Below is a video from The Star interviewing the various artists and showcasing the final piece:

THE latest biennial survey of US attitudes to media by the Pew Research Centre confirms again what many of us have refused to admit: newspapers continue to decline while an increasing number of people cite television (specifically cable television and particularly Fox and CNN) as their primary source of news.

What’s interesting is that more people (66 per cent) now say that news organisations in general can’t get their facts right—but 62 per cent say that the news organisations they use do actually get it right. This makes me think that either most news agencies are wrong, or most people are wrong and their opinions have a partisan basis that isn’t necessarily reflected in reality.

Another interesting thing is that equal numbers (42 per cent on either side) consider the Press as either hurting or protecting democracy. It wasn’t within the scope of the report to seek qualification for these opinions (i.e. why do people think this?), but all the same a relatively stable 58 per cent believe that US Press criticism of politicians keeps everyone honest.

One might be tempted to draw a parallel with Malaysian media consumption—we do after all have CNN, but I’m not qualified to speak on this as I don’t have cable (come to think of it, I haven’t even connected my TV to the apartment aerial). In any case I believe that Malaysian media consumption is heterogeneous and entrenched deeply in language and cultural differences which make attempts at comparison pointless.

Speaking only from the perspective of the local English-language Press, the problem of language has been aggravated by a rapid decline in standards which I associate with “tabloidisation” whether in terms of the physical size of the paper or the “packaging” of “content” to meet the demands of the lowest common denominator.

This was a standard feature in the circulation wars of the first decade of this millennium and the result, sadly, has been the complete deterioration of what ought to have been the last bastion of English standards. News-speak, which seeks to be functional, is now barely functioning and barely literate. If you have a sentimental hankering for the old days (and you are therefore over 60) or you have no idea what I mean (under 20) you can read some colonial and Alliance-era newspapers free of charge here (you can also get Berita Harian and Sin Chew).

The standard of language is something that (I’m told) the Chinese Press as a whole understands much better because of the symbiotic role it plays in the social reproduction of the Chinese community in Malaysia. I should like to say the same for the Malay Press, but even Utusan Malaysia now gives one cause to flinch (I see words such as raifal and flet being used far too frequently—I shall leave you to work out what they mean—to say nothing of the kind of opinion the paper likes to carry these days).

If one attempts to sell newspapers on the basis of information alone (that is, scoops, or by being the first to come out with a story), then one is already dead. The Internet saw to it, and social media drove the last nails into the coffin. This was an argument some of us made about 10 years ago, and today the aftermath is obvious.

These days few people read newspapers for examples of good writing or fine argument. Those who do are often disappointed. I think that people, for the most part, don’t even know what good writing is; and this, I believe, more than anything else, has been the chief source of the massive decline in our collective circulation.

Ed: Would like to add ‘bajet‘ to ‘raifal‘ and ‘flet‘.

The quotation below is dedicated to all reporters who gave – and continue to give – our best to fine and ethical journalism.

Oh, my friend we’re older but no wiser

For in our hearts our dreams are still the same  

~ Those Were the Days by Charles Strouse & Lee Adams ~

I WRITE in response to Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud’s letter (Sunday Star, Oct 9) where she gave her opinion that hudud is a matter of choice for Muslims.

I found Dr Siti Mariah’s letter interesting and would like to thank her for shedding some light on the implementation of hudud in Malaysia.

As a non-Muslim however, her letter has not allayed any of my concerns and worries.

My understanding of Islamic law, gleaned from many books and articles, is that where hudud is implemented, Islamic law of evidence will also be applied.

Dr Siti Mariah referred to the testimony of two righteous persons who must come forward as witnesses in the case of theft to present evidence. I am uncertain about the definition of ‘righteous persons’.

Does this only cover Muslims or non-Muslims? What is the status of two Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Hindu persons who can give evidence of the theft?

It may be that theft of the property of this group falls under the definition of ta’zir as the strict evidential requirements cannot be fulfilled.

