MCA and DAP speak alike on sharia

 |Jan 12, 2017
Secretary-generals ... Ong Ka Chuan of MCA (left) and Lim Guan Eng of DAP.
Secretary-generals … Ong Ka Chuan of MCA (left) and Lim Guan Eng of DAP.

MCA says it opposed the amendments to the syariah based on a principled argument towards upholding the integrity of the Federal Constitution.

Terence Netto is probably now going to write a flowery and glowing eulogy in Malaysiakini praising the MCA secretary-general Ong Ka Chuan for his powerful English.

This is the kind of thing that DAP and those from Pakatan Harapan would normally say.

They talk like this, with lots of ‘flowers’, although you do not really know what they mean.

Anwar Ibrahim is one perfect example of someone who talks a lot but says nothing.

He can talk for hours and thousands of words will come out of his mouth but at the end of it all you do not really know what he just said.

Many people complain about how long-winded I am but at least when I present my case I explain, in great detail, what I mean.

You must be either a Pakatun or an idiot if you still do not understand what I am saying when you read what I write.

Trust me on this one, after explaining the issue in 2,000 words or more, we still get Pakatuns who do not understand what I am trying to say.

Ong Ka Chuan does not oppose Islam or the sharia, he just opposes Muslims being punished under the sharia, whatever that was supposed to mean.

Anyway, let us take what MCA or Ong Ka Chuan said about why they oppose the sharia amendments.

Now, RUU355 or ACT355 concerns the amendments to the sharia.

MCA, just like DAP, opposed these amendments.

However, what MCA, just like DAP, did not explain is what precisely in those amendments do the party opposed.

After all, the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Does MCA even know or are it actually quite ignorant of the details and opposes the amendments just because DAP opposes them and because MCA does not want to lose out to DAP?

If I was managing this opposition to the sharia amendments I, in my normal long-winded manner, would mention what the sharia says now and what it would like after the amendments.

Then the readers would be able to see that the current sharia laws were actually very wonderful whereas once amended they would be terrible.

For example, let’s say under the current sharia law, a Muslim who was caught drinking can be jailed up to a maximum of six months.

Once that law is amended a Muslim can be jailed up to a maximum of one year.

Six months jail for a Muslim who drank beer is very good.

One year jail is not very good.

So, in essence, MCA and DAP still agree that Muslims who drink beer should be arrested and jailed.

But MCA and DAP do not agree that the jail sentence is doubled.

The same with a person who had sex with his sister-in-law.

Say, currently, if a Muslim had sex with his sister-in-law they can both be jailed up to a maximum of one year.

Under the new amendments, they will be jailed for two years.

So, one year jail for having sex with your sister-in-law or mother-in-law is very good.

Two years jail is not very good.

You see, this is how MCA and DAP should explain it so that Malaysians can understand the issue.

Currently, Malaysians do not understand what the existing sharia law is and if the amendments are approved what it is going to be.

As they say in China: never mind if it is a white cat or a black cat, all are the same.

 

This way Malaysians will understand that MCA and DAP agree that Muslims who drink or who have sex with anyone other than his or her own spouse should be arrested and jailed, which is what it is now.

The only thing that MCA and DAP do not agree is that the sentence should be increased from what it was now.

Arrest and jail Muslims who violate Islamic laws, but for not too long, though.

Light sentence or short jail time good enough.

This way Malaysians will understand that MCA and DAP actually support the sharia.

MCA and DAP do not oppose the sharia.

MCA and DAP agree that Muslims who committed crimes such as gambling, drinking, eating pork, not fasting, not praying, not going to the mosque on Friday, extramarital sex, adultery, apostasy (leaving Islam), and much more, should be arrested and jailed.

The only issue is for how long.

That is the only issue that MCA and DAP want resolved.

Now, because this is not clearly explained the way I have above, Muslims are of the opinion that MCA and DAP oppose the entire sharia and want Muslims to be allowed to gamble, drink, consume pork, not fast, not pray, not be forced to go to the mosque on Friday, be allowed to indulge in extramarital sex, commit adultery, leave Islam, convert to Christianity, etc., without facing punishment.

This will make the Muslims angry just like Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, would get angry if Muslims ask the government to ban all statues and idols in churches and temples which the non-Muslims pray to.

The other thing that MCA or Ong Ka Chuan need to explain is the part where they say their opposition to the amendments to the sharia was based purely on a principled argument towards upholding the integrity of the Federal Constitution.

No one will understand what this means.

Even I do not understand that statement and I am much smarter than the DAP supporters and the Pakatuns by far.

Once you start talking about the constitution you need to quote the article in the constitution.

It is like when you quote the Bible or the Qur’an you need to quote the verse and chapter.

You cannot just say: according to the Qur’an, paper money is haram, only gold and silver coins are halal.

You must mention the verse and chapter that says this.

If not you can say anything — such as the Qur’an says it is okay to cheat non-Muslims or steal from them because it is not haram to rob non-Muslims.

So, which article in the constitution is Ong Ka Chuan talking about?

In what way will the amendments to the sharia violate the constitution if, say, the jail sentence for Muslims who drink was increased from six months jail to one year jail?

This needs to be properly explained.

So, MCA, do not act like DAP.

If you want to act like DAP then leave Barisan Nasional and go join Pakatan Harapan.

Anyway, you are not going to win any seats in the next general election so whether you stay or go does not really matter.

If you do not know how to articulate your thoughts then just keep quiet like you have been for some time.

I suppose you MCA people come from the same Chinese school as those DAP people and that is why you think and talk the same way.

Do MCA and DAP also want freedom from sharia laws for gay Muslims? – Malaysia Today

SHARE
Raja Petra Kamarudin or RPK, cousin to the Selangor Sultan, is one of Malaysia's earliest online 'citizen journalists'. He started his website in 1995 before the internet 'explosion' triggered by the Reformasi movement in September 1998. Malaysia Today was launched as a blog in August 2004 and is one of the few pioneer blogs still active and posting articles on a daily basis 24-7. RPK, 66 years old, has been writing since 1990.