Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

One piece of news that caught my attention was a statement issued by Dato Shahrizat Abdul Jalil. She has been at the forefront expressing reservations about the caning of Kartika Sari Dewi Sukarno. Sari Dewi is the model (as she calls herself) who was caught drinking alcohol by the Pahang religious authorities. She was tried by the shariah court and ordered to be caned in accordance with the Islamic way.

At the 11^th hour the God fearing religious authorities made a volte face, deferring the sentencing. Ok, the excuse was acceptable. It was the fasting month and in keeping with the holy month, no punishment of that kind can be carried out. Perhaps the judge or officers of the religious court can enlighten us by which 'nas' was the suspension of the sentence be made permissible? Is this the same with cessation of hostilities during the holy month of Ramadhan?

I have supported the caning by way of reasoning I wrote in several earlier essays. I was also hoping that such a sentence must be carried out consistently on everyone irrespective of social ranks. Now the shariah court in Wilayah Persekutuan will be given a chance to show everyone in Malaysia whether the application of the laws is done in a uniform manner. It will be interesting to see whether the application of this aspect of Islamic laws pertaining to drinking alcohol is the same in Wilayah as in Pahang.

There may be a case to test the universality of such laws. It is provided indirectly in the case involving the ongoing dispute between two royal households in Malaysia. It is reported that members of 2 royal households were involved in a terrible altercation. One was grievously hurt. He then went with 15 or more people to the hotel in which the other party was staying to seek retribution. The other party had, it is said, 4 minders with him. The 4 people were able to overpower the 15 or more people and inflicted on the latter punishment of their own. The 4 must be Kung Fu fighters.

Like many others, I want to know, how come 4 bodyguards can overwhelm 15 or more people from harming a person whom they were protecting? Unless of course the 15 or more hired hands from the Negeri royal house were too drunk to do anything of any significance. Wait a minute- did I say too drunk? Then whatever court conducts the hearing, it must establish the state of mind in which the 15 men were in. if they were drunk and proof can be adduced, then the highest religious court can only do one form of sentencing- have them caned in accordance to the Islamic way.

That's the issue of caning. It's now the other way. It isn't a case where the person convicted is afraid, it now appears that the Government is the one stalling.

Let us go back to the statement issued by Shahrizat. When Shahrizat said the SIS has right to seek a revision because it is looking at bigger picture, I am puzzled. The convicted says she accepts the caning as a form of penance. This is a private matter between kartika sari (the wrongdoer) and the shariah court. So, how could SIS who isn't a party in a purely private adjudication matter acquire locus standi to seek a revision and file for a stay of execution? I am puzzled as to how a 3^rd party can butt in into a case not involving a wrong against the state? The government must now promulgate a retrospective legislation to first make drinking alcohol a crime against the state. If SIS succeeds, will this create a precedence that in future any public spirited individual or group can interfere in the judgments of shariah courts? Isn't there a procedure such as that found in civil law that requires for such person/groups to do that, he or they must apply for leave from the AG or some other judicial enforcers?

It seems to me, Kartika is placing the whole nation on tenterhooks. Kartika is facing the caning sentence but the actual pain is felt by the nation. If kartika had been assigned a lawyer when she was tried, maybe that lawyer could have argued against the sentencing by referring to religious principles.

Now on what basis does SIS want to intercede in this case? Will it adduce arguments based on civil law and try to overturn shariah law? If SIS is allowed to do that on this basis, it will place the government uncomfortably between the devil and the deep blue sea. If it countenances the approach proposed by SIS, it will be seen as rejecting Islamic tenets. If it rejects SIS's approach, Malaysia will be seen cavorting with Stone Age druids.

Pray tell, where and what is the bigger picture. Seems to me the one on trial here are the shariah courts. They are in a between the devil and the deep sea situation.