More Canings in Aceh...

Being a Muslim and living in Aceh means that you live under the tenets of Sharia Law. You can either like it or leave it. Leave it means literally leaving and moving to a province that has yet to implement the Sharia code.

I am not Muslim, so as far as I can tell the law does not apply to me. This means that there is a dual standard of law enforcement in Aceh; one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims. However, Muslims do not get the option of choosing which law they wish to live under. By default as a consequence of opting for the type of regional autonomy they have, they have opted to live under Sharia Law. That is the nature of the democracy they have chosen.

This is a story of two young women eking out a living running a roadside food stall. Murni and Rukiah, 27 and 22 respectively, were caught selling cooked rice during daylight hours during Ramadan (the fasting month). This led to them being arrested, charged, convicted, and ultimately to this day where they were to be caned; three strokes and two strokes respectively.

This is what happens in Greater Aceh (Aceh Besar). So, on Friday, just after the completion of Friday prayers, Murni and Rukiah made their way solemnly to the caning platform outside the Al-Munawwarah Mosque in Jantho to receive their punishment. Interestingly, or perhaps not so interesting, is that caning is very much a bloodsport. It draws big crowds. Perhaps this says something about us as human beings that we do not mind taking time out to watch other people's sufferings. It reminds me not only of hangings in the movies about the wild west that I used to watch as a kid, but also the way that people slow down as they drive past an accident.

Selling food during Ramadan is a clear breach of the provisions of Regional Regulation (Qanun) No. 11 of 2002. The punishment for selling food attracts a maximum punishment of six lashes of the cane. There are also financial penalties and jail time if the court so decides to impose those sentences. Essentially, the Qanun says that Muslims cannot sell food to other Muslims who should be fasting.

This is problematic on a number of levels that you have to regulate the way people practice their faith with national or domestic laws. I always figured that God's law was somewhat higher than the laws of men and women. I also have a problem with men and women imposing the laws of God. Now, if God made these laws then she (or he) must be responsible for the enforcement of those laws. After all, that is the purpose of the judgment day, right? God sits in judgment of each and every one of us for the sins we have committed against her and then decides which journey we make.

If my understanding is correct, then where do men in robes sitting in supposed religious courts get off meting out the punishment of God on his fellow servants?

I would also add, if a sin was committed here it was not in the selling of the rice but in the purchasing and eating of it. The women were not committing any crime from cooking in daylight hours or even selling food in daylight hours. I wonder if the Qanun requires that Muslims selling food during Ramadan are required to ask for and see the ID cards of all people who buy food from them?

But, to finish, I return to an earlier point, the sins of men and women against their respective Gods is a sin between them and their God, particularly when it relates to selling or eating food. We are not talking about a murder or a rape or even corruption on a grand scale, we are talking about a few scoops of rice. If I am not mistaken the Koran makes some exceptions with respect to fasting, including those that cannot fast being able to make that day up somewhere else (I suspect my Muslim readers will be setting me straight on this perception).

Maybe, I just do not see caning as a meaningful deterrent in any case, just like the death penalty is no deterrent to serious crime. Or maybe I really cannot get my head around why in a country like Indonesia one would want to cane another for selling food, even during Ramadan.

Shariah Law in Aceh, Indonesia...

This post deserves much more than what it is about to get!

I make it only to highlight a few things that are percolating in the grey matter inside my skull. If I had more time, then I probably would delve more deeply into the legal realm and analyse the implications of allowing Shariah law to be implemented in a secular state, even one with a large majority of Muslims as resident citizens.

Sometimes, I miss not having more time to write about the laws of Indonesia.

The photo attached here made me chuckle, I apologise if this seems flippant as caning generally does not lend itself to flippancy. Yet, check out the garb of the caner. It reminds me of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I think it is the white stripe that cuts across the eyes in what is an otherwise all black ensemble befitting of an executioner.

The idea that Aceh has a right to implement Shariah law because it is "more" Muslim, in a devout sense, than the rest of Indonesia is absurd. It is also offensive to Muslims residing in other parts of the archipelago that the government does not think them Muslim enough to force Shariah upon them as well. This raises an important question, one that gets bandied around every now and then, but never really answered: "do the Acehnese really want Shariah law?"

There has always been this public spin machine that played up the idea that Aceh was so much more devoutly Muslim than anywhere else, so this must mean they want Shariah. After all, what "good" Muslim would not want it? Yet, it has never really been clear whether the people of Aceh wanted Shariah or just to be free from the interference and oppression of the Indonesian state. My guess would be that there are still plenty of Acehnese who would gladly trade Shariah law for some real "autonomy" from Jakarta (aka Indonesia) and even freedom in the form of independence.

