The brouhaha of resigning after hudud Bill is passed
Several high-ranking politicians are giving the impression they are champions and getting good political mileage from it.
By Ravinder Singh
I cannot help but think that huhud is the latest show in town. After the queue-jumping in Parliament (of which intent news was out at least a day earlier) to table the Bill, now we have other players coming onto the stage to express their “surprise”, “anger”, “disapproval”, and subsequent threats to resign.
Funny thing is, some high-ranking politicians are threatening to resign only if the hudud Bill is passed. What is the point of shutting the gates after the horses have bolted?
If any one of them is serious about resigning, if they are honest about wanting to put their foot down, then the proper time to resign would be when they fail to get it withdrawn. There would be no point in them debating the Bill and seeing it passed, then “resigning”. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?
My hunch is that there probably is something known to very limited individuals. Thus it is very safe to threaten to resign after the Bill is passed as there will likely 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 – always good at getting political mileage.
Desperate people 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 defended even with crushed bodies and broken bones?)
Having used all other forms of bait 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 both being just 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 can 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 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 the Koran’s teachings were 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.
He 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.”
Ravinder Singh is an FMT reader.
Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.