Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Sun (Used by permission)

Letters to Editor of The Sun

I REFER to your interesting editorial comment entitled "Uphold our secular constitution" (July 16-17).

I read with keen interest the debate on Islamic state issue in Parliament and the misbehaviour, or shameful behaviour, of some lawmakers.

The issue, being a matter of crucial importance, for both the Muslims and non-Muslims, naturally elicited heated arguments during the winding up of the Syariah Court Evidence (Federal Territories) (Amendment) Bill 2005.

While the debate was in process, one member lost his sense of rationality and level-headed thinking. He made remarks which were impregnated with chauvinism, disrespect for law and bigotry.

Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang, as politicians who are quite well-versed in legality of the issue concerned, proffered their sterling explanations and legal interpretations based on the decisions given in the case, Che Omar Che Som vs DPP, in a competent Malaysian court.

Court decisions and laws must be respected even if you disagree with them. Otherwise, we would have a dysfunctional legal system. A dysfunctional legal system would stimulate civil disobedience and disorder.

Lawmakers must display impeccable deference for legal systems. They are indispensable and inherent parties to the evolution of a legal system.

Court decisions and laws enacted by Parliament are entrenched parts of the system.

If they themselves are callous towards the rule of law, what degree of respect can we expect from the man in street?

In the parliamentary proceedings on last Monday, Abdullah Md Zin either genuinely could not grasp the salience, significance and depth of the explanations which were purely and simply legal or apathetically and casually refused to accept the secular connotations attached to them.

Whatever his rationale maybe, we respect his stand. That is his birthright and democratic right.

In the same way, Abdullah should have high moral strength to allow others to exercise their inalienable rights as parliamentarians and Malaysian citizens - that is, to disagree where there is merit to disagree.

This is their birthright and democratic right in a functioning democracy.

To superimpose your values, principles, dogmas and ideas, quite forcefully on others, is unacceptable and must be resisted in the larger interest of a multi-racial and multi-religious society.

The stakes are high, if people at the apex of decision-making discard restraints to perpetuate their own selfish, self-centred interests.

Asking Malaysian citizens and fellow parliamentarians to "leave the country if you do not like the law" and "just chase them out of this country" is downright farcical, insulting and derogatory.

A total disregard and disrespect for the basic citizenry legal rights and universally accepted human rights. It can also amount to sedition.

Such exhortations can drive fissures into the peaceful co-existence of a peace-loving society.

Baharuddin Amirulddin should know the ordinary meaning of "leaving the country and chase them out". If you do not, be prepared to be enlightened on the technicality and legality of your statement.

Ordinarily, only illegals, foreign criminals and foreign spies are persona non grata in this country. They have to leave. Even then, they can only be asked to do so after exhausting the due process of our laws, international laws and norms.

This is the general expectation of the present day civil and civilised society.

Such an indignity is not enforced on our own citizens - definitely, not on the responsible, law-abiding, nation-loving, peace-loving, democratically-elected parliamentarians who are true-blue Malaysian citizens.

Anyone sitting in the august House without knowing the simple difference is not worth the salt.

If you decide to occupy public office, learn to be a responsible, respectable parliamentarian and eat humble pie.

Respect is earned not by pouring out irresponsibly some emotion-filled insensible indignities.

But, by a rational analysis of societal needs and wants. And, also meeting society's expectations.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed