As the political parties battle it out in preparation for the Johor state election on March 12, insecure party leaders have already been spreading stories which they hope will harm the electoral chances of their political opponents.

On February 21, Umno-Baru president Zahid Hamidi said he was willing to “sumpah laknat” to refute the claim of former prime minister Mahiaddin Yassin that he had sought Mahiaddin’s help in conjunction with his corruption trials.

To those who are unfamiliar with the term, sumpah laknat is a religious oath beseeching God to curse those who are in the wrong.

Mahiaddin claimed that Zahid had visited him at his residence and brought piles of files concerning his criminal cases, in which he hoped the former PM would help quash.

He then claimed that he had advised Zahid that the judiciary was an independent body and he had no wish to interfere in their work.

A furious Zahid denied claims that he had wanted to strike deals with Mahiaddin in exchange for having his court cases dropped.

He also denied claims of visiting Mahiaddin carrying several files in tow, and said he was willing to perform a sumpah laknat to prove his innocence.

He said, “Show proof of the truth…” and subsequently challenged Mahiaddin to do the same to back-up his allegation against him.

Does the sumpah laknat, which some people call the ‘curse swear’, belong in 21st century Malaysia? In these modern times, proving one’s innocence or guilt should not involve incantations.

We have the courts to judge wrongdoing or bad behavior. The sumpah laknat is a thing of the past, in an era when people clung on to simple beliefs which were steeped in religious ritual.

Several hundred years ago, European kings would order suspects to have their hands dipped in hot oil to prove their innocence. Those whose hands were injured or whose injuries did not heal, were deemed guilty of their crimes. This ‘proved’ that the guilty did not have God’s protection.

Today, the courts have a fairer and more just method of determining right or wrong. This involves lawyers, judges the forensics team, and where their expertise has to be called upon, the testimony of a panel of experts, for the case to be heard.

Zahid is not the only politician to invoke the sumpah laknat to prove his innocence. The convicted felon, Najib Abdul Razak, who is a former PM and former president of Umno-Baru, has also used sumpah laknat on many occasions.

Najib used the sumpah laknat to prove to gullible Malays that he had not given the “shoot to kill order” to the killers of Mongolian model and translator Altantuya Shaaribuu.

A few years ago, he again performed the sumpah laknat, more as a ‘show’, to prove to his supporters that he had not ordered RM42 million to be deposited into his personal file.

Soon after he was convicted and sentenced, Najib dismissed claims that the money in his bank account had been used for personal purposes. He was adamant that the money had been used to help a group of orphans.

So which story is true? He earlier denied knowing about the money, then having been convicted, tried to appease his followers by claiming that the money had been used to help the less fortunate.

More importantly, what purpose does the sumpah laknat serve?

If the sumpah laknat is an oath to beseech God to curse those who are in the wrong, then does that mean Najib had just incurred God’s wrath as he was found guilty and was sentenced in the SRC International fraud case?

More importantly, religious leaders should never have allowed the sumpah laknat to take place, as it makes a mockery of the religion.

Zahid has expressed his desire to go through the sumpah laknat ritual. Why bother at all?

Why can’t he demand that the authorities show him the CCTV footage of the cameras in front of Mahiaddin’s residence to prove to Malaysians that he had not carried a huge pile of files when he visited Mahiaddin?

He will also have witnesses who can support his claim that he had not carried several files, as alleged by Mahiaddin. These are people who are his aides or staff. What about the policemen on duty? All of them can be called upon as his witness.

Zahid has also challenged Mahiaddin to take the sumpah laknat to back up his allegation against him.

So, how does this sumpah laknat work if the two sides adopt it? How does one know who is telling the truth? It is not as if the liar is struck down immediately by a bolt of lightning.

Desperate men who have everything to lose, especially power and face, will do anything, including lie, during the sumpah laknat.

More importantly, there are more dangers to our society and governance if the sumpah laknat is allowed to become a regular feature of dispensing justice.

That is the day we will not bother with the courts, judges, lawyers and supporting roles such as the forensics team.

The use of the sumpah laknat should be outlawed.

Sources:

1. Malaysiakini: Zahid ready for ‘sumpah laknat’ to refute Muhyiddin’s ‘piles of files’ claim
2. Malaysiakini: Najib prepared to swear ‘sumpah laknat’ on 1MDB too, but…

(Mariam Mokhtar is a Freelance Writer.)