I refer to the letter entitled ' Is MCA staunchly anti-Islam ' and wish to observe that the writer Jackson Ng has gone emotional and rhetorical on the issue of hudud simply because of his political dislike for MCA and BN.

His letter looks more like a political propaganda devoid of good arguments for public consumption. Jackson sounded more PAS than PAS and he pretends as if hudud has got nothing to do with non-Muslims.

Actually this 'zero-effect' theory was widely propagated by PAS and DAP leaders to convince the non-Muslim community to side with Hudud law.

However, for the sake of non-Muslims who think that Hudud has nothing to do with their livelihood, please follow through the following hypothetical case before arriving at the "zero effect" conclusion.

Say, after the implementation of hudud law, a Muslim criminal is caught stealing within a non-Muslim community.

The incident is sighted by a few eyewitnesses but none of them is Muslim.

By application of hudud law, nothing actually happened as non-Muslim eyewitnesses are barred from testifying at Syariah criminal courts.

Supporters of hudud would say that since the victim is a non-Muslim , this particular case should be tried in a normal criminal court.

This argument actually cannot hold true because the benefit of doubt belongs to the accused, not the victim.

The accused must be given the best platform to defend himself if he chooses so.

On the selection of which court system to apply, experts from legal fraternity would agree that the maxim on "benefit of doubt" when presented for final decision in the Federal Court, would eventually pave the way for the accused to stand trial in a Syariah Court even though the statutory words in hudud law clearly say otherwise.

Please think carefully before arriving at zero-effect conclusion. Hudud is not about party politics but more of a basic constitutional issue confronting the non-Muslim community.

Supporters of hudud seem to take the simple view that selection of which court to apply is bound by the religious identity of the victim and could be simply guaranteed by a specific provision in hudud law.

This is simply too wrong, too ignorant.

On contrary, it is basically all right for MCA to generate public discussions on hudud.

MCA is certainly not anti-Islam but very pro-constitution. Jackson Ng has no right to deny others of public discussions.

If by the end of day, the non-Muslims community stills holds to the "zero-effect" theory, then MCA has played its part, it is entirely up to the community to take the blame and suffer collectively later on.