Ridhuan Tee may court controversy everytime he opens his mouth but would he be the perfect dinner guest? The wannabe Malay might not agree to come on his own.

He would want his buddy, the other wannabe Malay, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad , to keep him company.

NONE Last October, at the forum called "Hudud: Its dilemma and implementation", organised by the Malay daily Sinar Harian , the National Defence University lecturer Ridhuan Tee Abdullah ( right ) expounded his views on Islamic hudud law.

He said, "To implement Islamic law and to educate non-Muslims (on Islam) can only be done by force."

The outrage that he sparked among Muslims and non-Muslims was expected. The Muslim convert is famed for labeling anyone who dares question Malay rights, or who disagrees with him and his beliefs, as "ultra kiasu".

One non-Muslim who declined to be named said: "Tee is probably oblivious to his surroundings. We do not belong in the medieval era. Given half a chance, he would probably have us stoned for disobeying him."

In November 2010, Tee caused another uproar when he said that "non-Malay speaking Malaysians and the 'ultra kiasu' will be the stumbling block to the government's transformation programmes".

At the time, he was one of three panellists speaking at the Malaysia Young Leaders Seminar in Parliament. A student who asked about Malay rights and Malay as the national language, was severely admonished.

Tee responded, "Those issues should not be debated. The non-Malays should absorb the country's policies into their own lifestyle, rather than resist them."

 Spooking the rakyat

The latest furore over hudud is nothing new. It is something that is dug up before every general election, dusted off and delivered to the public with all the energy that Umno can muster. The intention is to spook the rakyat, especially the non-Muslims, so that they will support BN.

NONE International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) law lecturer and constitutional law expert, Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Bari ( left ) disagreed with Tee's contention that hudud law be implemented by force.

Tee's statement, he said, had no legal or theological basis and he put forward the view of Muslim jurists that hudud law is only applicable to Muslims. In addition, he said that the federal constitution had to be considered.

Abdul Aziz said, "Whatever we have to say about hudud, we have to argue it on the basis of the constitution, not because (the constitution) is sacred...but simply because it is the basic law of the land".

He castigated Tee for his irresponsible and inappropriate comments which were unbecoming of an academic and for damaging Islam's reputation.

"(Ridhuan) may have some repressive laws in mind - something that has been imposed on the people without their consent. But that period is over and now they are more assertive about their rights; and Islam itself is more about freedom and choice rather than force and compulsion."

Tee had tried to qualify his assertion, with the claim that the "negative attitude" of non-Muslims towards Islamic law makes it unlikely that they will voluntarily accept its implementation.

He cited his own experiences ‘as an ethnic Chinese from a staunchly Chinese family and observations and studies of non-Muslims and their perception of Malaysia's federal religion'.

He said, "I can say that from then (the past) till now, the perception of non-Muslims toward Islam hasn't improved".

Ridhuan Tee claims to be an academic, so why does he persist in thinking that being Chinese or non-Muslim makes people reject hudud?

Why should someone who is not of the Islamic faith accept being governed by a barbaric law which advocates the chopping of hands and feet, the stoning of adulterers to death, the whipping of those who drink and prevents women from expressing an opinion, especially in matters of sex (unless one is a member of the Obedient Wives Club)?

Why should a country be governed by two sets of laws?

Most Muslims reject such a law. This has been explained extensively in many publications. For instance, a rape victim must supply evidence that she has been sexually assaulted. Does this make the police obsolete?

Will the traumatised victim have to go through another ordeal to prove she was raped?

Under hudud law, the woman must provide four male witnesses or risk being accused of illicit sex, if unable to do so. Crucially, witnesses who are non-Muslim cannot testify. Is this a fair and just law?

 Attacks on Tee

In the past, Chinese parliamentarians have criticised Tee for attacking non-Malays.

NONE The Seputeh MP, Teresa Kok ( left ) said, "He is trying to seek cheap publicity by using his identity as a Chinese to whack the non-Malays so he can get more prominence in Utusan Malaysia ."

Both Tony Pua, the Petaling Jaya Utara MP, and Dr Wee Ka Siong, the Deputy Education Minister, have said that Tee should stop cherry picking the constitution, which Pua added, suited Tee's ‘ultra-bigoted and extremist views'.

The Jelutong MP, Jeff Ooi, described Tee as a "dangerous" person for "stoking a lot of friction, tension and misunderstanding between different races and religions.....We have been trying the last 53 years to forge national unity and he is doing the reverse".

It would seem that Tee is trying to emulate his mentor, Mahathir, who is a past master at causing discord amongst the races.

The hapless Tee doesn't seem to realise that when he tries to be more than a Malay/Muslim, the Chinese hate him, but the Malays dislike him even more. Perhaps, the Indians like him?

Tee's dim view of his fellow Chinese is exemplified by his remark, "It is said that when asked to pick between an Umno that is known to be corrupt and PAS that is known for its integrity, a Chinese would rather choose the corrupt Umno over PAS and the Islamic state".

It is interesting that Tee should state categorically that Umno politicians are corrupt. Is he privy to confidential information, from his mentor? At least he acknowledges the integrity of PAS.

Why is Tee avoiding the real issue which is corruption? As an academic, Tee should question the quality of leaders in Umno who allow the reputation of their party to be tarnished.

Despite the majority Muslim population, Tee said that they were divided and lacked the courage to implement hudud.

He expressed regret that the Muslims did not grab the chance to force hudud onto the rakyat when presented with the perfect opportunity.

"We should have taken the chance to do so (implement Islamic law) after May 13 (1969)."

What Tee has suggested will cook up a storm.

Would he be the perfect dinner guest? My guess is he would disapprove of my choice of food and drink. I would not be serving sirap bandung or anything from ‘The Loaf' bakery.

 

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In 'real-speak', this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.