Dr Siti assures us that the thief will still be punished but not under the laws of hudud. I would be very alarmed by such an explanation as this means that Muslim thieves and robbers will target non-Muslims with the assurance that even if caught red-handed, their punishment will be less harsh than if they were to target Muslims.

I fail to understand how, in these circumstances, PAS can state with confidence that hudud will not affect non-Muslims.

Assuming that I am wrong and that the evidence of ‘two righteous persons’ includes the evidence of non-Muslims witnesses, then I am still troubled by the term ‘righteous’.

This implies that the victim’s character determines if he or she is entitled to justice.

I assume that a drug addict or alcoholic whose handbag has been snatched will not be able to give evidence or bring forward her friends as witnesses to testify against the thief.

If non-Muslims are permitted to give evidence against Muslim thieves, then my next question would be, in which court will the thief be tried?

As hudud is part of Islamic law, and the Ninth Schedule relates to the powers of the State, offences under hudud will probably be tried by the Syariah courts.

Paragraph 1 of List II in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution makes it clear that the Syariah courts does not have jurisdiction over non-Muslims. How then will the non-Muslim give evidence before the Syariah court?

It may be a simple matter to amend List II to permit non-Muslims to give evidence before the Syariah courts but this means that hududwill affect non-Muslims contrary to claims by PAS.

Further as a non-Muslim, I would be reluctant to support any such amendment as it could be interpreted to extend the jurisdiction of the Syariah court to other areas such as khalwat and zina which are not offences under my religion.

Furthermore, non-Muslims have been repeatedly ordered not to interfere in Islamic affairs or in matters solely within the purview of Islamic authorities or they will face repercussions.

Why then would non-Muslims be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the Syariah court?

I am also concerned as to how the punishments under hudud will affect non-Muslims.

Currently, offences specific to the Islamic religion under the various State Islamic law enactments are tried by the Syariah courts. Religious officers are authorised to arrest and prosecute offenders.

Hudud covers theft, snatch-theft and armed robbery and like offences which are currently punished under the Penal Code.

There is no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Penal Code and those convicted of a crime will be imprisoned at the taxpayers’ expense.

If hudud were to be implemented, then assuming that the thief’s hand is chopped off, leaving him unable to work, will my taxes be used to provide welfare to him?

Will I be taxed more heavily to provide welfare payments to thieves who are unable to work or will the Islamic authorities take charge of his welfare using specific taxes such as zakat?

My understanding is that victims of crimes under hudud may choose to forgive the perpetrator of the crime and accept compensation instead.

How will this be carried out if the perpetrator is a drug addict with no means of compensation? Would this amount to one law for the rich and one for the poor?

Rich drug addicts may have family members who are willing to pay large sums to avoid the penalties under hudud. Is there any provision to avoid this?

The current criminal justice system makes the perpetrator pay for his crimes but also allows the victim to move on.

I cannot speak for my fellow non-Muslims but it would be extremely difficult for me to push for a penalty under hudud if my religion does not provide for it.

If I choose the hudud penalty, I will always wonder if it was vengeance or justice that motivated me?

Unlike Muslims, I cannot say that I am following God’s law and my choice will weigh heavily on my conscience.

It could also cause me and others like me, to be victimised by thieves and robbers due to my religious beliefs.

Dr Siti and PAS politicians have reiterated that hudud will not be implemented in a blood-thirsty and overzealous manner. How can they be so sure of this?

PAS itself has had to defend Muslims and non-Muslims from the accusations and actions of zealots so I am puzzled by their comments.

If what PAS means is that it will apply hudud according to the spirit of the law then how does it intend to guarantee that it will be applied in the same manner if another political party were to seize power in the states controlled by PAS?

How will PAS guarantee that hudud will not be applied to non-Muslims in future?

Non-Muslims perceive that their religious rights have been eroded over the last decade and it is unlikely that a guarantee by PAS or anyone else under current circumstances will allay their worries.

