Che Omar Che Soh

It only said that at the time of the judgment the laws of the nation were secular laws.

Che omar che soh. The case of che omar bin che soh if understood correctly does not say that malaysia is a secular nation. So how could this case be used to prove something that was not even stated in the judgement. The supremacy of secular law in malaysia was upheld in 1988 in the supreme court case of che omar bin che soh vs public prosecutor in which the supreme court rejected the argument that the death penalty for drug trafficking was unconstitutional for offending the principles of islam he said. But che omar bin che soh vs public prosecutor is no longer a good law because it was decided before the coming into effect of article 121 1a of the federal constitution.

In the supreme court decision of che omar che soh v public prosecutor 1988 2 mlj 55 the judge tun salleh abbas only said that malaysia follows the secular laws from the british and did not say that malaysia is a secular state. The real interpretation of che soh che omar s judgement by ahmad faiz faiza dap has brings up che soh che omar s case once again to prove we are a secular state i e. Separation between state and church. On che omar bin che soh v pp it is not surprising that mccbchst has chosen to provide selective quotation in this respect.