In a controversial first for Terengganu, Malaysia, a 42-year-old carpenter, Mohd Affendi Awang, has been sentenced to six lashes of public caning for repeated violations of Islamic moral laws prohibiting unmarried men and women from being alone together in private. The punishment will take place on December 6, after Friday prayers at a mosque in Kuala Terengganu, once the appeal period ends.
The sentence was handed down under the state’s religious criminal code, which criminalizes “close proximity” between unmarried individuals. Affendi’s punishment includes a fine of RM4,000 (about $850 USD) and six months in prison if the fine is not paid.
This is Affendi’s third conviction for the same offense. In July 2023, he was fined RM2,700 or sentenced to three months in jail. Earlier this year, he was fined RM3,000 and received four lashes for a second violation. The most recent incident occurred in June, when he was found alone with a 52-year-old woman in a private house at 1:40 a.m.
The penalties for such moral offenses, codified under Terengganu’s religious laws, include caning, imprisonment, and fines for repeat offenders. These laws are derived from Sharia, the Islamic legal system that blends religious teachings with state governance.
In this case, Judge Kamalruazmi Ismail justified the harsh punishment as a deterrent, stating: “The purpose of religious punishment is to teach and deter offenders so they do not repeat their mistakes. You have been punished before, yet you reoffended. The previous punishment should have made you repent.”
This case highlights growing concerns about the intersection of religion and state authority in Malaysia, a country with a significant Muslim majority but a diverse population that includes other faiths and secular citizens. Critics argue that enforcing religious morality through public corporal punishment is a gross violation of individual freedoms and human dignity.
Religious laws like these raise troubling questions about the role of the state in regulating private behavior. Punishing two consenting adults for being alone together in private not only infringes on personal liberty but also perpetuates an outdated, patriarchal vision of morality.
Human rights advocates have repeatedly condemned Malaysia’s use of public caning, calling it degrading and incompatible with international human rights standards. They point out that such punishments disproportionately target the poor and marginalized, as offenders like Affendi often cannot afford proper legal representation or fines.
Additionally, critics argue that public punishments humiliate individuals in a manner that violates their basic human dignity. This approach does little to address the underlying social or economic factors that may lead to such situations, instead creating a cycle of shame and stigma.
While supporters of these laws claim they preserve social values, critics believe they undermine Malaysia’s aspirations as a modern, multicultural society. Increasingly, many Malaysians are questioning whether such rigid enforcement of religious morality aligns with the nation’s broader goals of economic development, human rights, and social progress.
The case of Mohd Affendi underscores a deeper debate: should the state have the authority to impose religious values on its citizens, or should individuals have the freedom to live their private lives without fear of public humiliation or violence?
As the December caning date approaches, the eyes of the world will be on Malaysia, sparking further discussion on the compatibility of religious laws with universal human rights.