WE refer to the comment "The sun has set on Victorian-era laws" published July 24.
First, Malaysia is not Britain, Victorian era or otherwise. She is a state in a region known as Nusantara, with her own history as a federation of independent Malay Muslim sultanates, all of which had laws and jurisprudence based upon the teachings of Islam.
Most if not all of these were displaced by the coming of the British, who then not only introduced their own laws but legal philosophy in their place, causing tremendous disruption to the national make-up and Islamic character of these states. Having now attained their independence in the federation that is Malaysia, whose Constitution by Article 3(1) proclaims Islam as their common religion, they now strive diligently to recover the Islamic elements of administration lost as a direct result of colonial rule.
Yet every time they try, they meet opposition. Whether it is opposition to the legislative expansion of syariah courts long existing in these lands before the coming of British colonialists via the proposed amendment of the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 or the ring fencing and reduction thereof via the effective annulment of Article 121(1A) of our Constitution in the recent Federal Court decision in the Indira Gandhi case, the antagonism towards a native legal system based on Islam in favour of a secular one based on English law is only too real more than 60 years after our independence as a nation.
So, at the very least, we should get to keep those elements of that secular system suited to us as a civilisation, and that includes laws against sodomy, enticement, outraging modesty, defamation and most of all sedition.
Malaysia is, by Article 4 of her Constitution, a place where the rule of law prevails, and laws are enacted, retained, amended or repealed according to her own particular circumstances. That is the very essence of national sovereignty, a concept upon which the sun still shines bright.
The suggestion that we do away with laws on the mere fact that they were introduced during British rule is simplistic.
The accorded human rights to the LGBT group to not be discriminated against, abused or harmed should not be mixed with Malaysia's duties and obligations to ensure the health of her population is taken care of.
Criminal law on homosexuality merits a review on its impact towards public health. Data from Unaids showed that in the Middle East and North Africa, where most Muslim countries are located and where the majority uphold criminal law with regard to homosexuality, there were an estimated 230,000 people living with HIV, which gives an adult HIV prevalence of 0.1%. At present, HIV prevalence in Muslim majority countries is lower than that of non-Muslim countries.
And as the writer tried to justify the need to repeal the so-called British law based on colonialism, just over last week, a UN report revealed that men with same-sex sexual partners are 28 times more likely to contract HIV than their heterosexual counterparts despite a radical reduction in new infections among gay men in Western countries. The report stated that although the overall annual number of new HIV infections dropped from a high of 3.4 million in 1996 to 1.8 million last year, gay men and men who have sex with men remained most at risk of contracting HIV, along with female sex workers, drug users and transgender women.
That sun the writer speaks of has set in a time long gone and if laws from then were retained, it is because Malaysians have made an independent judgment and have decided that they serve the interests of contemporary society.
Azril Mohd Amin
Chief Executive, Centre for Human Rights Research & Advocacy and Chairperson,
Malaysian Alliance of Civil Society Organisations in the Universal Periodic Review Process (MACSA)
Associate Professor Dr Rafidah Hanim Mokhtar
President, The International Women's Alliance for Family Institution and Quality Education
and Co-Chairperson,
MACSA
First, Malaysia is not Britain, Victorian era or otherwise. She is a state in a region known as Nusantara, with her own history as a federation of independent Malay Muslim sultanates, all of which had laws and jurisprudence based upon the teachings of Islam.
Most if not all of these were displaced by the coming of the British, who then not only introduced their own laws but legal philosophy in their place, causing tremendous disruption to the national make-up and Islamic character of these states. Having now attained their independence in the federation that is Malaysia, whose Constitution by Article 3(1) proclaims Islam as their common religion, they now strive diligently to recover the Islamic elements of administration lost as a direct result of colonial rule.
Yet every time they try, they meet opposition. Whether it is opposition to the legislative expansion of syariah courts long existing in these lands before the coming of British colonialists via the proposed amendment of the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 or the ring fencing and reduction thereof via the effective annulment of Article 121(1A) of our Constitution in the recent Federal Court decision in the Indira Gandhi case, the antagonism towards a native legal system based on Islam in favour of a secular one based on English law is only too real more than 60 years after our independence as a nation.
So, at the very least, we should get to keep those elements of that secular system suited to us as a civilisation, and that includes laws against sodomy, enticement, outraging modesty, defamation and most of all sedition.
Malaysia is, by Article 4 of her Constitution, a place where the rule of law prevails, and laws are enacted, retained, amended or repealed according to her own particular circumstances. That is the very essence of national sovereignty, a concept upon which the sun still shines bright.
The suggestion that we do away with laws on the mere fact that they were introduced during British rule is simplistic.
The accorded human rights to the LGBT group to not be discriminated against, abused or harmed should not be mixed with Malaysia's duties and obligations to ensure the health of her population is taken care of.
Criminal law on homosexuality merits a review on its impact towards public health. Data from Unaids showed that in the Middle East and North Africa, where most Muslim countries are located and where the majority uphold criminal law with regard to homosexuality, there were an estimated 230,000 people living with HIV, which gives an adult HIV prevalence of 0.1%. At present, HIV prevalence in Muslim majority countries is lower than that of non-Muslim countries.
And as the writer tried to justify the need to repeal the so-called British law based on colonialism, just over last week, a UN report revealed that men with same-sex sexual partners are 28 times more likely to contract HIV than their heterosexual counterparts despite a radical reduction in new infections among gay men in Western countries. The report stated that although the overall annual number of new HIV infections dropped from a high of 3.4 million in 1996 to 1.8 million last year, gay men and men who have sex with men remained most at risk of contracting HIV, along with female sex workers, drug users and transgender women.
That sun the writer speaks of has set in a time long gone and if laws from then were retained, it is because Malaysians have made an independent judgment and have decided that they serve the interests of contemporary society.
Azril Mohd Amin
Chief Executive, Centre for Human Rights Research & Advocacy and Chairperson,
Malaysian Alliance of Civil Society Organisations in the Universal Periodic Review Process (MACSA)
Associate Professor Dr Rafidah Hanim Mokhtar
President, The International Women's Alliance for Family Institution and Quality Education
and Co-Chairperson,
MACSA