States are empowered to pass laws, by virtue of Article 73, only in respect of Islamic civil laws limited to and as specified in List II - State List (1) of the 9th Schedule which does not have jurisdiction in respect of offences conferred by Federal Law, a restriction under Article 75.
It would be moot even if the federal constitution were to be amnended by a parliamentary 2/3 majority to allow Hudud laws as it would be in conflict with the Supreme Law of the Federation, Article 4 (1).
Who should know better than DAP stalwart and chairman, Karpal Singh.
But that did not stop the Kelantan and Terengganu state assemblies to enact and pass Hudud laws, in conravention of federal laws, when PAS ruled these states.
PAS, to enact and pass the Hudud laws, cannot be out of any political expediency because PAS were already in power in those two states, hence not a political stunt.
Surely, however, PAS knew the laws could not be enforced as/and they have not been enforced.
So, when PAS declares that they are committed to implement Hudud laws, although they know that it cannot be enforced, they are serious.
How can they not be serious, it is imbued by the PAS party constitution.
But when PAS makes this delaration, the Pakatan Rakyat as a coalition will conveniently say it is not part of their concensus and the issue of Hudud laws does not arise.
And since the issue does not arise, PAS continued delarations to implement Hudud laws and it's continued rejection by Pakatan Rakyat as a coalition, are therefore nothing more than political expediencies and a political ruse to maintain their supporter base.
Now, under the CockyArrogantTokong chief minister, Lim Guan Eng, the Penang state assembly has legislated anti-hopping laws with quote,
"Lim said the enactment was drafted by the three component parties of Pakatan Rakyat and based on three important principles:Digressing, from the above, note the usual highfalutin but dubious manner in which the Pakatan Rakyat base the anti-hoping laws on principles. As is also usual, Pakatan Rakyat gets caught in it's own spin because "freedom of association for the elected representative" is a indeed a democratice priciple but qualified, to justify the anti-hopping law.
Sovereignty of the people under the parliamentary democratic system, with the people having the right to choose their representatives;
Freedom of association for the elected representative, but he or she should vacate the seat if party-hopping during the tenure; and
On the principle of accountability, elected representatives must be responsible to their voters."
I may get flak from what I am about to say, it is typical of the Chinese psyche, do first because everything can kow tim later, when transgressing laws.
Coming back, while Hudud laws legislated in Kelatan and Terengganu has not been challenged in the courts of law, this is another case of enacting state laws that not only transgresses the federal constitution. Not only that but also enacting anti-hopping laws deemed illegal, unanimously decided by the then Supreme Court of five supreme court judges, Tun Abdul Hamid Omar, Tan Sri Harun Hashim, Tan Sri Mohamed Yusoff, Tan Sri Gunn Chit Tuan and Tan Sri Edgar Joseph Jr.
Who should know better than DAP legal eagle, Karpal Singh. Even though Karpal is very much against anti-hopping when he did not at any one time been in support of Anwar Ibrahim's stand on crossovers to take over the federal government.
In anti-hopping, therefore, Pakatan Rakyat concensus is rather mute and it dashes Anwar Ibrahim's hopes of Putrajaya should Barisan Nasional win the next GE by a wafer paper thin margin. You think?
So it seems, when DAP legislated anti-hopping laws, although they know that it cannot be enforced, they too are serious.
In the DAP case, however, since anti-hopping legislation is illegal as decided by the highest court in the country but the Penang state assembly still went ahead with such legislation, it can only mean that it is nothing more than a political expedient expedition of vote fishing to remain in power.