I can’t help but think that huhud is the latest show in town. After the queue-jumping to table the bill in Parliament, we now have other players coming onto stage to  express their “surprise”, “anger”, “disapproval” and threats to resign.

The funny thing is that the threats to resign by some high-ranking politicians all speak of resigning if the Hudud Bill is passed. What is the point of shutting the gates after the horses have bolted?

If anyone of them is serious about resigning, if they are honest about wanting to put their foot down as they want us to believe, then the proper time to resign would be when they fail to get it withdrawn. There would be no point in them debating on it and seeing it passed, then “resigning”. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

My hunch is that there probably is something top secret known to very limited persons. Thus it is very safe to threaten to resign after the Bill is passed as there would be no necessity to keep the promise as the pre-condition may not materialise. By threatening to resign, they give the impression of being champions. Good for getting political mileage.  

Desperate people can do desperate things. Certain parties are desperate to win the coming two by-elections at all costs (remember the general election war cry that Putrajaya would be defended even with crushed bodies and broken bones?).  

Having used all other baits to win votes, the ultimate bait had to be thrown into the arena to appease the appetite (hopefully) of the voters who could make a difference to the outcome of the two by-elections. With the by-elections around the corner, the ruling party had no choice but to give the bill the honour of jumping the order-paper queue to serve its immediate purpose in the campaigning.

This also could explain the postponement of the debate and voting so that the full drama could be played out to cast wool over the eyes of the public and for politicians to come out as champions and heroes.

We are told that this drama is not consistent with the decision of the cabinet, and earlier decisions on this issue of hudud. Well, if this is true, then why not resign over this dishonourable act?

About two years ago, Hossein Askari, an Iranian-born professor of International Business and International affairs at George Washington University, said that the Quran's teachings are better represented in Western societies than in Islamic countries, which have failed to embrace the values of their own faith in politics, business, law and society.

Hossein said Muslim countries used religion as an instrument of state control: “We must emphasise that many countries that profess Islam and are called Islamic are unjust, corrupt, and underdeveloped and are in fact not ‘Islamic’ by any stretch of the imagination”.