FOLLOWING the caning of two women in Terengganu, the new government must now walk a tightrope between taking a human rights stand and appeasing an increasingly polarised Muslim community, whose votes it needs to stay in power, said analysts. 

Rights groups had condemned Monday’s public caning carried out by the Terengganu shariah court on two women found guilty of same-sex relations. 

Their caning, carried out in front of 100 witnesses, marked the first time women had received the sentence in Malaysia.  

While the state government exercises its right to interpret shariah laws, the Federal Government could, in fact, amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, or Act 355, to remove caning as a sentence, legal experts said. 

The real challenge would be garnering the political will do so by lawmakers from a coalition that received less than a third of the Muslim vote on May 9, analysts said. 

“Objecting to the caning punishment could be seen as meddling in Islamic affairs, if it’s not executed well,” said Universiti Malaya political analyst Awang Azman Awang Pawi. 

“Amending shariah law would require the majority support of Muslims. It is only because whipping is perceived to be cruel that it’s not easy for the majority of the Muslim community to accept this. 

“However, many people still believe the sentence of whipping is within Islamic teaching. Additionally, the state’s authority to carry out such a punishment has long been part of Terengganu’s Islamic laws,” he said. 

Moving to amend the law in Parliament could affect support for Pakatan Harapan in Malay-majority states, he said. 

“Moreover, Terengganu is an opposition state and Putrajaya may find it hard to justify interfering in the state’s legal affairs.”

In a video statement today, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had said the caning did not project a good image of Islam but stopped short of condemning it, suggesting counselling instead for Muslims found guilty of same-sex relations. 

“Amending Act 355 is tougher than stopping public caning,” said Penang Institute fellow Wong Chin Huat, referring to the law that empowers state religious courts to deal with offences under Islamic law.

“The question of political will, looking from the other side, is political viability. What is important is discursive challenge to public caning, or even caning in general, reducing its legitimacy or political correctness in the Malay-Muslim public eye.” 

Wong said moving to amend the law without public backing may backfire on Pakatan.

“A pure legalistic quick fix may just give the far-right a pretense to organise a Defend Islam rally to push back. 

“As religion is under the purview of rulers, the public should appeal to the individual sultans and the Conference of Rulers to take a stance.”

Last week, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of religious affairs Fuziah Salleh told the Dewan Negara that the government may review Act 355 with regard to the competence of shariah judges and prosecutors, with the possibility of harmonising shariah and civil laws.

A day after the caning, Pahang Islamic Religious Department director Mohamad Noor Abdul Rani said the state may also enforce similiar Islamic punishment against same-sex relations offenders, saying it would curb the spread of LGBT activities. 

“We support (the caning sentence) as it shows the beauty of Islam, but in Pahang, we have not decided yet and will look into it,” he was quoted as saying by the New Straits Times.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Islamic Affairs) Mujahid Yusof Rawa had said that state Islamic authorities should not compete to mete out corporal punishment in such cases. – September 6, 2018.