Having a quick squiz at the legal foundations from Shariah law in Aceh. It is interesting that the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the five guiding principles encapsulated in Pancasila, make it pretty clear that Indonesia is a secular state. In the most simple terms, there is no preference to be afforded to one religion in preference to another. Or, all people are allowed to practice their faith according to the tenets of that faith (except of course if you belong to the Ahmadiyya sect).

The first steps towards Shariah occurred in 1999 with Aceh being given super special status, and presumably the 'right' to implement Shariah Law. In an attempt to clarify what that meant, the government stipulated some more basic terms as to how autonomy would work. The clarifications, in essence, allowed the locally elected government of Aceh to start the Shariah-nization of Aceh by establishing Shariah Laws (Regional Regulations known as Qanun) and Shariah Courts to hear cases that involved the breach of those laws.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. However, most important is that the implementation of Shariah Law in Aceh creates a two-tiered legal system where Muslims and non-Muslims are treated differently. This, above all else, means that the laws discriminate against some Indonesian citizens. The Constitution clearly prohibits this from happening. In many ways, the provisions of the Constitution are crafted to provide equal protection for all citizens. Simply, being Muslim should not expose you to harsher penalties than are otherwise available to non-Muslim Indonesian citizens.

Nevertheless, the granting of special autonomy in Aceh with the ability to ram through local regulations on Shariah has emboldened other less special provinces to embark on the Shariah-nization of their respective regions through the implementation of Shariah laws. Some have argued that this is Islamisation or the Wahabbi-nisation of Indonesia by stealth. I would argue that there is nothing stealthy about it. In fact, it is overt rather than covert, and politicians seem to think that the Shariah-nization of their regions is a real vote getter. After all, good Muslim politicians do not want to be viewed as being insufficiently devout, and what could be more devout than arguing for the stoning of adulterers and the cutting off of the hands of thieves, right?

The logic is all wrong.

Anyways, enough of the ranting and railing...back to work, there are assessment tasks due!

Canings in Aceh...

There is a need to respect the laws of any place you live or visit, but there are those times when one wonders whether the laws in question have earned the right to demand the sort of respect that they do. That said, Aceh's Sharia Police have caned a few people of late for the 'crimes' of adultery and gambling.

The idea that these two particular activities are crimes in the human realm is indicative of our over-zealousness to do God's work. For the true believers, it would seem that you do not trust God to do that which God does, punish those who sin against him (or her) by breaking the rules. In any event, they are God's rules so perhaps God should also be responsible for meting out the punishment.

The idea of a public caning always reminds me of going to the movies when I was a kid and watching a western. In particular, the ones where there is a public hanging, which in turn draws big crowds of onlookers. I have never really since the spectacle value of public executions or in this case canings. I have always wondered, but never enough to do a psychology degree, whether this was just a simple case of blood-thirstiness with the prospect of watching someone die or be physically beaten to a bloody mess. Maybe that can be my next course of study.

Nevertheless, canings in Aceh are reportedly to be more about public humiliation than they are about inflicting pain. Supporters of caning argue that there is a huge deterrent effect because of the physical nature of the punishment. Yet, the reality is there are very strict rules in place for where men and women can be caned with respect to body parts and how hard these lashes can be. Truth be told, when I was in high school, corporal punishment was still an available option for teachers to control unruly students (or those who were too big a smart arses for their own good, like me). So, I am thinking with the cane in the "right" person's hand, some serious pain and physical damage can be inflicted.

The adulterers each received eight strokes of the best from the cane master (or is that cane master lash?). The maximum penalty under the relevant Qanun, No. 14 of 2003, as I recall is nine strokes. There is also a minimum of three. So, I guess the offence was at the top end of the scale but it was not the most serious form of adulterous behaviour.

The gamblers received eight and seven lashes of the cane respectively. Interestingly, this means that gambling and adultery are pretty much on the same seriousness level in this case. These gentlemen were in breach of the provisions of Qanun No. 13 of 2003.

These canings follow a series of canings that took place in June. It would seem that the Acehnese authorities are ratcheting up the caning activities in the lead up to Ramadan.

One final point, if it was me about to be caned and I was walking up to the public caning platform in order to receive my punishment for whatever it is that I had been sentenced for, I would not know whether to laugh or cry having had a look at the fashion sense of the executioner! There seriously must be potential for the launch of a whole "executioner" line of tailored fashions.

Ho hum...

Malaysia, Caning, and Beer -- Part V

Sooner or later it seems Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is going to feel the thud and sting of the cane. The case is an interesting test of Malaysia's claims to be a moderate Muslim nation and the acceptance of strict forms of Sharia law that impact on only certain groups within the Malaysian ethnic, cultural, and religious fabric. Shukarno has upped the ante in the case by refusing to appeal.

