Malaysia Abolished Trial By Jury In 1995. A Bomoh's Murder Trial Is Widely Blamed For It.
Malaysia has not had trial by jury for over thirty years.
The abolition: section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1995 (Act A908) deleted the jury provisions from the CPC with effect from 17 February 1995. Juries are no longer used in Malaysian criminal justice.
The trigger, as popularly understood: the trial of Mona Fandey.
The case
Mona Fandey — a former pop singer better known as a bomoh — was tried alongside her husband and their assistant Juraimi for the murder of politician Mazlan Idris. Mazlan's body was found on 2 July 1993.
They were tried in the Temerloh High Court by a seven-person jury. All three were found guilty and sentenced to death. The Federal Court dismissed their appeal and affirmed the sentence. The Pahang Pardons Board refused a pardon. All three were hanged at Kajang Prison in 2001.
Why it mattered for the jury system: the trial was extremely publicised, covered widely both locally and internationally. Commentary attributes the abolition substantially to that sensationalism — the High Court trial was in 1993, the jury system was abolished in 1995 — on the reasoning that media coverage of sensational cases can influence jurors' thinking and produce biased verdicts.
Handle the causation carefully. The Mona Fandey case is described in Malaysian sources as "one of the biggest factors" and "said to be a leading cause" — not as the sole or officially stated reason. The government's own stated reasons, below, were broader.
What the government actually said
The abolition came as part of a package. In December 1994 the government approved what were described as "radical changes" to criminal legislation, including abolishing trial by jury, assessors and preliminary inquiries, plus an amendment allowing mandatory whipping for white collar crimes.
The reasoning given by the minister:
- abolishing the jury, assessors and preliminary inquiries would strengthen the role of the judicial system and expedite hearings
- "It is difficult for them (jury and assessors) to differentiate between facts and law. The judge has to summarize their jobs and this is difficult and time consuming."
- "Neighbouring countries have also abolished the jury system" — Singapore in 1970, India and Pakistan soon after independence
Contemporaneous reporting also records that the government cited jurors being not legally trained and easily swayed by emotions and public opinion.
The criticism at the time
This was contested, and by more than the usual voices.
SUARAM and opposition parties condemned the decision as premature.
DAP secretary-general Lim Kit Siang said the Bar Council and other organisations involved in the administration of justice were not consulted before the cabinet approved the amendments, and that such consultation was essential given the far-reaching implications.
SUARAM's argument: jury trials provide an avenue for the public to participate in the criminal trial and infuse the prevailing standards of society into the process.
That is the core case for juries, and it is worth stating properly: the point of a jury is that the accused is judged by peers, which makes the system democratic to a degree, and it injects elements of culture and social norms into criminal justice. Academic framing quotes E.P. Thompson to the effect that the jury upheld the needs for justice and the humanity of the law, with jurors' deliberations being "a distillation of the citizens' collective experience of life."
The case against juries
The most-cited critique in Malaysian discussion is by English judge John Maude QC, who argued in the Daily Telegraph that:
- the jury system costs too much money and time
- jurors are not trained in legal matters and are inexperienced in the criminal justice system
- jurors may feel afraid to be responsible for sending a person to their death
- the system is compulsory, so some participate reluctantly
- some jurors may rush their verdict to leave earlier
A modern addition: with increasing courtroom technology and complex litigation, some argue the system can no longer deal with the complexities of modern litigation.
A short history
| Period | Position |
|---|---|
| 1807 | The seven-member jury system introduced by the British in Penang, then extended to Malacca and Singapore |
| 1926 | Introduced in the Federated Malay States through the CPC for capital offences |
| 1958 | Extended to the whole Federation of Malaya for all capital offences, except Penang and Malacca where it applied to all kinds of offences — a change connected to concerns of the first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, after the Malayan Emergency |
| — | Sabah and Sarawak never adopted it, not being part of the Malay States until 1963 |
| 17 February 1995 | Abolished by Act A908, s.11 |
Note the regional asymmetry. Sabah and Sarawak never had jury trials at all, so the abolition changed nothing there.
What replaced it
Trial by judge alone. In Malaysian criminal trials the judge is both the tribunal of law and the tribunal of fact — deciding admissibility, applying the law, assessing credibility and delivering the verdict.
A practical consequence for readers: references to "the jury" in Malaysian legal discussion are either historical or borrowed from foreign media. If you are watching an American courtroom drama, none of it describes Malaysian procedure. For how a Malaysian criminal trial actually runs, including the prima facie stage, see (Getting Sued Costs You Money. Getting Charged Can Cost You Your Liberty. The Same Act Can Do Both.).
FAQ
Does Malaysia have juries?
No. The jury provisions were deleted from the Criminal Procedure Code by s.11 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1995 (Act A908) with effect from 17 February 1995.
Was it abolished because of Mona Fandey?
Malaysian sources describe the case as "one of the biggest factors" and "said to be a leading cause", given the intensity of publicity around the 1993 trial. But the government's stated reasons were broader, and the abolition formed part of a wider package of criminal law changes approved in December 1994.
What happened in the Mona Fandey case?
She, her husband and their assistant were tried by a seven-person jury in the Temerloh High Court for the murder of politician Mazlan Idris, convicted and sentenced to death. The Federal Court dismissed their appeal, the Pahang Pardons Board refused a pardon, and all three were hanged at Kajang Prison in 2001.
