Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

LETTER | We refer to the G25's view on the non-suitability of hudud for Malaysia as, amongst others, being unconstitutional. We fully support this view.

G25’s further arguments are noted in that hudud is inappropriate for Malaysia, it would violate Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and that it will create a dual system of criminal law and if implemented would also affect non-Muslims.

Abdul Hadi Awang's and PAS' pursuit in furtherance of hudud is still unrelenting although now hudud law is packaged innocently as Act 355. The Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (II) Bill 1993 as amended in 2015 is still there and it provides for all hudud offences. Hadi Awang has before this stated the desire to install an Islamic government in Malaysia and intends to take a new approach to revive what was implemented by Islam 1,400 years ago.

We further list below the constitutional provisions and historical records that do not allow for hudud in Malaysia.

(i) Alliance memorandum by Umno, MCA and MIC to the Reid Commission in 1956 had specifically recognised that Malaya will be a secular state.

(ii) Similarly, the Reid Commission report and the White Paper issued by the British government in 1957 stated that although Islam was the religion of the Federation this did not imply that the state was not a secular state.

(iii) Article 3(1) provides that “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. The Federal Court case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v.Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55 stated that the term “Islam” in Article 3 meant only such acts as relating to rituals and ceremonies.

(iv) Articles 3 (4) is the controlling section of Article 3. Its effect is that despite the adoption of Islam as the religion of the Federation, it cannot be used to effect, over-ride or abridge any other provision of the constitution

(v) Article 4(1) declares the constitution to be the supreme law of the Federation. Thus Islamic law is subject to it.

(vi) The words “Islamic Law” or “Syariah Court” were not there in the 9th Schedule List II of the 1957 constitution. These words were added 19 years later in 1976.

(vii) Article 160(2) provides for the definition of “law” for purposes of interpreting the constitution. The syariah law is not included in this definition. Thus, syariah law cannot be used to interpret the constitution.

From above, the constitutional position of introducing Hudud into the Malaysian legal system is quite clear. It cannot be done under the present constitutional scheme of things.


The writer is chairperson, Legal Panel, Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST).

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

ADS