As a non-Muslim living in Singapore, Vivienne Wee has no reason to be affected by Kartika’s whipping sentence. But she is.
She felt so strongly about it that she wrote an article entitled MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE: WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT KARTIKA?
A founder-member of AWARE, an association of Women for Action and Research , Vivienne, an athropologist, is determined that fellow Singaporeans sit up and pay attention to issues and concerns on this side of the Causeway.
To find out why, do read her persuasive argument here.
How did you react when you heard in July that a woman was about to be
caned in Malaysia? Did you think something like this? “What’s so bad
about drinking beer? These fundamentalists are too much.” But did you
think that what was to happen to Kartika had anything to do with you?
No?
Actually, the sentence of caning imposed on Kartika is relevant to
you. Perhaps you may say, “But I’m not even Muslim. Why should I
care?” Or you may say, “I am unlikely to be caned. So what does this
have to do with me?”
To use an analogy, even if you are yourself not a victim of domestic
violence, does this mean that you don’t care whether domestic violence
happens? If only those who suffer are to care about their condition,
then there is no need for AWARE to have a hotline.
The AWARE hotline says: “Call us, we care.” We imply that we care for
all women, not just some women. Perhaps you may say, “But Kartika
didn’t call us. What is more, she even accepted the sentence of
caning.”
True, Kartika did resign herself to being caned just to get it over
and done with. This did cause some to hesitate about whether to speak
out against the sentence of caning. There was a debate about this in
email conversations that spanned Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong
Kong, Thailand, India, South Africa, Uzbekistan, France, UK and other
countries.
Are you surprised at the number of countries mentioned? Yes, there was
international concern about this sentence of caning of one woman in
Malaysia. Letters were being written to Malaysian ambassadors all over
the world, not to mention the attention of the international media.
Farish Noor (Senior Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies) noted:
The conservative Islamists of Malaysia … simply do not seem to
understand how and why the international community is upset with the
idea of a woman being caned for drinking a pint. …The Mufti of Perak,
Harussani Zakaria…even asked why there was such a fuss being made
about a woman being caned six times when, in his opinion, the
punishment ought to have been 80 lashes instead?
The political cost of caning Kartika
Why was there international concern even though Kartika herself had
accepted the sentence? In the email exchange between feminists across
countries, the following point was made by Shanti Dairium (former
member of the UN Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW] and founder of International
Women’s Rights Action Watch, Asia-Pacific):
The fact that she [Kartika] does not want to appeal is not the main
consideration. It is not only about her individual rights being
violated and securing a treatment for her that protects her human
rights…. The important issue here is the deterioration of human rights
standards as applied by the State. If the caning takes place, a bad
precedent is set. Furthermore if a person accepts a certain treatment
that violates human rights and harm is done to her, human rights
defenders cannot stand by and say it is her choice. Take the case of
sati in India; there were also arguments that if a widow chooses to
immolate herself then there should be no interference. We have to act
against anything that will contribute to normative standards that go
against human rights.
Perhaps you may argue: “But 6 strokes of the cane would not have
killed the woman. It’s not as bad as sati where the woman is burnt
alive.” Does this mean we should accept practices that inflict
violence as long as these do not kill?
At its 61st Annual General Meeting (17 March 2007), the Malaysian Bar
called for the abolition of whipping as a punishment for any offence
as it is “anachronistic and inconsistent with a compassionate
society.” However, the deputy president of Parti Islam Semalaysia
(PAS), Nasharudin Mat Isa, has spoken against the Malaysian Bar’s
resolution by justifying whipping as enshrined in the Quran and
Hadith.
Whipping is also mentioned as a punishment in the Jewish Talmud and
the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (Deuteronomy 25:2). Chinese
imperial law legalised many forms of torture, including whipping. (See
Tradition of the law and law of the tradition: law, state and social
control by Xin Ren 1997). Indeed, ancient legal codes are replete with
cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments. But should any of these
ancient legal codes be used to justify such punishments today?
In 1984, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. This Convention developed out of article 5 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1948) and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (adopted in 1966). Both these articles “provide
that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
Despite these international Conventions, we are nevertheless
encountering a growing proclivity among some to justify
“anachronistic” punishments in the name of ancient legal codes, often
associated with fundamentalist interpretations of religion. The result
is the making of “normative standards that go against human rights.”
That is why the sentence of caning imposed on Kartika concerns us. If
she were to be caned, not only would she be the first woman ever to be
caned in Malaysia, she would be so punished on the basis of a
particular interpretation of sharia law. It is quite clear that this
is just a particular interpretation, because in Malaysia, only three
states (Pahang, Perlis, and Kelantan) impose whipping as a punishment
on Muslims for drinking, while in the other ten states, they are
merely fined.
It is also clear many Muslims in Malaysia disagree with such a
punishment. Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk
Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil stated, ““The overriding view was that the
sentence meted out was too harsh and is not commensurate with the
offence…. This one particular case could have damaged the image of
Malaysia in its fair and just implementation of the Shariah law…. I
feel the person concerned should appeal to the state authorities and
not be so willing to accept the punishment.” (New Straits Times 25
August 2009). Even the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has urged
Kartika to appeal the sentence.
“Very interesting,” you may be saying, “but all this is happening in
Malaysia. So why does it concern us in Singapore?” Kartika is a
Malaysian citizen and a Singaporean permanent resident. So what
happens to her is of concern to us as Singaporean citizens and
permanent residents.
Moreover, what happened to her can also happen to a Muslim woman who
is a Singaporean citizen and who is found drinking in one of those
three states. The President of the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers
Association, Mr. Mohd Isa Abdul Ralip, pointed out: “All Muslims,
regardless of whether they are tourists or Malaysians, are subject to
local Islamic laws” (The Straits Times, 24 July 2009).
If Kartika were to be caned, it would set a dangerous precedent for
the caning of Muslim women in Malaysia, “regardless of whether they
are tourists or Malaysians.” As noted by Farish Noor, “The costs of
caning Kartika are simply too high, and should that line be crossed
the country would have jumped one rung up the Islamisation ladder yet
again.” This would have serious implications beyond Malaysia.
For all these reasons, AWARE is right to have co-signed with seven
Malaysian women’s organisations, one other Singaporean organisation
(Maruah) and one Indonesian women’s organisation, a letter sent to the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, addressed
to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, the UN Special
Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
We are glad that the voicing of national and international concern
seems to have produced a tentatively positive result. The caning is
now deferred, pending a legal review. However, the saga is not over.
On 11 September 2009, the Pahang Islamic Religious Department
announced that it is still prepared to proceed with the caning of
Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno after Hari Raya Aidil-fitri. But the
implementation of the punishment would depend on the review by the
Kuantan Syariah High Court Appeals Panel, expected to be concluded
after Raya. So we still have to wait and see what the outcome of that
review will be.
Vivienne Wee
The writer is a founder member of AWARE, an anthropologist and,
needless to say, a feminist.
