Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Should Tun Dr Mahathir be put to death? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 13 Apr 2013 10:48 PM PDT

Now, let us assume that the person who asked this question happens to be a Christian. How would I answer the question without being accused of insulting Christianity? Considering that the Christians are as sensitive to perceived insults to their religion as Muslims are, we need to be very careful that I am not perceived as insulting Christianity.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Someone posted a comment in Malaysia Today asking me my opinion on whether Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad should be put to death. The way this person asked me that question sounded like he or she agreed that Tun Dr Mahathir should be put to death and this person was just testing me and was trying to extricate a response from me.

Now, first of all, which crime are you referring to? Did Tun Dr Mahathir murder someone? Which murder case was this? We need to first know the details of the crime.

Or are you talking about the crime of treason, which carries a death penalty? Now, not all cases of treason carry the death penalty. There are many types of treasonous acts. Selling secrets to a foreign power. Spying for a foreign power. Sabotaging our security and national defence to weaken Malaysia so that a foreign power can invade Malaysia and occupy the country.

We need specifics.

We also need to know whether you are talking from a legal/law point of view or a moral/religious point of view. Which section of the law are you talking about and does that section of the law carry the death penalty? Then the issue of evidence comes into play. What is the evidence you are talking about that a crime has been committed under that section of the law that carries the death penalty?

I fear that some people talk about the law but have very limited knowledge of the law. For example, they ask why the Malaysian government does not extradite me. They do not seem to know that the first issue to be considered in an extradition application is dual criminality. Do they even know what dual criminality means? Hence if there is no dual criminality then Malaysia cannot extradite me.

Secondly, they need to convince the UK court that a crime has been committed (after first establishing dual criminality). And that would mean they need evidence to do this. To just tell the UK court that I have insulted Islam is not good enough because in the UK insulting Islam is not a crime.

To the Malaysian government, my crime of insulting Islam is because I whacked the religious department for saying that non-Muslims are the enemy of Islam. The UK government will not only reject the argument that condemning the religious department for saying that non-Muslims are the enemy of Islam is a crime, they would probably give me the key to the city for opposing what the UK would regard as a hate crime. I may even be given 24-hour protection and be listed alongside Salman Rushdie as a protected species.

So you see, before I can even comment as to whether Tun Dr Mahathir should be put to death, we need to go through the long and tedious process of the indictment, the trial, the appeals or counter appeals, the pardon, and only after the process has been completed and all avenues exhausted can the death sentence be carried out. And considering Tun Dr Mahathir's age, he would most likely leave this world long before you can complete the process. Hence the process and my comment would be purely academic.

Christianity says 'thou shalt not kill'. Hence if I say that Tun Dr Mahathir should be put to death that would mean I am saying that Christianity is wrong. How would the Christians react to my statement that says 'thou shalt kill' Tun Dr Mahathir when Christianity says 'thou shalt not kill'?

Can you see my dilemma I am facing here? As it is, people like Keith Pereira are already accusing me of being a Christian hater. Do I want to risk contradicting the Ten Commandments by suggesting that you kill Tun Dr Mahathir?

Okay, you may say that the Bible says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But the Bible also asks you to turn the other cheek. Hence which version of the Bible should I use? And if I were to say that I am confused because there appears to be contradicting versions of the Bible, again, the Christians would whack me and preach to me about the Old Testament and the New Testament, as if I am ignorant about the religion when in fact I probably know more about Christianity than Christians themselves.

So you see, your question is a difficult question to reply to. Maybe if you can be more specific then I may be able to give you a reply to that question. Until then I await your more detailed response so that I can offer you the reply that you seek.

Meanwhile, take care and don't worry too much about putting people to death. Eventually we are all going to die anyway. It is only matter of when. And there is always a chance that you may die before Tun Dr Mahathir does. After all, 10,000 Malaysians die every year due to traffic and other accidents so you never know when your time is up.