Once the sentence is carried out, she will become the first Muslim woman in Malaysia to be sentenced to a caning and then have the sentence imposed.

Shukarno's crime was to be a Muslim caught drinking beer in a nightclub in Pahang state. The religious court found her guilty of the crime and sentenced her to six strokes of the cane. I have written about the details of the case here.

The government stepped in and requested a review of the case because it believed the sentence to be too harsh and the press about the case could conceivably damage Malaysia's reputation as a moderate Muslim nation.

However, and perhaps in a sign of separation of powers, the religious high court in Kuantan has affirmed the lower religious court's decision and has stated in unequivocal terms that the sentence was correct and it must be imposed as handed-down.

It was also decided that a good ol' caning during the month of Ramadan was not in the spirit of the month where fasting, praying, and cleaning oneself of sins are paramount.

Islamic scholars in Malaysia have generally supported the sentence and have said in any event Shukarno is to be fully clothed and the cane is much smaller and lighter than the canes used in criminal matters. Perhaps this is meant to suggest that it is a lesser offense and hence there is a lesser punishment or it just won't hurt that much anyway, so let's get this over and done with.

Malaysia, Caning, and Beer -- Part IV

It would seem that being sentenced to a good ol' caning, wanting to get caned, and actually being caned are very different things.

It is interesting that the Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, has entered the fray on this one. He has suggested that the Singaporean and Muslim model, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, not be quite as willing to accept her fate. According to Razak, although he does not want to interfere with the imposition of the sentence or the role of the Sharia Courts, he believes that not all avenues of appeal are yet closed.

The PM is of the opinion that the authorities are "sensitive" to her plight and the implications of the sentence. and therefore she should appeal. I guess there are a number of ways that can be interpreted, and the cynics among us might lean towards the PM interfering in the judicial / justice process. Then again, maybe the cynics would not see it this way.

Shukarno was granted a reprieve as the Sharia Courts and the authorities decided that the holy month of Ramadan was not the opportune time to be caning a young mother of two for drinking beer. Hey, seeing it is Ramadan and a month of forgiveness, how about just vacating the sentence and replace it with a warning that in essence is a slap on the wrist and some choice words about re-offending.

However, I am of the opinion that she wants to get caned. Whether she wants to get caned because it is publicity and any publicity is good publicity, I am not going to speculate. But, she is calling a good bluff on any front by challenging the authorities to get the deed done.

Most people would have appealed the sentence as a matter of course, Shukarno has not. Instead, she has argued that if it is to be done and the authorities are really doing it as a means of educating other Muslims of the ills of alcohol and drinking, then the caning must be done in public. This makes sense to me.

The waiting game continues.

Malaysia, Caning, and Beer -- Part III

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is set to be contained according to her sentence sometime next week. The sentence was six lashes of the cane and a fine of 5000 ringgit. Her crime, being a Muslim and drinking beer in a nightclub in the eastern state of Pahang. I wrote about it here.

Shukarno has asked for the sentence to be carried out as soon as possible. Her request is based on two simple reasons; the sooner the sentence is carried out, the sooner she can get on with the rest of her life, and secondly, she wants others to learn from her mistakes so that they might avoid a similar caning in the future. Her regret is apparently the driving force for the desire for a public caning.

Although, there seems to be a bit of a caveat on the caning in that Shukarno wants it carried out in public rather than in the confines of a closed prison. This would certainly seem the most likely way of ensuring maximum exposure (pun intended). It is worth noting that Shukarno will be the first woman to be caned under Islamic Law. There must be a sellable story in that somewhere, particularly when one considers she lives in Singapore and not Malaysia.

It must also be noted that caning is not unusual as a form of punishment in Malaysia. There are at least forty crimes that attract a good caning. The criminal punishment statistics compiled by Amnesty International state that almost 35,000 people have been caned in Malaysia between 2002 and 2008. The majority of these canings were for immigration offenses. Simply, a few strokes on the buttocks and on your way back to wherever it is that you came from.

Amnesty International has been vocal in its opposition to caning. According to Amnesty International, caning is a cruel and degrading punishment, and as such must not be used as a form of punishment. Besides, cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishments are expressly prohibited under international law. AI has, in fact, asked the Malaysian government to vacate this sentence and to pass legislation that would prohibit the use of caning under any circumstances in Malaysia.

However, Malaysia in its defense of the soon-to-occur caning is that the cane (rattan / rotan) is smaller than the one used for men, the swing is shorter, and the purpose is to educate rather than punish, therefore Shukarno is not likely to endure too much pain when it is all said and done.

The problem, or perhaps issue, for me is that the idea of concurrent courts, General and Islamic, means that there is a two-tiered justice system where punishments depend on your religious beliefs, and therefore will differ from others who commit a similar offense or in this case where they commit no offense at all. It is not illegal for non-Muslims to drink alcohol in Malaysia.

