6th UKEC MSLS '12 (Day 2) : Part 1

Having finished my first progress test on Assurance now I have some time to type something 'bout the Malaysian Student Leaders Summit held on the 14 and 15th of July, at Inter-continental Hotel, KL. 

I didn't make it on the first day and barely had any idea 'bout it. For more info, visit http://www.facebook.com/ukeconline. The pictures shown below were also retrieved from the page. 

P/S: my English is still kinda suck-y

The 6th instalment of MSLS aims to bring forth issues at hand, allowing the youth to find expression whilst remaining grounded to the realities and challenges we face. This non-partisan forum attempts to cover a broad sphere of topics to unity and nation building.

Among the aspects covered were:

1) Religion session: Islamic State in the context of Contemporary Malaysia

Chandra Muzaffar, Wan Saiful and Dato' Zaid Ibrahim 

As on how we were brought up with, and also drawn in the Malaysian Constitution, Malaysia is an Islamic State. Or so we thought. The panels reflected that Malaysia is not legally an Islamic country, but more towards Islamic culture as an identity. Also, the definition is pretty subjective, depending on the degree of understanding and interpretation of the context.

The topic digs even deeper when the topic touches the implementation of hudud law, esp the punishment of amputation of hands of those who steal. Despite the suitability itself, the implementation of such punishment could be not-so-relevant.

Only eye-witness testimony and confession were admitted. For eye-witness testimony, the number of witnesses required was doubled from Islamic law's usual standard of two to four. Only free, adult Muslim men are eligible to testify in hudud cases. (In non-hudud cases the testimony of women, non-Muslims and slaves could be admitted in certain circumstances). A confession had to be repeated four times, the confessing person had to be in a healthy state of mind, and he or she could retract the confession at any point before punishment.

 However, while these standards of proof made hudud punishments very difficult to apply in practice, an offender could still be sentenced to corporal punishment at the discretion of the judge (see tazir), if he or she was found guilty but the standards of proof required for hudud punishments could not be met.

I overheard a conversation between some law students behind me, that a country/state must be free from poverty in order for execution of the law. Also, Dato' Zaid mentioned that the punishment is not applicable for all levels, which the same punishment is to be carried out against 2 different degree of severity, for example a person who steals $2000 and another who steals $20,000. Hence, we could assume that the idea is not ideal and merely another topic to draw political attention. The panel stressed on what Abraham Lincoln quoted where the person who runs the foundation should adhere to good practice.

If the country were to strengthen the position of Syariah law, it should be part of the constitution which then is exercised at the Federal level. But, it would be only eligible for Muslims. Burhan mentioned that the practice of Islam should be focusing on education, rather than prohibitions and punishments. Dato' Zaid said that what that matters is the system of government, which is democratic, and put every aspect at its best practice, compared to countries of Dictatorship, like Sudan and Iran.

That's the people and me. Sleepy?