Overwhelming response to a public debate on the enforcement of public morality in Malaysia

On 27 April, the Liberal Forum Malaysia gave the Malaysian public the opportunity to discuss the controversial matter of enforcing public morality with three outstanding panelists. Expectations were high, because the Friedrich Naumann Foundation invited Dr. Siti Mariah, PAS Dewan Muslimat Information Chief and nominated candidate for the Vice-Presidency of PAS, to discuss with Ms Zainah Anwar, Executive Director of Sisters in Islam. The third panelist was Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, former UN Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, who enriched the discussion with his knowledge of international judicial systems and international law enforcement. His participation also manifested the desire of the organizers to avoid the event to be taken as a public showdown between PAS and SIS or to be reduced to an internal discussion within the Muslim community.

While the event and the discussions were highly political, the exchange was generally characterized by its openness and mutual respect among all participants. This constituted the success of the programme.

The conflict spins, at its heart, around the question whether to leave morality to the discretion of the individual or whether there is the need to limit individual behaviour and to punish trespassers. Zainah Anwar argued for greater self-determination of the Muslim individual combined with the need for public education and character-building programmes. Meanwhile, Dr. Siti Mariah found this overly idealistic and called for rules that guide and limit hedonistic desires of the less educated Muslims.

The discussion proceeded on whether the existing Syariah Laws are deemed suitable to guide the Muslim population of Malaysia. Both sides agreed that these laws require a thorough review. However, Sisters in Islam went further and called for the repeal of certain provisions and regulations. According to Sisters in Islam, inconsistencies in the Syariah laws lead to overly large discretionary powers of the government enforcement agencies. This leads to biased enforcement and, hence, to injustice. The example was that raids would punish Muslim visitors to alcohol-serving pubs while Muslim patrons in 5 Star Hotels, so far, did not have to fear the government agencies. Also, there is still a Fatwa against smoking in the state of Selangor, which, of course, can only be partially enforced. This, according to Sisters in Islam, contradicts the Islamic principle of justice.

Param Cumaraswamy referred to his mission as UN Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to Saudi Arabia arguing for the legitimacy of calls for a review of Syariah laws. He had been invited by the Saudi Arabian government to review their Syariah laws in regard to their procedure and implementation. He took this example to also stress the legitimacy of Non-Muslims to involve in discussions about the Syariah laws, as long as they abstain from touching upon genuine matters of the Muslim faith.

In the final analysis, the debate made it very clear that Malaysians struggle with challenges of globalization and the ever more pressing adjustments to evolving values in the modern world. While Sisters in Islam trust the Malaysian individuals to embrace modernity, PAS takes on a more defensive attitude and feels government needs to enforce strict moral codes to protect the Muslim identity. However, the different positions among the discussants also made it very clear that the desired unity among the Muslim faithful does not exist and that there is no consensus in the Muslim community on the moral laws called upon by PAS. This refutes their claim to represent the umma. Even less, of course, can they represent those members of society, who do not follow the Muslim faith.

[ Back ]