PAS had the floor yesterday. They had almost three hours to explain the rationale behind RUU355 to lawmakers in the Dewan Rakyat.

But despite the lengthy explanation, several Barisan Nasional coalition parties are still not convinced that making amendments to the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 is the way forward.

Basically, they do not believe PAS MP and party president Abdul Hadi Awang’s assertion that non-Muslims will not be affected if his private member’s bill is pushed through.

MCA religious harmony bureau chairman Ti Lian Ker said his party was simply not satisfied, especially with Hadi’s guarantee that non-Muslims won’t be affected.

 “There are also questions that remain unanswered, namely about the shariah criminal procedure code. And also about the requirements that speak of having four witnesses to a crime like rape.

“We are firm in our stand against the proposed amendments, and will continue to oppose them until there are assurances that can change our minds,” Ti told The Malaysian Insight.

The Chinese party’s Wanita chief Datuk Heng Seai Kee said in the first place, it would be unfair to have different punishments for crimes.

“This goes against the spirit of the Federal Constitution which provides equality for everyone under the law.

“Nobody should be discriminated because of his or her religion when it comes to the law,” she said, adding that there were also fears that Muslims may feel they are unfairly treated and later demand that the same shariah punishments be applied to everyone.

“Look at Brunei. Its shariah laws apply to all citizens. There is a possibility if may happen here if the bill is passed.”

Gerakan Youth chief Tan Keng Liang also had his reservations about Hadi’s bill. He said it was still unclear what would happen in cases where the culprits and victims were of different religions.

“In the case involving both non-Muslims and Muslims, which law would apply? I don’t think this was properly addressed by PAS yesterday,” he told The Malaysian Insight.

Tan, a lawyer by profession, also noted that it had not be specified to what kind of crimes the heavier penalties proposed in Hadi’s bill would apply.

“I guess it will be up to the states, like Kelantan, to decide and amend their respective state amendments.”

Sarawak’s deputy home minister Masir Gujat said his Party Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) would still oppose the bill.

“There might some truth to what Hadi said but I’m still not convinced why we should amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965).

“If the bill had gone to a vote, no matter what arguments Hadi had put forward, I would have voted against it.

“I also have to abide by the party’s directive and position,” the Sri Aman MP said, but added that personally, he was unconvinced with Hadi’s arguments.

“I am concerned what effect such laws would have on non-Muslims. What we (PRS) are afraid of is that it would be in violation of the Federal Constitution and a prelude to hudud law.”

Masir said between now and before Parliament sits in July, he believed his party would review Hadi’s arguments and review its stand.

Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia adjourned the session sine die, causing an uproar in the house, as opposition lawmakers complained they were not given the chance to debate the bill. – April 7, 2017.