I appreciate very much the space given to Malaysians to discourse on the tabling of the hudud or Islamic criminal law in Trengganu. I believe that, whatever the final conclusions reached by the participants themselves, the process of debate itself, if conducted in a rational manner, would make the nation more mature.

It is with this spirit of approximating the truth that I wish to ask Malaysians to pause and think: which is the more fearsome and cruel law — hudud or the Internal Security Law?

First and foremost, hudud , being an Islamic law, will not be applied to non-Muslims because it is explicitly stated in the Quran that there is no compulsion in religion. Compare hudud with ISA which provides detention without trial for an indefinite period of time. ISA is applicable to all Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Second, within the area of jurisdiction of hudud , namely among Muslims, there are still procedures of open trial needed for one to be tried. The accused is entitled the right to engage lawyers to defend himself or herself in open court.

All these procedural justice stipulated in hudud are clearly absent in ISA which allows only one man, namely the home minister, to sign a detention order for a person to disappear into police cells and detention camps, possibly forever. Which law is more modern and civilised in procedural justice ?

Third, the need for witnesses and strict evidences in hudud also sharply contrasts with ISA which abolishes such requirement. Which law is more in line with the maxim that one is innocent until proven guilty ?

Fourth, the charges of hudud are specific but the allegations under ISA could be vague, general and even imaginary. Which law is more unjust?

I hope those who oppose hudud and defend ISA would respond to the basic and fundamental questions of legal justice I stated above.