“Our Lenten theme Ignite Hope, is a call to be…
The Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) categorically rejects implementation of HUDUD law in Malaysia. This is because implementing HUDUD law would clearly undermine the 1957 Constitution which embodies the understanding between the major races represented by UMNO, MCA and MIC for Malaysia to be a secular State. Islamic law was confined to a very narrow area as stated in List II of the State List (9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution)
HUDUD Law will be discriminatory against Muslim women and against Non-Muslims. The burden of proof in many offences is on the victim especially in rape cases. A woman cannot be a witness. Non-Muslims also cannot be witnesses. In effect, it would mean that three-quarters of the population is disqualified as witnesses.
Our objections as above are explained and justified below and supported by authorities.[A] HUDUD Law is against the Federal Constitution.
The Lord Reid Commission’s Report which was the basis of the Federal Constitution, the Alliance Memorandum submitted to the Reid Commission and the White Paper issued by Britain in June 1957 which all went into the making of the Merdeka Constitution clearly show that Malaya was intended to be a secular State and not a theocracy. This is the historical social contract and democratic Constitutionalism, HUDUD Law was never intended or in Contemplation of any of the parties at the time of making the Constitution.
Thus, Malaysia as a Country is founded on Parliamentary democracy where the Federal Constitution reigns Supreme. Article 4 declares the Constitution “is the Supreme Law of the Federation.” Therefore, any attempt to introduce HUDUD Law would be unconstitutional as the HUDUD derives its ultimate authority from the Holy Quran which is only possible under a theocracy and HUDUD would change the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, any proposed change of Malaysia from Parliamentary democracy to Islamic theocracy would offend the basic structure of the Constitution and be unconstitutional. (For full text, please click below:)