Public Caning in Terengganu: Full Implementation of Sharia Law in Malaysia?

On 20 November 2024, Senior Judge of the Terengganu Sharia High Court Kamalruazmi Ismail sentenced Mohd Affendi Awang to six lashes of the cane. The accused had pleaded guilty to the offence of committing khalwat (close proximity) for the third time. If this is not addressed by progressive elements, it could lead to similar punishments effected in other states.

The Terengganu court ordered the sentence to be carried out publicly at the Al-Muktafi Billah Shah Mosque in Kuala Terengganu on 6 December 2024 after Friday prayers, following the expiration of the appeal period. The accused was charged under Section 31(a) of the Sharia Criminal Offenses (Takzir) Enactment (Terengganu) Amendment 2022. In addition to the caning, the accused was fined RM4,000 (or a six-month jail term if the fine was not paid).

The caning is unprecedented. Terengganu and Sabah have carried out canings previously, but within court or prison compounds, and the punishment was only witnessed by family members of the convicted person. In this case, the accused was caned in a mosque, where it could be witnessed by members of the public. If left unchecked, this approach may become commonplace and widely accepted, potentially paving the way for the implementation of hudud laws (Sharia penal code). It should be stated that the caning according to takzir differs from caning under civil law; among other things, the type of cane and the method of caning are different.

This decision sparked criticism from progressive Islamic groups such as the Islamic Renaissance Front and Sisters in Islam. Most of their objections were directed towards Terengganu’s Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) government. They centered on the normalisation of violence and questioned whether the punishment should be applied to instances of khalwat. Political analysts like Awang Azman Pawi and Hisomuddin Bakar also condemned the Terengganu government, arguing that the public caning was an attempt to deflect attention from the state’s administrative shortcomings, particularly in economic management.

Furthermore, influential figures such as the former Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Latheefa Koya, and the Mufti of Perlis Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, have questioned the approach of administering public canings. Additionally, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia has criticised public caning as a violation of human rights as it undermines the dignity of the offender and conflicts with international covenants.

It should be noted that the judgement has no direct connection to the PAS government, despite the party’s efforts to claim credit for it.

The passing of the sentence by a public servant in the Terengganu Sharia High Court implies that similar decisions could be made even if the Terengganu government were to be led by a different party. In other words, conservative ideologies are not PAS’ sole preserve; they have permeated into other political parties as well. This has also affected civil servants. Kamalruazmi Ismail has been a practitioner of Sharia law in Terengganu since 2006. He was appointed by the Sultan of Terengganu through the Government Gazette in November 2013 during Barisan Nasional’s administration, with the gazette being signed by the then Menteri Besar of the United Malays National Organisation, Ahmad bin Said.

This is not the first time Kamalruazmi has passed a public caning sentence. In 2018, he ordered the public caning of a lesbian couple. In both cases, he emphasised that the punishment served as a form of deterrence and would not harm the offenders.

The passing of the sentence by a public servant in the Terengganu Sharia High Court implies that similar decisions could be made even if the Terengganu government were to be led by a different party. In other words, conservative ideologies are not PAS’ sole preserve; they have permeated into other political parties as well. This has also affected civil servants.

It is worth noting that Kamalruazmi is not the only public servant inclined towards this approach. Others, such as Senior Judge Rosdi Harun of the Terengganu Sharia High Court, have meted out similar punishments.

The Minister of Religious Affairs in the Unity Government, Mohd Na’im Mokhtar, has been cautious in addressing this issue, stating that it falls within the jurisdiction of the state government.

The public caning ruling in Terengganu has the potential to pave the way for similar punishments in other states. Sharia court officials in other states may now freely refer to and propose such punishments. This is particularly evident given that authorities in several states have expressed support for this approach. For example, in 2018, following the caning of a lesbian offender, the Mufti of the Federal Territories, Zulkifli Al-Bakri, responded positively to the punishment.

The current Mufti of the Federal Territories, Luqman Abdullah, has also expressed support for the recent caning. He has called on all parties to respect Terengganu’s authority to implement its own legal approach. Simultaneously, Asmadi Mohamed Naim, the Mufti of Pahang, has endorsed public caning, arguing that it generates a sense of fear and deterrence. The Mufti of Sabah, Bungsu @ Aziz Jaafar, acknowledged that Sabah had previously carried out caning in a limited public setting in Tawau, Sabah, in 2017.

Other PAS-controlled states such as Kelantan and Perlis have indicated their intention to follow Terengganu’s lead in implementing public caning. Even Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali, the Deputy Chair of UMNO’s Ulama wing and former PAS leader, has reacted positively.

PAS, which governs Terengganu, has openly stated that the caning marks the beginning of efforts to fully implement Sharia law. If this trend continues and is widely adopted by religious authorities, it may pave the way for the normalisation of public caning, which could eventually facilitate the implementation of hudud punishments, a goal pursued by conservative Islamic groups in Malaysia. It is worth noting that, as early as 2012, 62 per cent of Malaysian Muslims support the implementation of hudud. This would be of concern to those who support the Constitution and civil laws.

Progressive Islamic groups — especially those who claim to uphold the Constitution — oppose the new development. They should express their concerns comprehensively. It is insufficient to criticise or denounce PAS; they must seek ways to engage with religious authorities about the implications of such developments. Furthermore, they must acknowledge that the problem also lies with the growing conservatism among public servants.

2025/27