Kartika Caning – Why Prevent Open Discussion?

If you have been following the caning sentence of Malaysian model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno imposed by the Syariah court for drinking alcohol, you will know that there have been attempts by various parties made to prevent open discussion on this issue.

Take for example, the application filed by Sisters In Islam for a stay of the caning execution and a review of the caning sentence.  The filing application was returned to Sisters In Islam, which means the Syariah High Court is not accepting the filing and will not be hearing the appeal.

Then we have Johor Baru UMNO Youth and Wanita UMNO filing a police report against  the Joint Action Group Against Violence Against Women (JAG) alleging that JAG’s action shows a lack of respect for the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the Malaysian King) and the Malay rulers as the heads of Islam in the country, besides provoking the emotions of Muslims and therefore leading to religious conflict that may rock the communal harmony in this country.

Separately, 14 NGOs have made police reports against Sisters In Islam and various other NGOs for insulting Islamic law and the Syariah Court through their persistent questioning of, and attempts at rescinding, the caning sentence imposed on Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno.

Not forgetting also that Kulim Bandar Baru MP Zulkifli Noordin of the opposition Partai Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) party thinks that critising and questioning the punishments and its execution passed by the Syariah High Court on Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is like questioning and insulting the Federal Constitution and the syariah laws and he has called  on the National Fatwa Council to investigate and declare Sisters in Islam (and others) as deviant Islamic groups and to take action accordingly.

Now Sisters In Islam had earlier given its reasons for seeking to intervene in the caning case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno. It said that the advocacy group is not imposing anything on Kartika but was championing against the injustice. It also said that Section 289 of the Malaysia’s Ciminal Procedure Code specifically prohibited women from caning.

Now Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, an executive committee member of the Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), a JAG member, has written an article to argue why open public discussion on the caning case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno should not be stopped. She said: “Those who lodge police reports clearly aim to intimidate and suppress views that do not accord with theirs”. She then went on to debunk some of the familiar reasons used by people who want stop open public discussion on this case.

First off, the common question: “Why are you interfering?” Now by definition, to interfere means it is not a matter that concerns you in the first place.  For example, Syariah law is God’s law for Muslims.  You are not a Muslim, but Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is, so you are interfering in a matter that does not concern you.  To this, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said: “No one is questioning God’s laws. What is sought is a discussion of the human interpretation of these laws. It appears that even each Syariah State Enactment differs. So where is the seditious tendency in asking for these laws to be looked at and reviewed?”

Her next point is that if you take “any action that imposes upon the dignity and physical and mental well-being of another”, then you must be prepared to be scruntinized – you should not be allowed to hide behind a shield, like calling being under scrutiny by others as an interference and lodging police reports etc. Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan went on to say: “To me it is very clear. If we do not speak up for those who are afraid, reluctant or weak in the face of what we see as unfair treatment, then we betray our covenant to each other as a society of civilised peoples”.

So what does it mean to “speak up”?  It means to argue one’s case openly – in the Syariah High court, in the press, or face to face with those who lodge police reports against others. Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan puts it this way: “We must fight the urge to constantly shut down discussion. We must appreciate that the world is changing, and that there is a clamour for dialogue. We must leave a legacy of choosing the path of openness and discussion rather than force and suppression when faced with a difficult task”.

Think about it.  So there you have it.  The battle line in the caning case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno has been drawn. But one side is trying to engage while the other side is trying to avoid it by hiding behind “a shield”. Some may be tempted to argue that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno has accepted her punishment imposed by the Syariah court, and decided not to appeal the caning sentence. Case close – no further arguement.  But others are saying where is the check and balance?  Why deny Sisters In Islam the right to intervene on a matter of great public interest?  Why shouldn’t the judgment be subject to scrutiny by a higher court?  Did the judge err in not considering that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is a first offender who did not waste the court’s time by engaging in a lengthly trial?  She pleaded guilty, so should she be given both a fine and caning? And as Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said, even if one argues that caning is part of Syariah law, then why only 3 states in Malaysia has this caning punishment under Syariah law while the other 10 states do not?.  This case is not that easy afterall.  We await further twists and turn in this case.

Earlier posts

Kartika Caning – What’s At Stake?
Kartika Caning – MP Targets Sisters In Islam
Kartika Caning – UMNO Weighs In
Kartika Caning – Battle Line Drawn
Kartika Case – Caning Sentence Upheld
Who Is Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno?