Friday. August 28, 2009
PM – STIFLER (OG)
Proposed that canning is redundant and no longer serve the purpose of deterrent. Stated that canning is not align with the content of religion and that the role of punishment is to teach what is right and what is wrong and that by simply punishing, the people won’t truly understands the actual reasoning. Lastly, he stated that physical harm induces fear, not faith.
LO – RAF (OO)
Clarified that canning under syariah law was actually meant for humiliation as a form of deterrent instead of physical harm. She also stated that the Quran states what’s right and wrong. She also said that this is the best form of deterrent as it proved to have decreased the percentage of offenses against religion.
DPM – MC G (OG)
McG came in and said that punishment without education is meaningless and therefore believes that the government should teach the people who committed offenses about faith in religion.
DLO – Q (OO)
Q later on came in with no points but simply rebuttals. However, the best idea from Q is that even if a person do not understand the religion, as long as that person live in Malaysia, and is a muslim, he/she is still subjected to the syariah law in Malaysia therefore regardless of whether education is needed, no one is above the law.
MEMBER GOVT – AERIE
Aerie believes that law evolves from time to time and therefore canning is no longer relevant in this modern world. He also believes that without canning, there is an opportunity for the law to reform as to not simply refer to redundant reference. He also believes that if canning is for the humiliation purpose, then there are a lot of other ways to shame people such as media involvement which would work better.
MEMBER OPT – JO
She believes that the society will accept something as right or wrong the imposition of law.
GW – THRONG
Throng distinguish the syariah and civil law whereby syariah law is only applicable to Muslim and not other religions. He also talked about acceptance of law which could have different interpretation by different subjects. He also said that the government has the accountability as of how the country is beng judged and that by abolishing canning, people perceptions towards the Muslim community would be changed.
OW – MAI
She talked about the justification of canning. She also compares education and physical harm and which is more effective.
FEEDBACK (by PAIE, WANI, ZHARIF, JENNY AND AIN)
This motion should actually analyze the practice of canning under Syariah Law in Malaysia. There is a need to analyze on the different in canning practices under syariah law and civil law whereas under civil law, the whipping is hard, hurtful and definitely extreme while under syariah law, he whipping is merely the same as school students gotten whipped for coming late to school etc. The issue lead this debate is the arbitrary concept of whipping for syariah law which only suppose to practices punishment that is stated by the Quran and whipping is not one of them which explains when looking through the different school of thoughts in Islam where different beliefs existed. Lastly, it is the issue of the image of Muslim country when applying canning viewed by other countries. This is due to the misunderstanding that the canning performed in Malaysia is the same as the Arabs country. Example addressed in the debate is the Kartika case who is a nurse who consumes alcohol and will be canned under syariah law.
OBSERVERS (MOHAMAD, AHMED)
MOST PROBABLE RANKING
OG – 4TH, OO – 2ND, CG – 1ST, CO – 3RD
No comments:
Post a Comment