I fear that statements that hudud does not concern non-Muslims causes me great consternation and I have taken Dr Siti’s advice and presented my views in the hope that my concerns will be addressed on the points presented and that I will not be threatened for “interfering” in Islamic matters.

CONCERNED NON-MUSLIM,
Petaling Jaya.

Salt Media has monitored this issue from the beginning. While we posted a light-hearted entry when the OWC was conceived, we take this issue seriously. Members of the Club say they are afraid that their husbands will stray, or that they will be beaten if they refuse sex. With the publishing of this book, and its gimmicky political rationale, it looks like they are already beaten. — With heavy hearts, The Salters.

Obedient Wives Club publishes explicit sex book (This article originally appeared in The Malaysian Insider)

By Debra Chong

October 12, 2011

A MUSLIM man can have sex with all his wives at the same time, according to a controversial new book on Islamic sex by the Obedient Wives Club (OWC).

Titillatingly-titled “Seks Islam, perangi Yahudi untk kembalikan seks Islam kepada dunia [Islamic sex, fighting Jews to return Islamic sex to the world]”, the explicit book aims to guide Muslim brides on how to pleasure their husbands in bed.

In its foreword, the pro-polygamy OWC said its studies showed women only gave their husbands 10 per cent of what the men desired of their wives’ bodies.

POSTER BY THE INDONESIAN CHAPTER OF THE OBEDIENT WIVES CLUB

Malay-language daily, Berita Harian, reported today the Malay-Muslim community was upset the book featured on its front cover the polygamous leader of the outlawed Al-Arqam religious sect, Asaari Muhammad, and also objected to its extremely graphic visuals.

An extract on the back cover reads, in Bahasa Malaysia: “Selaku pemimpin roh, kebolehan yang Allah izinkan kepada mereka ialah boleh serentak dengan semua isteri-isteri melakukan hubungan jenis. Manakala kalau isteripun orang roh, lagilah hebat. Ke mana-mana terbang untuk atau sambil melakukan hubungan sulit itu dalam keadaan lebih nikmat dan lebih ringan dibanding dengan perlakuan yang menggunakan fizikal. Untuk itulah Abuya sedang proses isteri-isterinya ke arah roh.”

In English: “As a spiritual leader, Allah has granted him the ability to have simultaneous sex with all his wives. And if the wife is spiritual, the sex is greater. They can fly anywhere for sex, it is more enjoyable and easier compared to physical sex. For that reason, Abuya was processing his wives towards the spiritual.”

The paper noted that explicit sex details littered the book’s 115 pages, and cited as another example chapter eight which deals with “how sex becomes worship”.

“Kemuncak cinta kita ialah celah kangkang. Tangan, kaki dan segalanya terdorong kuat untuk menuju ke situ [The peak of our love is the cleft in between. Hands, feet and everything are strongly driven there].”

The sex book has not been banned but Kelantan mufti, Datuk Mohamad Shukri Mohamad, has stepped into the fray to play down the emphasis of Islam on sex.

“The Al-Quran explains the ‘wife clothes the husband and you (the husband) clothes the wife. ‘Your wife is the field and therefore come to your field’,” Berita Harian quoted him saying today.

“Islam touches on sex in a civilised, polite and non-lewd manner. So we should not detail it in such a way as to give a negative impression,” Mohamad Shukri added, saying sex in Islam was described in symbolic terms.

This is the second time the OWC has hit the headlines. Previously, the club’s vice-president, Dr Rohaya Mohamad, provoked an outcry from women’s rights groups and Islamic religious authorities for advising women to behave like “a first-class whore” while in the company of their husbands if they wanted their marriages to succeed.

Note: In July, BFM aired an interview with the Obedient Wives Club committee members. It’s worth the listen.

