Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews) — Malaysia's Federal Court has closed another legal avenue for Kedah's attempt to stop the licencing of gambling premises. Still, the ruling is unlikely to end the political debate over gambling or the broader question of how far state governments can go in pursuing Islamic moral policies.
Kedah PAS Commissioner Datuk Ahmad Yahaya said the party accepted Wednesday's decision and respected the court, although he expressed disappointment that the state government's policy had been challenged.
He also made clear that PAS would continue to oppose gambling, invoking the Islamic principle of amar makruf nahi mungkar – enjoining good and forbidding evil – as a guiding principle of governance.
The Federal Court unanimously dismissed Kedah's application for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling that found the state's directive to stop issuing or renewing licences for gambling premises unconstitutional.
A three-member bench chaired by Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang, together with Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Datuk Azmi Ariffin, held that the questions of law raised by Kedah did not meet the threshold required under Section 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
The immediate legal battle may therefore be over. The larger political and constitutional question is not.
Where religion meets state power
Kedah's policy dates back to a state executive council decision in December 2021. The state subsequently announced that gambling premises licences would no longer be issued or renewed from 1 January 2023.
PAS has defended the policy primarily as a measure to combat social problems associated with gambling.
That argument has considerable political resonance in a state where PAS commands substantial support. But the controversy also illustrates a recurring difficulty in Malaysia's federal system: the distinction between Islamic moral policy pursued by a state government and commercial activities regulated under federal law.
Gambling is not simply a matter of state licencing.
Malaysia has federal legislation governing betting and gaming, including the Betting Act 1953, the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 and the Pool Betting Act 1967. This creates a complicated regulatory landscape in which federal and state powers intersect.
The Kedah dispute therefore has implications beyond the gambling industry.
It raises the question of whether a state government can use its licencing authority to achieve an outcome that effectively overrides or frustrates a broader federal regulatory framework.
That is why the Federal Court ruling matters.
It is not a judicial endorsement of gambling as a social good. Nor does it prevent governments from addressing gambling-related harm through lawful regulation.
Rather, it reinforces the principle that even a government pursuing a policy for moral or religious reasons must operate within the constitutional division of powers and the law.
PAS is now a national political force
The issue also needs to be understood against the changing political position of PAS.
Once regarded primarily as a party rooted in the northeastern states of Kelantan and Terengganu, PAS has expanded its political influence considerably.
Following the 2022 general election, PAS became one of the largest parties in the federal parliament and, through the Perikatan Nasional coalition, emerged as a major national opposition force.
At the state level, PAS governs Kelantan and Terengganu and is also in power in Kedah and Perlis.
Its administration of these states provides the party with an opportunity to demonstrate how its interpretation of Islamic governance can operate within Malaysia's constitutional framework.
Gambling is one of the clearest examples.
PAS has consistently argued that gambling contributes to social problems and that governments have a moral responsibility to restrict activities considered harmful.
That position is consistent with Islamic teaching, which prohibits gambling.
But Malaysia is not an Islamic state in the constitutional sense. It is a federal, constitutional democracy in which Islam is the religion of the Federation while other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.
That constitutional arrangement requires governments to navigate a delicate space between Islamic public policy, individual rights, federal powers and Malaysia's religiously diverse population.
The Kedah case demonstrates how difficult that balance can become.
A question beyond gambling
There is also a danger in reducing the debate to whether Malaysians should support or oppose gambling.
Gambling addiction is a genuine social problem. Families can suffer financially and emotionally when individuals become addicted. Governments have a legitimate responsibility to regulate industries that can cause social harm.
The question is therefore not whether governments should address gambling.
It is how they should do so.
A government may impose restrictions, regulate advertising, strengthen enforcement against illegal gambling and provide treatment and support for people affected by addiction.
But when a state attempts to achieve a wider moral objective through licencing decisions, questions of jurisdiction and equal application of the law inevitably arise.
This is particularly important in a country where different religious communities have different understandings of what constitutes permissible personal behaviour.
PAS and the challenge of governing Malaysia
For PAS, this is increasingly important because its political ambitions extend beyond the four states it currently governs.
A party capable of winning power nationally must demonstrate not only that it can mobilise voters around Islamic values, but that it can govern a complex, plural society while respecting constitutional boundaries.
The Kedah gambling dispute is therefore a small but revealing test.
PAS can continue to campaign against gambling. It can persuade voters that gambling causes social harm. It can seek changes to federal law through Parliament. And it can regulate matters that properly fall within state jurisdiction.
What it cannot do is assume that a political or religious objective automatically determines the extent of governmental power.
That distinction is fundamental to constitutional democracy.
Wednesday's ruling should therefore not be interpreted simply as a victory for the gambling industry or a defeat for PAS.
It is a reminder that in Malaysia, even legitimate moral objectives must be pursued through legitimate constitutional means.
For PAS, which increasingly presents itself as a credible national governing alternative, that may ultimately be the more important lesson from the Kedah case.
