Provision Of Islam In Federal Constitution Not In Vain - Former CJ

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 (Bernama) -- Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam in the religion of the Federation is not a provision in vain, said former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad.

He said with this provision, Malaysia is known to the world as an Islamic country.

"To the world, Malaysia is not only seen as an Islamic country but an exemplary Islamic country. Malaysia is also regarded as an example of a developed Islamic country of this era," he said.

Abdul Hamid said this when tabling his working paper titled 'Islam and Interpretation of the Constitution by Courts in Malaysia' at a a discourse organised by the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM) here today.

He said the Malaysian government had spent millions of ringgit for the development of Islamic banking, Islamic finance and takaful so much so the country was a leaders in these fields.

Abdul Hamid said the people could also carry out Islamic activities such as building universities, colleges, mosques and schools.

"Imagine if Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution is not there, could all this be done?" he said.

On secularism, Abdul Hamid, referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Che Omar Che Soh against the Public Prosecutor in 1988, said in the judgement the word secular was mentioned three times.

"The first, secular institutions was mentioned when quoting a book by M.B.Hooker. Two other instances, secular law was used when referring to laws effective on the day of independence," he said.

Abdul Hamid said the word secular was used in the judgement not to describe the country, but to describe the institutions and laws.

"In my opinion, its use is not accurate and the word was used uncessarily. Because of group and political interests, it was quoted out of context to say that Malaysia is a secular country although the Federal Constitution never once used the word," he added.

Also referring to case judgement which was heard by five judges and written by former chief justice Tun Salleh Abas, Abdul Hamid said they also agreed with the judgement that Article 3(1) itself does not make all laws contridicting with the Syariah not valid and void.

He said civil lawyers often did not know that existing laws were compliant and similar to the Syariah, while syariah members did not know that Syariah principles were made into laws.

"I believe that if it was declared that Malaysia will fully implement Islamic law, more than 90 per cent of the existing laws would not change," he said.

During a question and answer session on the delegation of authority between the Civil Court and Syariah Court, Abdul Hamid suggested that should there be a syariah issue in the Civil Court whereby a Syariah Court judge should be present to sit with the Civil Court judge.

He also said the two courts can be combined and placed under the jurisdiction fo the Federal Court.

However, the former chief justice said this would not happen because it required amendments to the Federal Constitution and jurisdiction from the Syariah Court be transferred to the Federal government.

Assoc Prof Dr Shamrahayu Abdul Aziz from the International Islamic University of Malaysia's (IIUM) Islamic Law Department, when tabling her working paper, said there was no proof that Malaysia had been a secular country.

"There are two forms of secularism, rigid or flexible. Both don't exist in this country," she said.

The three-and-a-half hour muzakarah explained the stand, interpretation and actual implication of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, correcting the misperceptions and misinterpretations of judgement of the Che Omar case.

IKIM director Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik was the moderator of discourse.

-- BERNAMA