‘I speak out of sincerity’

Former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor speaks his mind about hudud, the law and police jurisdiction – and stands ready to face any brickbats.

THE former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor has come out strongly against PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s Private Members’ Bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.

He dismisses the notion that the Bill is merely to enhance the Syariah system. Instead he sees it as a “tactic” that PAS is using to push further for hudud (punishment under Islamic law).

In a plural society like Malaysia where non-Muslims make up about 40% of the population, Rahim fears such a move could fracture national integration and might even push Sabah and Sarawak to go their separate ways from peninsular Malaysia.

For him, all citizens should be dealt with equally under the law.

“If the punishments in the (civil) criminal jurisprudence are not severe enough, what’s wrong with us enhancing the existing civil laws? There is no need for hudud,” he says.

The following are excerpts from an interview with Rahim on Tuesday. For the full interview and a video, go to The Star Online.

Why are you making a stand on hudud, and what is that stand?

As a Malay and a Muslim, there are more important considerations to look into, such as socioeconomic, education and development issues that would help put us on firmer ground.

And asa a human being and ex-police eman who has been the IGP, the Federal Constitution has been the e country’s foundation since we e achieved independence in 1957. Th here have been only a few amendm ments in conjunction with Sabah an nd Sarawak coming in to form Ma alaysia in 1963.

It is cl lear from our Constitution that our criminal jurisprudence is based onn civil law and civil procedu ures. When I mention civil procedu ures, this includes all the work of the police. So when any crime is committed, the police will investiga ate according to the law. If there is a case, it will go to court and if th he person is found guilty, he will be punished.p

We alr ready have an existing system. So far no one has criticised our syste em as being archaic, lousy or one th hat doesn’t bring about justice. S So why the need for another system?

Hudud d has a lot to do with criminal l jurisprudence, such as theft, sex xual offences and crimes a against women. All this involvesi police work, po olice investiga ation, and the court. I don’t see e the need for r hudud.

But wouldn’t the country be safer if we practised hudud because people would be more fearful to steal and commit adultery and other crimes?

Pakistan under General Zia Ul Haq implemented hudud in 1979 for crimes like theft, rape and adultery. Before that, they were using the civil law. But what happened with the hudud was that with rape, the victim who is the complainant ended up in jail for making a false report and the rapist got away because she couldn’t produce four witnesses.

Mind you, these witnesses must be male, truthful and non-sinners. And women and non-Muslims can’t be witnesses even though they might have witnessed the crime. And the witnesses had to have witnessed the penetration. How could they unless they were close?

Before hudud was implemented in Pakistan, about 100 women were imprisoned because of this, but I read that after hudud was implemented, the number of women imprisoned (for false reports because they couldn’t produce witnesses) went up to 900.

Because of these bitter experiences with hudud, President PPervez MusharaffMhff iin 2006 drastically changed the law so rape cases now use the civil system they had before 1979. So in Pakistan, while there is hudud, this has now been very much subdued.

Demi Allah, I am not trying to belittle what some say is “God’s law”. But surely the law from God cannot be only about hudud? What about the law on other things?

In law, what we want is justice. Judgments have to have a legal basis and cannot be based on the whims or the emotional thinking of the judge.

In hudud, for sex-related offences, the punishment is stoning to death. From what I read, this must be carried out in a public place like a football field, the market place or a square for all and sundry to see because this will act as a deterrent.

But how can you do this in today’s day and age? This is like a syiok sendiri (cheap thrill) as if Parliament OKs laws to allow for the stoning to death. And should a lady be treated like this? My God, what is this?

In today’s day and age! We would be the laughing stock of the world! It is not a Malaysian tradition. Some might argue why am I so bold as to argue against God’s law? But I argue based on thinking.

Practically, how would it impact the police if hudud becomes the law?

Then there would be a need to look at whether this would involve the police. If so, this would require the police to enlarge their scope of criminal investigation to fulfil procedures of evidence according to hudud. But maybe those who wantt hhududdd wouldld t tellll th the policeli not to interfere because they would want to set up their own hudud police force under the state religious departments.

So it all depends on what the people and government want.

If Parliament passes a Bill that would allow Kelantan to implement hudud in the state, the police might say they don’t want to get involved. Except when the Federal Government tells the police that they have to investigate, then the police will have to. I don’t want to speculate.

The Prime Minister said the Private Members’ Bill being tabled is to “enhance Syariah” and not hudud. Comment?

I will say this: PAS senior leaders, and not just Hadi, agree with the PM. They deny that the Bill is to push for hudud. They say they only want to enhance the Syariah system, elevate the status of the Syariah Court and enhance the punishments under the Syariah.

For the PAS leaders, it is just a tactic. Next, it will be hudud. They say, “It doesn’t matter. We can’t get hudud straightaway so we have to do it slowly”. So the Bill might not state “hudud” and there is no deaththd sentence.t B But t whath t isi theth meaning of enhancement?

After this Bill has been passed, the next thing would be to push for the next step ( hudud).

It’s a political game. But the thing is there are those who actually believe that hudud is what God has ordained and is demanded by Islam. So they will keep pushing for this. This is not a good sign.

It will create fear and uneasiness among non-Muslims, including those in Sabah and Sarawak. And let’s not forget that many bumiputra in Sabah and Sarawak are non-Muslims.

If we agree to what they (PAS) asks (now), the pressure will keep moving. There should be a firm political stand on this. The Government cannot main-main (play games) in this matter. They have to come out and say that hudud cannot be implemented in the country because it contravenes the Federal Constitution. They

have to be firm.

So you are against hudud?

Definitely. If punishments in the (civil) criminal jurisprudence are not severe enough, what’s wrong with enhancing those existing civil laws?

In Indonesia, President Joko Widido was outraged when a 14-year-old was gang-raped and killed. And he instructed their law to be amended so that rapists of minors get the death sentence. There is no need for hudud. You can enhance existing criminal laws. When we do this, it can be used for all and not just Muslims.

Indonesia doesn’t have an official religion. The country’s foundation is rooted in the Pancasila (the five basic principles for an Indonesian independent state). We have our own the Rukunegara. It seeks to unite all the people. It states “Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” (belief in God) as one of its principles, not Islam. Belief in God is something applicable to all people, all religions.

Some would argue that the non-Muslims shouldn’t “make noise” about the Bill and hudud because it doesn’t concern them.

Thatt is a narrow way of thinking in termst of our spirit of tog etherness. This is a big deal and a quuestion of criminal justice. Eve ery citizen is the same under the law w. You cannot amputate the hand of a Muslim for theft and not do the same to a non-Muslim for the sam me crime. What if it is adultery or sexs outside marriage and one of the partners is Muslim and the oth her is not? So the Muslim partner wil l be convicted under hudud wh hile the non-Muslim will be tried und der the civil system and might get away scot free.

SomeS Muslims would criticise youu as being secular. They will que estion if your being against hud dud means you are against Isla am. How prepared are you for bri ickbats?

I know that is a possibility and it is a risk I have to take. But that is wh hat I am. I speak my mind. And it’s not just on hudud. I was that wayy too when I was the SB (Special Bra anch) director handling national sec urity. I always spoke my mind. If ppeople want to criticise me, I’ll just t face it. I speak out of sincerity. It iss up to the people whether they acc cept what I say or not.

rahim: ‘In law, what we want is justice. Judgments have to have a legal basis and cannot be based on the whims or the emotional thinking of the judge’.