An Iranian woman, dressed up as a victim of death by stoning, takes part in a protest in Brussels

Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi – At Variance with the Constitution

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=reflectingonthelaw&file=/2011/10/5/columnists/reflectingonthelaw/9632599&sec=Reflecting%20On%20The%20Law

Prof Azmi Sharom – Right to Question Hudud Law

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/6/focus/9638503&sec=focus

Here, we have reproduced Sisters in Islam’s Press statement in full:

Press Statement                                                                            October 4, 2011

Sisters in Islam remains firmly opposed to the implementation of Hudud law for Malaysia

Sisters in Islam (SIS) is unequivocally opposed to the adoption and implementation of Hudud law in Malaysia. This has been our considered position since 1993. Our stand on Hudud law is based on the following reasons:

• That it is against the Federal constitution

The Hudud law is unconstitutional on several grounds. First, crime falls under federal jurisdiction, thus a state has no authority to legislate on criminal matters. This is why we have in place a Penal Code that all Malaysians – irrespective of religion – are subject to. Second, it violates constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of gender; and third, it violates constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties. SIS believes that society has to be regulated in line with the principles of equality, justice and dignity, and not through deterrence by means of harsh and cruel punishments.

• That it discriminates against women

The burden of proof for rape under the Hudud law is on women. The Terengganu Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) of 2002 states under Section 9, that a woman who reports she has been raped could be charged for qazaf (slanderous accusation) and flogged 80 lashes if she is unable to provide proof. Although amendments were made to allow for circumstantial evidence, there is still confusion. For example, which party is to produce the evidence – the police or the victim? The amendments were inadequate and overall the law remained an unjust one.

In the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Enactment (Hudud) 1993, an unmarried woman who is pregnant or has delivered a baby is assumed to have committed zina (illicit sex) even though she was raped. The inability of rape victims to produce four male witnesses will result in the presumption of them committing zina while the rapists go free.

A woman cannot be a witness. People of other faiths also cannot be called as witnesses. In effect, three-quarters of Malaysia’s population will be disqualified as witnesses.

•     That it provides for maximum punishment  without room for repentance and reform

The Hudud enactments of Kelantan and Terengganu violate human rights principles and the principles of justice and equality in Islam. It provides for punishments that are deemed ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading’. The punishment of death for apostasy for instance, is the most severe, oppressive and maximum punishment from among the diversity of views existing within the Islamic juristic heritage.

• That it discriminates on the basis of religion

A Muslim convicted of theft would have his hand amputated while a non-Muslim convicted of the same offence would only be punished with imprisonment. If a Muslim and a person of another faith are both involved in a particular crime, one party should not be punished differently from the other. It violates the spirit of natural justice and equity. There should not be two sets of criminal law that apply to Malaysians.

SIS wishes to reiterate our stand that Hudud law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. It violates universal principles of Human Rights and is discriminatory against women. Islam teaches the spirit of universal love within the community and emphasises the importance of repentance and rehabilitation of the wrong-doers – not the imposition of severe punishments.

Ratna Osman

Executive Director

SIS (Forum) Malaysia

Google Wallet – it’s Google’s latest offering to make our lives more convenient, increasingly mobile and ultimately… less tangible.

Launched Sept 19, Google Wallet is a mobile app that allows you to turn your mobile into a wallet – just swipe it at the checkout counter and you’re on your way. See that guy struggling to find his card in his wallet? Pfft. That’s not you. You’re the cool fella swishing the phone.

Goodbye wallet  (George Costanza on YouTube)

Of course, for now, the service is only available for those with Nexus S 4G phones on Sprint; with Citi MasterCards and Google Prepaid Cards.

Not to worry, the future promises to make things more accessible – not just on Google Wallet, but on the many similar applications that other providers have on the cooking stove. Check this out for more on how mobile phones are replacing the wallet.

So, is it really time to say goodbye to the wallet and our stacks of credit cards? A little early to tell, though there are those who feel that Google Wallet will not be the one to pave the way.

Anyway, while people are debating on the advent of phone-camouflaged wallets (we all know it’ll happen soon enough), I’m really more distracted by what this will mean to the snatch thief. If they had to choose, would they snatch your bag or your phone?

