KOTA KINABALU: The move to table two Private member’s Bills to provide wider powers to Syariah Court judges to mete out sentences under the Syariah Penal Code and for the relevant federal departments to be used to enforce its laws by the Kelantan PAS state government is unconstitutional.
UPKO acting president Datuk Wilfred Madius Tangau said that the party would stand to oppose the two bills.
If the Bills are allowed to pass the country will be having two types of criminal legal systems, Madius said in a statement yesterday.
“This goes against the very foundation and intention of our Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution must first be amended if any criminal cases jurisdiction is to be given to the Syariah Court.
“Not to mention it will also go against the spirit of the Federal Constitution that everyone is equal before the law and that every person on the land has the legitimate expectation to be subjected to the same law and punishment,” he pointed out.
Madius was of the opinion that the two private Bills if allowed, are akin to allowing legislations which are unconstitutional to be passed from the back door.
He said that it is obvious PAS was merely trying to get political mileage out of this.
Even its partners in Pakatan Rakyat, DAP is strongly opposing such a move, he said adding, “We must appreciate that Malaysia is a multicultural society and there are many other issues that needed to be addressed first before such amendments are even considered.
An example of this would be the recent case involving the custody of two underage children involved in a custody battle where the civil court has given custody to the mother while on the other hand the Syariah court has given custody to the father, Madius pointed out.
The police are reluctant to arrest the father for forcefully entering and taking away the children against the order of the High Court for reason that the father had also been given custody by the Syariah Court.
Jurisdiction of these two courts are clearly spelt out in the constitution and even with that, a matrimonial dispute as this has already caused a problem for the authorities to handle what more in a more complex and sensitive matter concerning criminal prosecution and executing its sentences, he said.
“Take for example considering the situation of this case and assuming that Hudud had been implemented in that state, the action of the father by entering the house (assuming without consent) and taking away the children forcefully would amount to trespass.
“Further, it was also reported in the newspapers that the wife tried to stop the husband and that her clothes were caught in the car door and she was dragged by the car. If she is seriously hurt then criminal offence of causing bodily injury or serious bodily injury has been committed.
“Question then arises who would have the power to decide and to prosecute? Bearing in mind that the father has an order from the Syariah court and the mother has an order from the civil High Court.
“These are serious questions and issues that need to be addressed and considered carefully,” he said.