PETALING JAYA: A Federal Court ruling upholding caning as constitutional has sparked renewed debate over justice, human dignity and whether such punishment still belongs in modern Malaysia.
While legal practitioners pointed to the limits of judicial power, noting that courts are bound to apply laws enacted by Parliament, some others acknowledged that certain punishments may warrant review.
Lawyer Tripatjit Singh said that caning is a sentence reserved for serious offences under Malaysian law and that the courts’ role is to apply laws enacted by Parliament, not to question or change them.
“The judiciary decides matters according to the law, while Parliament is responsible for making or amending it.
“Only in certain cases, the punishment may seem excessive and should be revisited,” he added.
However, lawyer Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad took a more critical stance, describing caning as a form of punishment that is inhumane.
“In a modern society, caning is widely recognised as inhuman due to the severe and lasting physical and even psychological harm it causes such as anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.
“Open wounds are also highly susceptible to infection, which can be fatal if not properly treated especially for those with pre-existing health conditions like diabetes,” he said.
Meanwhile, Alliance for a Safe Community chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye said the Federal Court’s 2-1 decision must be respected as the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, he stressed it should not shut down broader public discourse on corporal punishment.
“While the decision settles the legal position, the true question goes beyond legality and is about the kind of society we aspire to be, and the values that should underpin our system of justice.
“Punishment must not only serve as a deterrent, but must also be just, proportionate, and consistent with the principles of human dignity.”
Human rights group Pusat Komas director Jerald Joseph said the ruling showcased that some of the nation’s laws were still archaic compared to the rest of the world.
“Under international law, caning is considered as a form of torture and degrading the dignity of an individual which is why most other countries no longer practice it as the punishment came from the ancient periods of barbaric history,” he said.
At the Federal Court yesterday, Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Azizah Nawawi in a majority judgment ruled that caning sentences are constitutional.
The judgment was made in a review applications by three prisoners seeking to set aside their caning sentences, as they claimed that it was unconstitutional.
The dissenting judgment was written by Federal Court judge Lee Swee Seng.