I’ve got into the habit of keeping my phone separate from my bag. (Simply because my phone is the most valuable thing in my bag… including the bag itself.) If misfortune were to strike, my priority would be to keep my phone secure. It makes sense doesn’t it?

I’ll still be able to pay the bill. I can make a call. Check my emails. Set up my GPS to the nearest police station.

AND most importantly, while waiting to make a police report…I get to play Angry Birds. Methinks there’s nothing like a game of flinging birds at pigs to ease the stress.

Stick 'em up!

Very, very Angry Birds...

Normally, I would never dare put myself in the same sentence as Martin Luther King Jr.

But I’m guessing that this great man will forgive me, today being Malaysia Day.

Because I too have a dream. Or more accurately, had one.

Malaysia Day - The Jalur Gemilang blowin' in the wind Photo by E.T. on Flickr

It involved many smiles, many colours, street celebrations, music, joyful dancing – by the people, for the people in honour of this insanely wonderful country.

Instead I login in to Facebook and Twitter only to see grumbling, ranting and bitchiness. The hot topic? Why we did not as much attention to Merdeka Day this year as we are doing with Malaysia Day.

“Is Independence no longer important?”

“How can govt ignore Merdeka? Without Merdeka we still answer 2 white man.”

“Govt only want 2 win election.”

“Tunku’s legacy is lost.”

Firstly, you illiterate twits, it was the second day of Raya. A national holiday. A Malaysian holiday. A day when houses open their doors to diversity. Would such public affection and display been possible before Merdeka?

Secondly, you crosspatches without a cause, Tunku’s legacy is all but lost. One way or another, we’ve all heard those magical cries of Merdeka, the prince’s arm lifted high into the air in triumph. We’ve heard stories from those who witnessed history, gaping and clapping. (A colleague told us her great-grandmother was there enthusiastically shouting “Mentega!”).

Somehow, and we probably don’t know from where, we also see little children in this picture, breathless with excitement.

Could it be then, that Merdeka has become a celebration that sits deep, quiet and contemplative within the soul, rather than in fanfare?

If so, my guess is that the Tunku would have been very proud to have helped create a national binding emotion, one that does not fade with generations.

Without Merdeka, would our brothers and sisters in Sabah and Sarawak have been able to point out Semenanjung’s insensitivity to their existence?

I was overjoyed when this happened. I was also ashamed for not having considered it earlier, but what I learnt overshadowed that feeling.

Malaysia Day. It filled me with fire and gave me arms long enough to bear hug friends I had neglected all these years.

Today, though, all I feel is disappointment. As I said in the beginning, I am no Dr King. My dream of a new meaning has all but died. All I can do is hope that the many, many people still exultantly wearing the mantle of Malaysia Day will pass on as powerful a message as the Tunku. And that little children will today sit on Daddy’s shoulders, with eyes like saucers and hearts filled with wonder.

Tunku Abdul Rahman crying the iconic "Merdeka!"

Dr Martin Luther King Jr "I have a dream..."

When I wanted to take a picture of her, she shook off the shawl covering her lovely brown hair. “Won’t you get into trouble if this picture gets into the government’s hands?” I asked, worried for her safety. “I don’t care. I love Islam  but I hate the Islamic state. It is unIslamic in every sense of the word,” she declared.

Today, Malaysia is experiencing creeping Talibanisation which, by the way, has nothing to do with Islam. To stop the selective persecution of people, much of which has been done in the name of the religion,  we must actively introduce the diversity of thought, opinion and ideas that have kept Islam a vibrant and dynamic faith for hundreds of years.

If you haven’t, do read Zainah’s article which appeared in the Star on Oct 4, 2009.

KAREN ARMSTRONG says any belief that makes you compassionate, kind and respectful of others is good religion. If your belief makes you intolerant, unkind and belligerent, this is bad religion, no matter how orthodox it is.

