s scope and jurisdiction being confined to the provisions as outlined in the Federal Constitution. Across the world, there is no country which practises two parrallel legal system concurrently.

Unfortunately, PAS intends to expand the sentencing authority of the Syariah courts via tabling a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355) which ultimately is a backdoor aimed at implementing hudud law in the nation. PAS has ignored the objections by non-Muslims who have called for the withdrawal of PAS, and on the contrary, insists on pushing for the Private Member’s Bill to go through. This is worrisome and causes frustration.

Now, to confuse the public, Parti Amanah Negara has come up with an alternative Private Member’s Bill to amend Act 355 which it hopes to do so with the support of Barisan Nasional. Be it the Private Member’s Bill by either PAS or Amanah, both seek to ultimately implement hudud law in the country.  

We must expose their hidden agenda whilst urging both parties to respect the citizens in order to savour some iota of whatever integrity they may have left.  Both PAS and Amanah must not treat the public as fools, by assuming that people will be easily fooled by them.

DAP must declare its position on the latest stunt by Amanah, and not secretly support the ultimate implementation of hudud law. DAP is accountable to the rakyat, as well as the contents of the alternative Private Member’s Bill and reasons for support it.

There are sufficient cases of problems and disputes having arisen when two sets of laws were sought whereby in a marriage contracted by civil laws, the converting spouse had resorted to the Syariah court while the non-converting spouse sought relief in a civil court. While the government is trying to amend the Law Reform Act (Marriage and Divorce) 1976 to resolve this jurisdictional conflict, such cases should not be repeated. Such jurisdictional overlaps are difficult to resolve the problem nor bring justice, much less help to bring about unity amongst our multiracial citizens. On the contrary, the jurisdictional overlaps incur harm.

One’s personal belief is a private matter and cannot be imposed unto another who professes a different faith. Likewise, one’s personal religion cannot pervade into the management of people, national administration or the judiciary, nor unto members of a family. This is a basic principle which we must adhere to and check.

Senator Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun
MCA Vice President 
MCA School of Political Studies Principal
Deputy Minister of Women, Family & Community Development

-MCA online-