These are the facts:
Ayu, (age unknown) - RM 1000 fine and caned four times.
Aishah (18) - Six months jail (wtf), RM 3000 fine and six strokes of the cane.
Nur (age unknown) - 30 days jail and six strokes of the cane.
The public is left to guess and speculate as to why the sentences meted out by the Syariah Court (and it has also not been specified explicitly as to which Syariah Court handed out these condemnable sentences) grotesquely differs from one another. The difference between the sentences is jaw-droppingly illogical yet scarcely anybody (let it be bloggers or columnists or organisations or local leaders) has pointed out this disturbing fact.
Heaviest Sentence for Youngest Offender?
What that leaves me in no peace is that the second offender, eighteen-year-old Aishah (not her real name, understandably) is given the heaviest sentence out of the three highly-debated sentences. Is there any clue (let alone clarification) regarding this fact? No. But the public would like to know why a merely eighteen-year-old, barely legal girl is meted out such a mind-bogglingly heavy sentence of a jail term of six full months (which I assume, is to run consecutively), on top of that a RM 3000 fine (sufficient to feed a family squatting in the poverty line for a month) and of course the six strokes of the cane. I understand that the severity of the Syariah caning differs greatly from judicial caning in terms of intensity and brutality, but still, the appropriateness of sentence meted out, in regard to the offence committed, is, in my opinion, highly-questionable. (for the difference between Syariah caning and judicial caning, kindly refer to this page)
Syariah law overrules Constitution?
It is understood that Malaysia currently practices a dual justice system, and we were taught in secondary school that the Constitution has legal supremacy over any other laws enacted, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is in itself invalid. Therefore if indeed "it [the sentence] violates Constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination as whipping of women under Shariah Criminal Offences legislation contradicts civil law where women are not punishable by caning under Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code." (source: Sisters condemns caning of 3 Muslim women), the authorities would owe the public an explanation as to why this controversial sentence was carried out. Does the Syariah law, has, in reality, legal supremacy over the Constitution?
The Other Party?
Another unanswered question is regarding the other party involved in the case. Here I'm referring to the men involved in the extra-marital affair which caused the three women all the public humiliation and physical pain they could bear. Unless the explanation is that it is only the women that were married and therefore when they engaged in sex with the men (that has not been mentioned in any of the media), they were committing an offense punishable by the Syariah law and that the men they engaged were in fact, all single and unmarried. Where is the men in this case? The total absence of this all-important other party is just baffling. We all know it takes two palms to clap together. The only, fragmentary mention is that while "All three [offenders] were caned at 10am on the same day. Four men were also caned for committing similar offences at the male prison on the same day." (source: NST Online: 3 Muslim women caned for illicit sex) But are the aforesaid men related in any way to this case we're discussing here? This is another vital question that has yet to be answered by the authorities.
In conclusion, there are many gaping loopholes in the sentencing of this case. Thus I'm sure the public would be in favour of a review of this case and it is urged that the three unfortunate women appeal to a higher power to ensure that their rights are well-protected. If this case is to be let hanging (like so many others in this country and elsewhere), it would be the catalyst to spark the Syariah Courts to mete out increasingly heavy (increasingly ridiculous too, not to mention) punishments for such petty offences. I mean, come on, extra-marital sex is immoral but the gravity of the offense is just outrageously disproportionate to the sentence meted out. Extra-marital sex might be immoral, but we have to admit it happens. What the women (and their husbands) need is a marriage counselor! (just my opinion) Shouldn't the authorities focus on rehabilitating them and helping them rebuild their (undeniably) dysfunctional family instead of shattering the already unstable family? A healthy, loving family is the foundation to a harmonious society, we all know that! Thus I strongly urge that this saddening event that has happened to all of us, as a society, would never repeat itself.
p/s: Judicial caning has never caused death, Mr. Muhyiddin, not that I know of. ("While the caning sentence meted out by civil courts can cause hurt and sometimes even death, caning according to Syariah law is light" - source: The Star: Caning of Muslim women was legal: DPM)