We, the civil societies below representing multiethnic and multi-faith, hold that Malaysia was formed as a secular federation in 1963 and hudud law at state-level is unconstitutional unless the entire federal arrangement is renegotiated.
Hence, it is grossly incorrect and inappropriate for a matter of such paramount importance to be dealt with by the Federal Parliament voting on a Private Member’s Bill or even by any State Legislature.
Our full position is as follows:
1. Malaysia was formed by the union of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and then Singapore in 1963 adopting the Malayan Constitution as the basis of the new federation of
constitution. For all intents and purposes, Malaysia is meant to be a secular federation.
2. The Ninth Schedule of both the Malayan Constitution and the Malaysian Constitution explicitly place in the federal jurisdiction “civil and criminal law and procedure and the administration of justice” (Item 4) except “Islamic personal law relating to marriage, divorce, guardianship, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, family law, gifts or succession, testate and intestate”
3. Due to the centrality of the Ninth Schedule, its alteration especially on defining matters like judiciary must be treated with a deliberative full review on loosening the entire federal arrangement, and not done in isolation.
4. In any re-negotiation of the federal arrangement, Sabah and Sarawak must be treated as two equal partners to the collective of the Malayan states, as they were in 1963, not just two of thirteen.
5. The impact of hudud law will not be limited to the Muslims, as its spillover effect will definitely be borne by all Malaysians. Hence, any plan of introducing hudud necessitates a public discourse and dialogue to build understanding involving Malaysians of all religious, ethnic, ideological and socio-economic backgrounds.
6. While the existing Sharia laws govern only personal and family matters and should concern only the Muslims, in practice, non-Muslims are gravely affected in cases involving conversion and children custody when one party of an estranged marriage converts to Islam. Regrettably, this has caused the sense of alienation and fear of religious suppression on the part of non-Muslims, in contradiction to Islam’s emphasis of justice. The impact of hudud will only be more strongly felt.
7. Any state government or any party that intends to introduce hudud Law is morally bound to engage all Malaysians – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – in public discourse and dialogue to convince them of the merits of hudud Law in a multicultural society. It may start with commissioning independent research on the implementation of hudud – in considerable varieties — in countries and regions like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Aceh, Indonesia and the 12 Sharia States of Nigeria.
18. While the merits or demerits of any institutional options including hudud can be considered by Malaysia, there must not be any majoritarian imposition of any institutional option in disregard of the legitimate interests of the minorities and dissidents. At present, as there is no any detailed study on the implementation of hudud in other countries to provide an informed basis for such consideration, we opposes any move to amend the Federal Constitution to make possible the implementation of hudud.