This seems like great common sense to me. It puzzles me why those who insist that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno be caned because that is what Islam demands fail to see the many injustices of her case.

She was a first-time offender; she showed remorse and pleaded guilty; and there was no violence in the commission of the offence. Under normal sentencing guidelines, she would have received an automatic one-third remission of the sentence.

Close-knit family: Kartika holding her five-year-old daughter Wann Kaitlynn Muhammad Afandi with her husband Muhammad Afandi Amir and her seven-year-old niece Puteri Nur Rania Suhaini during the Hari Raya open house at her parents’ house in Kuala Kangsar on Sept 24.

But Kartika was sentenced with the maximum fine of RM5,000 and six strokes of the rotan for drinking a glass of beer.

And the Mufti of Perak, Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, questions why all the fuss for just six strokes of the rotan when Kartika should have been punished with the full “Islamic” 80 lashes.

And there was Datuk Rosman Ridzuan, the chairman of U Mobile, who was fined only RM700 when he pleaded guilty for assaulting his now ex-wife. Under Section 323 of the Penal Code, this domestic violence offence carries a maximum fine of RM2,000 or one-year imprisonment.

But I am sure those who feel Kartika should be caned are shaking their head and wondering why Datuk Rosman should in the first place be charged and fined for beating his wife, and why indeed should the state intervene in what they deem to be a family matter.

A person who causes harm to another he is supposed to love, cherish and protect is fined a few hundred ringgit, while a young woman trying to make it in life gets the maximum sentence for drinking a glass of beer – which she did not even finish, she said.

And just recently in the same Kuantan Syariah Court, an odd-job Indonesian man who spent RM3.20 for a bottle of samsu which he shared with two other friends in a moment of respite was jailed for a year with six strokes of the rotan. He is in prison because he could not afford to pay the RM5,000 fine.

And yet, we all know that every day, thousands of Muslims commit what are deemed to be offences under the all-encompassing Syariah Criminal Offences (SCO) laws and get away with it. I know of a certain Tan Sri who leaves his collection of expensive bottles of wine in the wine cooler of his favourite restaurant. His bottles are labelled, just like the expensive shampoo and conditioner bottles left by regular clients at their favourite hairdressing salon.

What riles me up every time the Syariah Criminal Offences law is enforced is the injustice of it all. It is often always the disadvantaged and powerless in society who are targeted. While those in powerful places are free to lead the lifestyle they choose, ordinary Muslims feel suffocated and oppressed that what they wear, do, drink, and where they hang out with their friends render them to arbitrary arrest and surveillance by the religious police.

Thousands of young men and women are caught and charged for khalwat, for which they meekly plead guilty in order to avoid further embarrassment. And for what great crimes against the state? The offence of “sitting together on a bench in a shopping complex with the man having his arm on the woman’s back; holding the woman’s waist while walking in a shopping complex; sitting closely and holding hands; sitting on a bench with the woman leaning on the man’s shoulder; sitting in the dark under a tree in a park; sitting on a bench in the dark by a lake”.

Why are Syariah Court resources, which are already stretched out, spent on prosecuting such offences, but women’s right to divorce, to maintenance, to compensation, to a share of the matrimonial assets are denied or delayed?

And how come these enforcement officers have all the resources and time in the world to go after young Muslims doing what young people usually do, and to barge into homes and hotel rooms in pursuit of amorous couples which have led to death and injury to those running away in panic, and to detain even those found in innocent circumstances?

Shouldn’t their resources and time be better spent going after the thousands of errant fathers who fail to pay child support? Why are the religious zealots impervious to the harm these men cause to their children and the family they left behind, and the impact of such gross neglect on society as a whole?

And how come Kajang Prison can execute the caning of Kartika who was sentenced in Pahang under state law, and yet a mother cannot enforce a maintenance order issued by the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court against a father who has moved to Petaling Jaya?