What reasons did the government give?
That abolition would strengthen the judiciary and expedite hearings; that juries and assessors find it difficult to differentiate between facts and law; and that neighbouring countries had already abolished it — Singapore in 1970, India and Pakistan soon after independence.
Who objected?
SUARAM and opposition parties, who called it premature. Lim Kit Siang said the Bar Council and others were not consulted, and SUARAM argued jury trials let the public participate and infuse societal standards into criminal trials.
When did Malaysia first have juries?
The seven-member jury system was introduced by the British in Penang in 1807, extended to Malacca and Singapore, brought into the Federated Malay States for capital offences in 1926, and extended across the Federation in 1958.
Did Sabah and Sarawak have juries?
No. They did not adopt the system, not having been part of the Malay States until 1963.
What replaced the jury?
Trial by judge alone, with the judge acting as both tribunal of law and tribunal of fact.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer–client relationship.
This article is general legal information and historical background, not legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
Specific to this article: the causal link between the Mona Fandey trial and the abolition of the jury system is widely asserted in Malaysian commentary but is not an officially stated reason — the government's contemporaneous justifications were broader and formed part of a package of criminal law amendments approved in December 1994. This article reports both. Historical dates for the introduction and extension of the jury system are drawn from academic and study materials and secondary sources rather than primary legislative records, and sources vary slightly on the date the system ceased operating in practice (one source refers to 1 March 1995 against the 17 February 1995 commencement of Act A908). The John Maude QC critique is English commentary quoted in Malaysian discussion, not a Malaysian source. Statements attributed to ministers, politicians and organisations are as reported in contemporaneous press coverage from 1994.
Spot something outdated or wrong? Tell us — we’ll verify and correct it, with the correction noted.
Key sources (5) — how this was verified
- UiTM Institutional Repository, "An Overview of the Jury System in Malaysia" — the confirmation that the jury provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) (Revised 1999) were deleted by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1995 (Act A908) s.11 with effect from 17 February 1995, so that juries are no longer required in the administration of Malaysian criminal justice; the note that jury trial operated from British colonial days until 1995; the description of jurors' roles in listening to witnesses, assessing documents and determining the credibility and weight of evidence based on common sense and experience, following the law as the judge instructs; and the observation that with the increase in courtroom technology and complex litigation, some argue the system is no longer able to deal with the complexities of modern litigation: https://ir.uitm.edu.my/46919/1/46919.pdf
- AskLegal existing page, "Malaysian courts got rid of the jury system in 1995 because of a…bomoh??" — the explanation that the purpose of a jury is to have civilians participate in criminal justice so that the accused is judged by peers, indicating a degree of democracy, and to inject elements of culture and social norms into the criminal justice system; and the account that the Mona Fandey case may have been one of the biggest factors in the abolition, the trial being extremely publicised, with the observation that sensational cases are dangerous because media reporting can influence jurors' thought processes and lead to biased verdicts: https://asklegal.my/p/what-is-the-jury-system-and-why-was-it-abolished-in-malaysia-mona-fandey
- UPI Archives, 19 December 1994, "Big changes in Malaysia's criminal laws" — the government's approval of "radical changes" to criminal legislation including abolishing trial by jury, preliminary inquiries and an amendment allowing mandatory whipping for white collar crimes; the minister's statement that abolishment of the jury, assessors and preliminary inquiries would strengthen the role of the judicial system and expedite hearings, that "it is difficult for them (jury and assessors) to differentiate between facts and law", that "the judge has to summarize their jobs and this is difficult and time consuming", and that "neighbouring countries have also abolished the jury system", with Singapore having discarded it in 1970 and India and Pakistan soon after independence; the condemnation by SUARAM and opposition parties of the decision as premature; DAP secretary-general Lim Kit Siang's statement that the Bar Council and other organisations involved in the administration of justice were not consulted before the cabinet approved the amendments, and that such consultations were essential given the far-reaching implications; SUARAM's position that jury trials provide an avenue for the public to participate in the criminal trial and infuse the prevailing standards of society into the process; and the history that the seven-member jury system was introduced by the British in Penang in 1807 and then to Malacca and Singapore: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/12/19/Big-changes-in-Malaysias-criminal-laws/7706787813200/
- Lowyat Forum discussion, "M'sia removed jury system after Mona Fandey bomoh" — the account that Mazlan's body was found on 2 July 1993, after which Mona, her husband and Juraimi were arrested and tried in Temerloh High Court by a seven-person jury; the note that the Malaysian government at the time (circa 1994–1995) cited reasons including jurors being not legally trained and easily swayed by emotions and public opinion; the reference to records of the 1994 parliamentary debate on the issue; and the reproduction of John Maude QC's criticisms of the jury system in the Daily Telegraph — that it costs too much money and time, that jurors are not trained in legal matters and are inexperienced in the criminal justice system, that jurors may feel afraid to be responsible for sending a person to their death, that the compulsory nature means some participate reluctantly, and that some jurors may rush their verdict to leave earlier: https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/4613321
- Wikipedia, Criminal Procedure Code (Malaysia) — the amendment history of the CPC including the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1995 [Act A908]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Procedure_Code_(Malaysia)