DAP's call on the PAS-led Terengganu government to remove the controversial provisions in its proposed Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment Bill (hudud bill) "to reduce opposition towards it and make it more acceptable" is clearly misdirected.

One of the principal grounds of Zaid Ibrahim's application to the Federal Court for a declaration to invalidate Pas' tabling of Hudud bill next month is the constitutional point that states like Kelantan and Terengganu "have no legislative power to pass any legislation for the creation of or the punishment of any criminal acts punishable under Federal laws"

DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang himself said that the punishments proposed under the hudud bill contravene federal laws in purporting to give Syariah courts powers to impose sentences exceeding the limits of three years' jail, RM5,000 fine or six strokes of the rotan as set by federal law.

If, by the provisions of Federal Constitution, the passing of the Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment Bill shall be in excess of and outside the authority of the Terengganu state government's powers and jurisdiction, it will remain unconstitutional regardless that provisions violating human rights and discriminatory against women have been watered down or removed.

The DAP which upholds the sanctity of the 1957 Constitution should not condone its infringement by an ultra vires act of the Terengganu State Government even if controversial provisions of the hudud bill are watered down or removed.

The other point that DAP fails to address is that, to PAS, hudud are laws prescribed by the Almighty. This being the case, how could hudud be changed and toned down in order to appease demands of women groups, NGOs, or political parties like the DAP?

Terengganu Mentri Besar Hadi Awang had already given the cue when he turned down an invitation to consult the Attorney-General's Chambers on the tabling the hudud bill. Hadi was reported to have said "that the Muslim party feels its obligation to God is greater than fulfilling the demands of the AG's Chambers" . If that were the case, the party ought also to feel its obligation to God greater than fulfilling the demands or allaying the concerns of women's groups, NGOs and political parties like DAP as well!

Whilst the Federal Constitution is viewed by the DAP as supreme, the same may not hold equally true for Hadi. To Hadi, it may well be that if hudud conflicts with our Constitution, it is the Constitution that, as man-made law, should give way to hudud by reason of it being God's laws.

With such divergent world views, beliefs and values, there is really little common platform for constructive engagement, and Lim's exhortation that Hadi takes another course than tabling the hudud bill is unlikely to be heeded.