It is tough being Muslim in this country as the list of the forbidden grows longer. And it’s a double whammy if you are young, and triple whammy if you are a woman. Just for being Muslim, you run the risk of being arrested and hauled into a lorry should the pub or club you are in be raided by the moral police. God forbid if there is alcohol on your breath or your dress is deemed too short, too revealing, too tight.

As with those caught for demonstrating, most of those detained for being Muslim in the wrong place are eventually released because they are in the pub or club to just listen to music or to hang out with their friends over a glass of coke. But the experience in the hands of the religious authorities is enough for a mountain of resistance and defiance to build up.

Since the public furor over Maslinda Ishak, where a Rela officer took a picture of her while she was relieving herself in the lorry used for these raids, the Zouk raid where 100 young Muslims were arrested, the raid on an elderly American couple on holiday in Langkawi and the spate of state attempts to establish citizens’ snoop squads to spy on courting couples and other errant Muslims in Terengganu, Malacca and Selangor, things have largely been quiet for a while on the moral policing front.

The former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, had taken a clear stand that his Cabinet disapproved of such moral policing raids and intrusion into private lives. The Minister for Law, Datuk Nazri Aziz, had also warned against the “Talibanisation” of Malaysia following the Zouk raid.

Then came the appointment of the new Minister for Religion, Maj-Gen (R) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, in March. And a seminar on caning for syariah crimes was held in April, and the minister said he was most unhappy that the Syariah Courts hardly ever impose the caning sentence. He said the light sentences meted out contributed to the rise in syariah crimes every year. And now a sudden wave of caning sentences by the Syariah Courts and the determination to uphold such sentences no matter the national and international implications and cries of injustice.

In Selangor, where the PAS Commissioner Hassan Ali is the state Exco member in charge of religion, mosque officials were to be empowered to arrest Muslims for drinking alcohol. But his unilateral act incurred not just the ire of his colleagues in the Pakatan-led state government, but also the Sultan of Selangor.

Reading through the list of offences under the Syariah criminal laws of the various states, you wonder how in the world those responsible for these laws think they could be enforced. Well, the Federal Territories Reli­gious Department (JAWI) has set up a 24-hour hotline, and PAS Youth in Terengganu wants to set up a vigilante squad to advise courting couples to desist.

All those legal drafters and Islamic scholars who created the long list of offences and punishment, the Cabinet and state excos who approved them, and Parliament and the legislative assemblies that enacted them … wasn’t anyone thinking through the implications of such violations of privacy and personal rights, and to the kind of society and citizenship this will create?

And still there are those who are demanding that the list of syariah offences be expanded to include all actions deemed against the teachings of Islam and the court’s powers to punish be enhanced beyond the current maximum of three years imprisonment, RM5,000 fine and six strokes of the rotan.

Unless we truly want to turn Malaysia into a police state as in Iran and Afghanistan under Taliban rule – where moral police are at every street corner, every office, every campus – such laws that turn every perceived sin into a crime against the state will only result in selective persecution and victimisation. It is also simply unenforceable because there is no public consensus on what constitutes indecent behaviour that merits regulation and punitive action.

In the end, such moral policing laws will erode the credibility and survival of both the law and the law-making process, says Prof Hashim Kamali who now heads the International Institute for Advanced Islamic Studies, in a study on te SCO legislation.

That this is already the case in Malaysia is obvious. The continual public outrage, the abuses that occur, the need for the federal government or the Sultan to intervene, the release of most of those detained, the apologies that the religious departments have had to extend to those victimised and abused, the damages (Maslinda was recently awarded RM100,000) and compensation (to the Langkawi couple) that the Government has had to pay, the international damage it does to Malaysia’s effort to promote itself as a model moderate and progressive Muslim country.

So the question before the Government is this: Review the Government’s coercive and punitive position on Islam for a more nurturing and compassionate approach; or enhance further the powers of the religious authorities to control the lives of Muslims and punish them ever more harshly, and consequently bring Islam, Islamic law and the religious authorities into further disrepute. Just look at Iran.