Is Malaysia a secular state? Yes it is.
Read below : Che Omar Bin Che Soh v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 55. Malaysia does not need to conform to Islamic principles.
Malayan Law Journal Reports/1988/Volume 2/CHE OMAR BIN CHE SOH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -[1988] 2 MLJ 55 - 29 February 19882 pages[
1988] 2 MLJ 55
CHE OMAR BIN CHE SOH v PUBLIC PROSECUTORWAN JALIL BIN WAN ABDUL RAHMAN & ANOR v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SC KUALA LUMPURSALLEH ABAS LP, WAN SULEIMAN, SEAH, HASHIM YEOP A SANI & SYED AGIL BARAKBAH SCJJSUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEALS NOS 28 AND 29 OF 198616 December 1987, 29 February 1988
Criminal Law -- Mandatory death sentence for offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and under Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act -- Whether against injunctions of Islam and therefore void -- No reliance can be placed on wording of Article 3 of Federal Constitution -- Federal Constitution, Arts 3, 4 & 162 Constitutional Law -- Provision that Islam is religion of Federation -- Significance of -- Provision relates only to rituals and ceremonies -- Not much reliance can be placed on wording of Article 3 to sustain submission that the punishment of death for the offence of drug trafficking or any other offence will be void as being unconstitutional -- Federal Constitution, Arts 3, 4 & 162
In this appeal, an additional ground of appeal sought to show that the mandatory death sentence for theoffence of drug trafficking and for the offence under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act is against theinjunctions of Islam and therefore unconstitutional and void.
Held
:(1) the term "Islam" or "Islamic religion" in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in the contextmeans only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies;(2) during the British colonial period, through their system of indirect rule and establishment ofsecular institutions, Islamic law was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law ofmarriage, divorce and inheritance only. It is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of theConstitution understood the meaning of the word "Islam" in the context of Article 3;(3) it should thus appear that not much reliance can be placed on the wording of Article 3 tosustain the submission that punishment of death for the offence of drug trafficking or any otheroffence will be void as being unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT
--
S Sivasubramanian
for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No 28/86.
T Mura Raju
for the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No 29/86.
Ramdas Tikamdas
for the second appellant in Criminal Appeal No 29/86.
Mohamed Noor Haji Ahmad
(Deputy Public Prosecutor);
Zaini Haji Abdul Rahman
(Deputy PublicProsecutor) with him for the respondent.Page 1
Read: Che Omar Bin Che Soh v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 55. Msia does not need to conform to Islamic principles.(Below)
Malayan Law Journal Reports/1988/Volume 2/CHE OMAR BIN CHE SOH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -[1988] 2 MLJ 55 - 29 February 19882 pages[
1988] 2 MLJ 55
CHE OMAR BIN CHE SOH v PUBLIC PROSECUTORWAN JALIL BIN WAN ABDUL RAHMAN & ANOR v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SC KUALA LUMPURSALLEH ABAS LP, WAN SULEIMAN, SEAH, HASHIM YEOP A SANI & SYED AGIL BARAKBAH SCJJSUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEALS NOS 28 AND 29 OF 198616 December 1987, 29 February 1988
Criminal Law -- Mandatory death sentence for offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and under Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act -- Whether against injunctions of Islam and therefore void -- No reliance can be placed on wording of Article 3 of Federal Constitution -- Federal Constitution, Arts 3, 4 & 162 Constitutional Law -- Provision that Islam is religion of Federation -- Significance of -- Provision relates only to rituals and ceremonies -- Not much reliance can be placed on wording of Article 3 to sustain submission that the punishment of death for the offence of drug trafficking or any other offence will be void as being unconstitutional -- Federal Constitution, Arts 3, 4 & 162
In this appeal, an additional ground of appeal sought to show that the mandatory death sentence for theoffence of drug trafficking and for the offence under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act is against theinjunctions of Islam and therefore unconstitutional and void.
Held
:(1) the term "Islam" or "Islamic religion" in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in the contextmeans only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies;(2) during the British colonial period, through their system of indirect rule and establishment ofsecular institutions, Islamic law was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law ofmarriage, divorce and inheritance only. It is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of theConstitution understood the meaning of the word "Islam" in the context of Article 3;(3) it should thus appear that not much reliance can be placed on the wording of Article 3 tosustain the submission that punishment of death for the offence of drug trafficking or any otheroffence will be void as being unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT
--
S Sivasubramanian
for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No 28/86.
T Mura Raju
for the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No 29/86.
Ramdas Tikamdas
for the second appellant in Criminal Appeal No 29/86.
Mohamed Noor Haji Ahmad
(Deputy Public Prosecutor);
Zaini Haji Abdul Rahman
(Deputy PublicProsecutor) with him for the respondent.Page 1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.