The 3 million-strong Christian communities in Malaysia should only support the amendments to Act 355 if and when agreed by at least a two-thirds majority of MPs in Parliament. It must also be tabled as a public policy matter by the prime minister of Malaysia. Consistency with the Federal Constitution of 1963 must be our primary consideration.

Personally I can only support a restricted-only-to-Kelantan bill, if all Muslim sects in Kelantan are also agreeable to it. One further condition is that a full briefing with a final draft plus adequate time must be shared with all interested faith-based groups by the director general of the Department of National Unity; not the minister.

Constitutionality must be our primary and only concern; as the Federal Constitution is still the Supreme Law of this nation; and of course, we are setting aside our different views about God’s specific laws and requirement. That is a matter of personal and private, not public faith.

I believe that all Sabah and Sarawak MPs will always vote against the bill as originally tabled in Parliament. Moreover, since the constitutionality of the new and expanded jurisdiction is still an issue amongst most global Muslim scholars, we have to be extra careful how we do it. If we are not careful, constituent members states of Sabah and Sarawak will be forced to invoke the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Let us therefore not rush in where even angels fear to tread.

Rather unfortunately too, at many times past, most MPs of all colours and shades have blindly followed their party whip and voted to violate this original draft structure of our constitution. The consequent result, at times also, is that it created many other jurisdictional issues and concerns between state-level enactments and fundamental rights of all citizens of Malaysia.

We cannot have two classes of citizenship in one country or nation-state; that is not the nature of any democracy. Consequently even the office of inspector-general of police (IGP) has been left confused; as the chief criminal executor of laws in Malaysia. That is why we may become Melayusia.

My personal faith concerns

There are at least eight personal concerns specifically about the original Act 355 amendments draft as tabled by the PAS leader:

The amendment changes criminal punishment limits (which is fully a federal matter still), and redefines currently allowable state-level enactments of Syariah laws. Some of my questions of concern are: Why this bill is not therefore tabled as a constitutional amendment? Has it been formally tabled with the Rulers-in-Council? Especially the governors of Sabah and Sarawak do have much to say about such a criminal punishment without their concurrence;
The current bill does not include the death sentence; but it is obvious to any policy drafter that the silence of intentions may later include enablement of the chopping off of limbs, if any radical state so chooses. Please clearly exclude that now so that federal-state jurisdiction for public and civil spaces is clarified in no uncertain terms;
Syariah courts were created to support and enable state-level ‘hudud punishments’ but they are always a subsidiary court only equivalent to session courts but they must always remain under states and not become part and parcel of federal civil courts jurisprudence. Consequently Article 121 (1A) must be so amended and the nine states must evolve a public service of judicial officers paid for only by state and not federal funds;
There is currently an obvious non-standardised administration of punishments within the same nine subsidiary codes of Muslim misconduct. Malaysians or residents in the federation have a legal right to freely move between states under current laws, so how can Sarawakians and Sabahans in Johor Baru be therefore treated equally;
Any consequential poor administration of subsidiary state-enacted criminal justice will destroy our current federal civil law jurisprudence and system of civil and criminal justice designed for all Malaysians as citizens;
The original intent of Syariah enactments at state level was only for family and personal matters but any move to increase federal criminal law increments messes up and raises questions about who then is the real and clear enforcement authority. Criminal enforcement then becomes obviously confusing with the existence of two sets of laws even for Muslim citizens;
Currently, even family, inheritance and personal Syariah execution is far from wholesome or just within state-administered Shariah practices and that should be the focus of improving performance of Act 355; not increasing its jurisdiction; and finally;
Syariah by-laws cannot be made a federal criminal law enactment merely through creeping Islamisation and by the backdoor of constitutionality. Every adult Malaysian citizen must be equally consulted before its tabling. That is true and real participative democracy.