MCA president Chua Soi Lek reiterated his party's stance against the implementation of hudud but he will not meddle in the ongoing debate between Umno and PAS over the issue as he does not understand it.

“I will not talk on something that I don't understand. That is something unfair,” Sinar Harian today quoted him saying.

NONE He told the Malay daily that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has made it clear that the BN will not implement the Islamic penal code.

"We believe hudud will not be implemented. We just don't trust PAS and Pakatan Rakyat (that they will not)," he said.

Chua ( right ) maintained that non-Muslims will not receive equal treatment under hudud.

"They (PAS) said non-Muslims would not be involved if hudud was implemented, but what would the punishment be if a crime was jointly committed by non-Muslims and Muslims?

"What would happen if a Muslim man raped a non-Muslim woman? What would be the punishment?" he queried.

Hudud bogey rises yet again

"If this nation practises PAS' hudud, Malaysia's international status would be affected, and foreign investment would drop, and it would impact on everyone, not just Muslims, because the punishment under hudud is seen as infringing human rights," Chua added.

He also claimed that a recent public forum featuring Umno's working committee secretariat of young ulama chairperson Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya has led to understand that Umno will not implement hudud.

However, Fathul Bari ( below ) in a separate report on the same page in Sinar Harian contradicted Chua, saying that he is willing to explain to Chua that non-Muslims would not be subjected to injustice under hudud.

NONE "I am also prepared to be invited to explain Islamic laws and hudud to other non-Muslim leaders like DAP chairperson Karpal Singh, (parliamentary leader) Lim Kit Siang or secretary-general Lim Guan Eng," he told Sinar Harian .

He claimed that the ulama secretariat has held discussions with Chua on the topic.

"I had discussed this issue with Chua and found out that he had made a preliminary analysis before debating.

"However the analysis was not sufficient because it was not thorough, instead it needed to be explained further," he added.