Maybe there will be a video so that we can all get a public viewing of the manner of a Malaysian caning.

Malaysia, Caning, and Beer -- Part II

It seems that the decision of the Sharia Court in eastern Pahang State to cane a Muslim model, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, for having a few beers in a nightclub has not been greeted with universal approval in Malaysia. The debate centers on the idea that convictions and sentences like this are rare in Malaysia where alcohol is widely available for consumption. There is also a belief that where an individual sins against their religion in this manner; drinking alcohol when it is forbidden, has sinned against God and therefore it is God who should mete out the punishment.

I have always argued that for those of us who sin against our religions or our Gods will be punished by our respective Gods when the time comes. There is no need for us insignificant human beings to get involved and take over the primary punishment role from God. Let's face it, I have some serious explaining to do come judgment day:

God: So, you spent your life doing good things and helping people less fortunate than yourself. You contributed to making the world a better place. But, not one day in your life did you acknowledge me or my existence, in fact you told everyone who asked that you did not believe in God. You told everyone that you were doing it because you were a good bloke and it was the right thing to do! Therefore, here's my question for you now, "what you got to say about that?"

Me: God, that is a good question. To be perfectly honest, I just figured I would be worm food and that would be it. I had never really contemplated having to come back and justify myself to you. But, God, here's my question to you, "why did you not reveal yourself to me in a more tangible way that would have made believing in you a whole lot easier proposition rather than irrational faith?"

You can see where this conversation with God is going.

There is little doubt that the punishment is harsh. Interestingly, it could have been a whole lot more harsh as the law allows for up to 40 lashes with the rattan cane. And, in all likelihood it is not going to deter those Muslims in Malaysia that want to drink alcohol from drinking alcohol. Where there is a will there is a way, simple.

Shukarno, though, has decided that it would be best just to get the punishment over and done with so that she can go back to living her life. And, she hopes that others learn from her experiences and refrain from drinking alcohol (or more specifically from getting caught).

The caning methods are set out here. It would appear that in many ways that the caning is as much symbolic as it is meant to cause pain in this case. Although, most canings I have read about talk about causing open wounds that leave nasty scars on those who are on the receiving end of the caning. This though is allegedly not the case here. Shukarno will be clothed, the cane will be shorter than usual, and the person doing the caning cannot raise the rattan above their head.

I wonder if there will be video of the sentence being carried out that will make its way onto YouTube or something. If you can get video of Saddam Hussein's hanging onto YouTube, then one would think the caning of a model should be easy.

Malaysia, Caning, and Beer...

Drinking beer and being a Muslim in Malaysia do not mix. However, when they do, you might just find yourself in a situation where you are before a Religious Court and destined for a few strokes of the cane.

The Religious Court in the Eastern State of Pahang has sentenced a Singaporean model of Muslim faith to six strokes of the cane for drinking beer in a nightclub, and getting caught doing it.

I remember getting six strokes of the cane in high school back in the day when a little bit of corporal punishment was thought to be good for naughty boys to ensure that they grew up into responsible adults. However, my understanding is that Malaysia is similar to Singapore in that you get the rotan cane across the buttocks. I dare say that it probably hurts a little more downstairs than on the hands.

The model, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, pleaded guilty. Generally, early guilty pleas attract a little bit of leniency. However, this was not to be. The court held that a good old-fashioned caning was in order, if for no other reason than the law allows for such a sentence to be imposed. But, furthermore, the court believed that this case would serve as a good example not only to Shukarno, but also to other Muslims thinking about having a beer or two. Shukarno also was fined 5000 Ringgit.

Shukarno is intending to appeal. Yet, there does not seem to be good prospects for success in light of the court's reasoning. I suppose her lawyers might want to be arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive for the nature and seriousness of the crime.

The problem as I see it is that there is a two-tier justice system in Malaysia; regular courts and religious courts. The religious courts only hear matters relating to alleged crimes committed by Muslims. Religious courts are designed to hear matters relating to religious-based offenses of which drinking alcohol is one. This makes the system two-tiered because Malaysia's other religious minorities are free to drink alcohol as they please and are not going to be subject to a caning for imbibing.

I wonder is this fair and just, or is it just a simple case of; this is the way it is, get over it, and deal with it.

The establishment of, or the expanding of the jurisdiction, of religious courts is something that Indonesia faces periodically. The religious courts in Indonesia, until recently, had a very restrictive jurisdiction relating to family issues. This has expanded to include some financial matters where the financial issues relate specifically to Syariah-based issues. There are some who would see the jurisdiction of the religious courts in Indonesia expanded even further to include the ability to hear matters relating to all things to do with the Muslim faith.