Act 355 and the unnecessary opposition
Dato’ Seri Abdul Hadi tabled a Private Member’s Bill to amend Act 355. Instead of supporting, many were fast to label it as the “hudud bill” and chose to object. Despite repetitive explanations, the term is still popular.
Firstly we have to emphasise that the Syariah Courts cannot enforce hudud. This is because, the powers to execute punishments that fall under hudud such as, robbery, theft and others lie exclusively with the Civil Courts.
Apart from that, the idea to interfere in the jurisdiction of Syariah courts by non-Muslims does not make sense. The powers of the Syariah courts are limited by the Federal Constitution. Alternatively the idea to introduce hudud via backdoor is also unfounded. The Bill in reality seeks to amend an Act that already exists.
Act 355 has been in existence since 1965 and was last amended in 1984. The punishments allocated by Act 355 are no longer relevant and need to be updated. Since the past 51 years in existence of this act, not one single non-Muslim has ever been sentenced. This is simply because, Syariah Courts cannot sentence a non-Muslim.
There have been various reasons for the opposition to the Bill, but all have been answered. Nevertheless there are many who do not accept the elucidations and still cling to their own views.
The maximum fine that can be imposed by the Syariah courts after the 1984 amendment is RM 5,000, a petty sum considering the offence committed.
Imagine that amount as a fine for a pimp, it is probably all in a day’s work for that person. A hefty fine would help curb vice.
The idea is not to punish, but rather to avoid the punishment in the first place. The fear of getting caught would assist in preventing crimes. This mechanism of heavy fines has helped many countries to maintain order.
But why the obstruction when it comes to our very own country? Do we not have the same rights as people elsewhere, to live in a crime free environment?
Rehan Ahmad Bin Jamaluddin Ahmad
Insitut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)