Can syariah courts avoid selective prosecution?
Nigel AwPublished: May 12, 2014 1:21 AM | Updated: May 12, 2014 4:53 AM
Even if the country's civil courts are not spared of selective prosecution, can the syariah court enforcing hudud, which provides for significantly tougher punishments, escape the same problem?
Even if the country's civil courts are not spared of selective prosecution, can the syariah court enforcing hudud, which provides for significantly tougher punishments, escape the same problem?
This is a question posed by Bar Council president Christopher Leong at a forum on 'Hudud in Malaysia: Can we? Should we?' organised by the MCA Youth legal bureau at MCA headquarters in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
Leong (right) was speaking at the second session of the forum, which also featured Malaysia Syarie Lawyers Association president Musa Awang and Bar Council constitutional committee chairperson Firdaus Husni.
After elaborating at length on the constitutional constraints of hudud law, Leong touched on the arguments of Umno leaders that, from a religious perspective, hudud can be suspended if the situation is not right.
"If there was collusion in bringing a charge that was selective prosecution and you do not have a corruption-free judiciary, is that a conducive environment (to have hudud?)
"Looking at what is happening in Malaysia, you can recall instances of abuses of power..." he said.
Leong pointed out that even under the current legal system, the powerful often get away with crime, while only the common man is prosecuted and convicted for corruption, for example.
'No two-thirds majority needed'
In the preceding session, Umno Youth exco member Fathul Bari said hudud could only be implemented when the conditions were right, giving an example where Caliph Saidina Umar suspended hudud during a famine.
Fathul blamed PAS for its haste in wanting to implement hudud, stating that Umno's main concern is to look at the current constraints and see if they could be overcome.
Meanwhile, syariah lawyer Musa said a partial implementation of hudud was possible without a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
This, Musa said, was because certain offences such as adultery and drinking alcohol already exist in the Islamic family law but their punishment is capped at up to three years imprisonment, RM5,000 fine or six strokes of the rotan under the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965.
As such, he said, amending the punishment cap, such as increasing the whipping up to 100 strokes to conform with hudud, is one way of partial implementation.
"However, other offences like stoning to death will require an amendment to the Federal Constitution," Musa said.
While MCA and other non-Muslim BN component parties have vehemently opposed Kelantan's move to implement Hudud Enactment passed in 1993, Umno leaders have publicly stated they support PAS, and haves been noted for instigating PAS to push ahead with its Private Member's Bill in Parliament.
However, PAS announced yesterday that it would not table the Bill in light of the joint technical committee that the federal government has proposed with the Kelantan government.
This is a question posed by Bar Council president Christopher Leong at a forum on 'Hudud in Malaysia: Can we? Should we?' organised by the MCA Youth legal bureau at MCA headquarters in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
Leong (right) was speaking at the second session of the forum, which also featured Malaysia Syarie Lawyers Association president Musa Awang and Bar Council constitutional committee chairperson Firdaus Husni.After elaborating at length on the constitutional constraints of hudud law, Leong touched on the arguments of Umno leaders that, from a religious perspective, hudud can be suspended if the situation is not right.
"If there was collusion in bringing a charge that was selective prosecution and you do not have a corruption-free judiciary, is that a conducive environment (to have hudud?)
"Looking at what is happening in Malaysia, you can recall instances of abuses of power..." he said.
Leong pointed out that even under the current legal system, the powerful often get away with crime, while only the common man is prosecuted and convicted for corruption, for example.
'No two-thirds majority needed'
In the preceding session, Umno Youth exco member Fathul Bari said hudud could only be implemented when the conditions were right, giving an example where Caliph Saidina Umar suspended hudud during a famine.
Fathul blamed PAS for its haste in wanting to implement hudud, stating that Umno's main concern is to look at the current constraints and see if they could be overcome.
Meanwhile, syariah lawyer Musa said a partial implementation of hudud was possible without a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
This, Musa said, was because certain offences such as adultery and drinking alcohol already exist in the Islamic family law but their punishment is capped at up to three years imprisonment, RM5,000 fine or six strokes of the rotan under the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965.
As such, he said, amending the punishment cap, such as increasing the whipping up to 100 strokes to conform with hudud, is one way of partial implementation.
"However, other offences like stoning to death will require an amendment to the Federal Constitution," Musa said.
While MCA and other non-Muslim BN component parties have vehemently opposed Kelantan's move to implement Hudud Enactment passed in 1993, Umno leaders have publicly stated they support PAS, and haves been noted for instigating PAS to push ahead with its Private Member's Bill in Parliament.
However, PAS announced yesterday that it would not table the Bill in light of the joint technical committee that the federal government has proposed with the Kelantan government.
View Comments0