In 1988 the amendment to the Federal Constitution to insert Article 121(1A) paved the way for the setting up of Syariah Courts in this country. At that time no coalition member of the ruling Barisan Nasional raised any objection to this amendment in Parliament which required a two-thirds approval.

Prior to that, Article 121 of the Federal Constitution provided that the laws of Malaysia were only governed by the Courts from the lowest tier to the apex court being the Federal Court. Article 121 (1A) had conferred the Syariah Courts equal constitutional status with civil Courts.

Since then the most contentious constitutional problems that have arisen are to determine which kind of cases come within the purview of either Court. The issue of conversion and religious status is the most pertinent case in point as exemplified in Lina Joy’s case. The other disputed area is the unilateral faith conversion of minor children as seen in the cases of R Subashini and S Deepa.

The recent Private Member’s Bill was tabled by PAS with the intention of amending Section 2 of the Syariah Court ( Criminal Jurisdiction) Act . At present the criminal jurisdiction of the Syariah courts is limited to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or fines not exceeding five thousand ringgit or whipping not exceeding six strokes or a combination thereof.

This Private Member’s Bill aims to do away with this Statutory 3-6-5 maximum and to replace the same with the Syariah Court being empowered to pass any sentence allowed by islamic Law other than the death sentence. Thus , the effect of such an amendment would be to drastically enhance the severity of existing punishments under Islamic Law such as zina, qazaf, syrub and irtihad.

This move was met with justifiable alarm by many politicians both sides of the divide and by civil society groups and non Muslim faith groups. The apparent ease with which this bill was given a first reading in Parliament in preference over government matters gave rise to the speculation that the government was supporting this bill.

Thereafter there were apparent concerted behind the scenes efforts to enable the government to take over this bill in a tweaked form first formulated by PAS and to table it in a toned-down manner in regard to the sentences sought to be imposed. This caused further uneasiness among the aforesaid interested parties.

Therefore, it is heartening to note that the government has decided not to take over this bill in the spirit of consensus among the coalition members of Barisan Nasional. The Act 355 amendments may still see the light of day eventually for tabling in Parliament. It is hoped that this bill will be defeated to preserve the existing balance in this multi-religious society.

S JEYAKUMAR is chairperson, Malacca-Johor Diocese Catholic Lawyers Guild.