CAN WE POLICE MORALITY?

Can we police morality?

KJ John Aug 4, 09 10:40am

I once wrote a column asking the rhetorical question: "Is the air we breathe green in colour?" Today, I would like to ask the same question, but in a slightly different way. Today I ask, can we police morality?

In the book of John Chapter 8, it is recorded that once the "priests, teachers of the laws of Moses and the enforcers of that law" brought a prostitute to Jesus and asked him to condemn her.

He said nothing but wrote in the sand with one hand, the equivalent of these words in Hebrew: "Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone."

The punishment for adultery or prostitution was death by stoning. After a while, when he looked up again, all the men had left. Jesus turned to the woman and said, "Go and sin no more!" And she left.

My question therefore, in our modern constitutional monarchy and democracy which we call 1Malaysia, who has "power" to undertake the job of moral policing? Who today perpetuates equivalent "enforcement" within such teaching under the doctrine of Mosaic laws of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?"

Wise Mahatma Gandhi once said, such a teaching, when enforced blindly, could make the whole world blind. Gandhi agreed with Jesus.

My heart was broken to read about the lady caught drinking beer recently in a pub in Pahang. The judgment: Canning by whipping and monetary fine, after she pleaded guilty.My question to all "authorities," who has the authority to enforce this judgment, under our Rule of Law within our framework of constitutional supremacy?

I therefore empathised with complete sadness and a sense of helplessness that under the Syariah Law system of the state of Pahang and their corresponding Syariah Court judgment had sentenced a Muslim lady with a fine and whipping.

Even criminal law in Malaysia does not allow whipping of women. Come on, does she really need to be whipped for her to learn her lesson? Even an apostate in Negri Sembilan can be counseled and then released.

Tudung issue

Is beer more severe than apostasy? Mine is not a religious question but rather a moral one in the context of a civil and multi-ethnic society that we seek to nurture in under our 1Malaysia agenda.

After all, I'm not a Muslim. Nevertheless, as a Malaysian citizen who seeks to live under our laws of civil governance, my question has all to do with our federal laws and its jurisdiction for criminal punishment as against state enactments under Syariah jurisprudence but limited only to personal faith and its application to family matters.

State enactments are only enactments and limited only to the nine Malay States. They are not standard federal laws (as against enactments) and vary from state to state. Moreover they are a subsidiary jurisdiction, as an appendix to the constitution.

Let me take one example to make the case. Can and should we allow Tok Nik Aziz, the chief ulama of PAS and the Menteri Besar of Kelantan to apply his "paksa-rela" ruling on the tuding issue in the state of Kelantan?"

Under what laws would such enforcement take place? Should or would the police help any ulama enforce this or any such rule in Kelantan? If so, under what laws of the federation would they do this? After all the "Polis DiRaja" are sworn under the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, or King of Malaysia; who only exists at the federal level and not at the state level or under the Syariah?

Therefore now, my question to all constitutional experts about Malaysian Rule of Law: Who can police such moral rules in the federation? Who would hold and have legitimate executive authority to punish such offenders?

Does our system of federal and state laws allow for "federal enforcement of such laws related to a very personal or family faith matter?" To my mind, at best, this interpretation of a "beer drinking violation" is moral teaching guided by differing interpretations of a spiritual doctrine of what is forbidden in any religion.

How then does a state authority (meaning federal government and her systems of enforcement) execute such personal faith issues in the public spaces of life based merely on "syariah law, which is only a state enactment."?

If it can, then, can the Malaysian Christian Federation request the police help to "jail all offenders of bribery and corruption?" Bribery and corruption is antithetical to all religions in Malaysia. Why should not the policing of such morality issues also be transferred to the police for criminal enforcement; maybe even under our "draconian ISA?"

Different approaches

Can every other faith system also similarly ask the federal government help to enforce their rules and codes of their misconduct as well?

Under our constitution-defined criminal and civil law system of governance, acts against the State, and other such morally agreed popular rules of conduct, as legislated by the nation-state and agreed to by majority of the constituents, becomes the laws of the land.

That geography of the "land" is the federation and all its constituents, inclusive of all three states of the federation, with zero exceptions, unless explicitly provided by the constitution.

Under that same "Federal System of Laws" our supreme law of the land is the Federal Constitution.

We have allowed, under the same constitution, one of the states of the Malaysian Federation (i.e. the Federation of the Peninsular of Malaya), and within it certain states (nine to be exact) to legislate Muslim enactments as they apply to Islamic personal and family law.

Under this "states of Malaya" enactment comes nine different Syariah law systems which may view "drinking, or smoking, or gambling" for that matter and other such morality matters as "against their interpretive practice of Islam" in that state.

Therefore my question again: "Who can police morality in the Federation of Malaysia?"

There are different approaches to address such morality issues. President Obama has the freedom to practice "beer diplomacy," but our lady is not permitted to practice "beer friendships."

I must declare that I do not drink beer, and normally do not, except for two brands of beer; root beer and ginger beer! Therefore, I'm not even arguing a case for beer-drinking. Mine is an argument for, "Public Space Morality: Which values should be used and whose responsibility is policing it?"

My advice, like that of my teacher, Jesus, therefore is: "Let him who has not failed morally, cast the first stone!" Yes, unfortunately in this case it is a 'him;' and in the Harvard Professor's case, it was a "white police officer!"

As we all seek to transcend ethnicity or gender biases while promoting objectivity and professionalism at the personal level, the judge and jury cannot become the same person or the same system.

We need checks and balances. Therefore, the judge cannot mete out punishment, same as why the teachers and scribes brought the prostitute to Jesus. He appeared to be a "new teacher of a new law." Neither did he judge her; because total, complete and final judgment only belongs to GOD. But, he did warn her to: "Go and sin no more!"

May GOD bless Malaysia!

I'm sure all of us agree for a fact that all religions teach us to do good. Trouble starts when the religious try to impose their will on others. Man (the human race) was designed with a free will. No one can force another to say 'yes'. I may be forced but what's the point when my heart is 'not there'? Thus, religion is and should be all about one's personal choice.

There are those who are not adherents of any faith yet they are highly-disciplined people - no smoking and drinking - eat and exercise well! To these people, their 'religion' is HEALTH!

So, do we really need a religion? I guess not! ;-)