What Hadi’s Sharia call really means for Malaysia

On 9 September, Pas president Hadi Awang called for the abolition of laws he described as “colonial legacies”.

He singled out Act 355, which caps what Sharia courts can hand down: three years’ jail, a RM5,000 fine and six strokes of whipping. He also named the Civil Law Act 1956. And he pointed to the constitutional rules that limit how far state governments can go on Islamic law.

Hadi argued that removing these laws is the only way to achieve “true independence” by making Islamic law supreme.

This is not a new idea. It follows his past attempts to expand Sharia court powers. In 2016, an attempt was made to raise Sharia sentencing limits to 30 years’ jail, a RM100,000 fine and 100 strokes. Hadi’s latest call also echoes efforts to get around the Federal Court’s 2024 Nik Elin ruling.

Hadi’s demand, in short, is a direct challenge to Malaysia’s constitutional order.

Malaysia’s constitutional reality

To understand what this call means, we need to look at Malaysia’s constitutional framework.

The country is neither a fully secular state nor an Islamic theocracy. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution declares Islam the religion of the Federation. But Article 4(1) says the Constitution itself is the supreme law.

The landmark 1988 Che Omar ruling by the Supreme Court clarified this balance. It found that Article 3’s reference to Islam applies only to rituals and ceremonies. This means the country’s overall criminal and civil law stays secular.

Hadi’s proposal seeks to overturn this settled position. It would place Islamic law above the Constitution itself.

The risks of Sharia supremacy

If carried through, making Sharia supreme would have serious consequences for Malaysia’s democracy and human rights.

Abolishing these laws would erode the rule of law by replacing constitutional supremacy with religious supremacy.

Hadi’s claim that these laws are ‘colonial’ does not hold up. An independent Malaysian Parliament passed Act 355 in 1965, eight years after the independence of Malaya.

The Constitution itself was drawn up by the Reid Commission, a Commonwealth panel of judges chaired by a Briton. It took evidence from 131 memorandums submitted by local groups and individuals. The result was then negotiated and finalised with Malaya’s own Alliance government and the Malay rulers, before independence. (It was the British colonial system that first confined Islamic law to personal matters.)

Wider Sharia court powers, of the kind proposed in the past, would bring in hudud-style punishments through the back door, creating a divided justice system. That would mean Muslims and non-Muslims facing different punishments for the same crime.

This runs against the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. It also raises real concerns about due process for the people.

There is a threat to minorities, too. A legal system with Sharia at the top would severely restrict the religious freedom guaranteed under Article 11. Experience elsewhere shows that widening Islamic criminal jurisdiction tends to hit minorities, women and marginalised groups hardest.

Secularism in Malaysia is not about being anti-religion. It is the framework that protects a multi-religious society. Remove it, and minorities are left exposed to the whims of a majoritarian religious authority.

Then there is the damage to federalism and the economy. Letting states write their own sweeping criminal laws would wreck legal certainty. It would produce a confusing patchwork of laws from state to state. That could put off businesses and foreign investors.

It would also risk a constitutional crisis in Sabah and Sarawak. Both states joined Malaysia on the clear understanding that it would remain a secular federation.

Is it actually possible?

For all the rousing rhetoric, the constitutional barriers facing Hadi’s proposal are steep.

Changing these laws would need a two-thirds majority in Parliament. No governing coalition has held that since 2008.

The courts would also have to reverse a settled position. The Federal Court has just refused to do that, in the Nik Elin case.

Hadi’s demand, then, looks mainly like a political tool. It is meant to mobilise voters and pressure his coalition partners, rather than a realistic plan for new legislation.

Hadi’s call to make Syariah supreme is a radical break from the compromises struck when Malaysia was formed. It threatens to split the legal system, put minority rights at risk and destabilise the economy and the federal structure.

The Constitution’s amendment rules protect the status quo for now. But the real danger lies in how normal this kind of rhetoric could come to sound over time.

To protect Malaysia’s plural democracy, its secular foundations need defending. Further attempts to put religious supremacy above constitutional supremacy need to be rejected.

Civil society, reformists and everyone in Malaysia who believes in justice must stay alert and speak up. The goal is a Malaysia where the Federal Constitution protects everyone equally.

No single religious ideology should be able to override anyone’s rights and freedoms.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: