PUTRAJAYA, Jan 23 (Sin Chew Daily) -- Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai admitted that if Umno were to press on with the RUU355 and collude with PAS, the Barisan Nasional coalition would be on the verge of collapse.
During an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily, the MCA president said his party's stand was very clear and firm, that it would resist the government's RUU355 amendment if it is the same or similar to the one tabled by PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang.
"Even if we only have seven MPs, we will all raise our hands to oppose."
Liow said if Umno were to table the unconstitutional RUU355 without taking into consideration the feelings of other BN component parties, Umno would become the main culprit that destroys the Barisan Nasional spirit.
"Whoever implements and agrees to this unconstitutional bill will be the culprit that divides the BN. It is not MCA that destroys the BN spirit, but Umno."
He asked, "Can BN still exist if the BN spirit is gone?"
"We are against the bill because it will put the syariah courts above civil courts. As such, even if the Kelantan state government has passed the hudud law, it cannot be implemented.
"However, if Hadi Awang's proposals were to be adopted, then the jurisdiction of syariah courts will be expanded to become equal or even higher than the civil courts so that the states can now implement the hudud."
Liow stressed that by having two sets of laws in the country, Malaysians will be divided into two different camps.
He said one of MCA's missions was to preserve national unity, and anyone attempting to rock the basis of nation-building would not be compromised.
He urged Malaysians, in particular Chinese, to unite against the bill, adding that MCA was not against the Islamic faith as some alleged.
"MCA is not against RUU355 per se, but we oppose to the RUU355 amendment proposals by Hadi Awang.
"The RUU355 amendment taken over by the government must be done in accordance with the country's Constitution before it will get the approval of MCA."
He conceded that the actual content of the amendment was still unclear and there had not been any cabinet discussion on this matter.