LETTER | Criminal lawyer Shamsher Singh Thind has spoken in defence of the public caning of a man convicted of khalwat (close proximity).
Shamsher, who holds a diploma in syariah legal practice, said Section 230(2) of the Syariah Criminal Procedure (Terengganu) Enactment 2001 stipulates that in the event where any matter is not expressly provided by this enactment, the court shall apply Islamic law.
Since Islamic law allows for the caning to be carried out publicly, Shamsher believes “that the judge did not violate any laws (in ordering for the public caning),” he said in a Facebook post. “
In the post, Shamsher in fact referred to Sections 125 and 126 of the same enactment but was of the opinion that since both sections are silent as to the place of execution of the sentence of caning, Section 230(2) above may be relied on.
Now, Section 125(3)(c) provides that the sentence of caning “shall be executed before a government medical officer in such place as the court may direct or in a place fixed by the government for the purpose”.
One will find that Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is similarly worded. It reads as follows:
“When the accused is sentenced to caning only the sentence shall be executed at such place and time as the court may direct.”
One may argue that caning in public is within the jurisdiction and power of a sentencing judge.
So, in further defence of the public caning, one can say that it is in accordance with Section 125(3)(c) above. In other words, the execution of the sentence of caning in public is according to law.
Unless adjudged otherwise.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