*******************************

敦馬哈迪應該被處死嗎？

現在，讓我們假設提出上述這個問題的人是個基督徒。那我應該怎樣回答他才能不被講説我是在侮辱基督教呢？基督徒們和囘教徒一樣都是很敏感的，他們很容易會把別人的動作看成是侮辱他們的宗教，所以我必須格外小心才不被儅成是侮辱基督教。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

有人在MT上留言問我敦馬哈迪應不應該被處死。從那個人的問法我看得出他或她很贊同敦馬哈迪應該被處死，而這個人只是想測試我，要從我的口中得到一個答復。

那好，首先請問你指的是哪宗罪？敦馬殺了人嗎？這是哪宗謀殺罪呢？我們必須先知道犯罪的内容。

還是你指的足以判死刑的叛國罪？並不是所有的叛國都帶死刑的。這世界存在很多种叛國的行爲：販賣國家機密，為其他國家進行間諜活動，破壞國防來削弱國家實力以讓其他勢力更容易地侵犯我國等。

我們需要具體的説明。

我們也有必要知道你是從法律觀點出發還是從道德/宗教觀點出發。你是從哪一條法律來看而那條法律是否又帶死刑呢？然後我們要談到證據。你能夠為那條帶有死刑的法律提供證據嗎？

我擔心的是有些人大談法律但他們根本就不懂法律。給你個例子，很多人都問爲什麽大馬政府不要引渡我。他們看起來並不知道引渡嫌犯的首要條件是'兩國共認罪行'（dual criminality）。他們到底懂什麽是'兩國共認罪行'嗎？如果'兩國共認罪行'這個條件不成立的話那馬來西亞是不能引渡我的。

其二，他們必須説服英國法庭我的確有犯罪（當然'兩國共認罪行'條件必須先成立）。爲此他們必須提出證據。只是告訴英國法庭我污辱回教是不夠的，因爲在英國污辱回教不是罪行。

對大馬政府而言，我污辱回教是因爲我就宗教侷發表'非穆斯林是回教敵人'的談論而幹屌宗教侷。然而，英國政府不止不會接受我譴責宗教侷發表'非穆斯林是回教敵人'言論是個犯罪，他們還會因我做出了以上的行爲而保護我（宗教侷的以上言論在英國是件仇恨罪）。我甚至還能像Salman Rushdie 般申請24小時貼身保護。

所以你看，在我能發表敦馬是否應該被處死之前，我們必須經過起訴，審訊，上訴，赦免等等繁重複雜的程序。只有在經過這些程序和和沒有其他上訴途徑以後一個人才會被判死刑。想想敦馬現在的年齡，在走完這些程序以前他可能就不于人世了。所以說這些程序和我的評論可以說只是學術爭論而已。

基督教義很清楚的説明'汝不可杀戮'。如果我說敦馬應該被處死的話那就代表我認爲基督教義是錯的。試想，基督徒提倡'汝不可杀戮'而我講的是'汝可杀戮'，他們對我的'褻瀆'會有什麽反應呢？

你看到我正在進退兩難了嗎？已經有人，就像是Keith Pereira，指控我是個仇恨基督徒者了；我還敢低觸基督教的十誡，跟你說敦馬應被處死嗎？

好，你可以講說聖經有提到可以以牙還牙。但聖經也提到'有人打你这边的脸，连那边的脸也由他打'，那我到底應該應用哪個版本呢？如果我現在跟你說我對聖經的矛盾感到困惑，那肯定會有基督徒跳出來幹屌我，然後再把我當成很無知般的用舊約和新約跟我講道。事實上，我對基督教的認知應該比大多數的基督徒來得多。

你現在應該知道你的問題有多難回答了吧。如果你能夠更加具體的話我或許能夠回答你的問題。我會等待你的詳細答復，然後再給你你要的答案。

與此同時，我希望你能珍重和不要太過擔心別人被處死的問題。

我們最終都會死掉的，問題是什麽時候而已。你有可能比敦馬還要早去世；畢竟，大馬每天有1万個人因車禍和其他意外而死亡，所以你永遠也不會知道你的限期究竟是幾時。

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 14 April 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan