poobalan.com

There’s suggestion by retired Chief Justice:

On Nov 6, retired Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad said he foresaw that the combination of the two courts would harmonise common law and Syariah law principles in dealing with issues of conflicting laws and jurisdiction during his lecture at the Harvard Law School in the United States.

This is comment from Syariah Court Judge and Syariah Judicial Department director-general Datuk Ibrahim Lembut:

Islam will defend everybody. The impression that merging the two court systems will override the rights of the non-Muslims is wrong, he said.

Syariah laws and Islam will think of every religion and race, he told reporters after attending the International Seminar on Comparative Law at Marriott Hotel here yesterday.

However, we still have a long way to go before we can merge the two court systems although we have held talks between civil and Syariah lawyers on the possibility of harmonising the laws, he said, adding that Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had also given his views on the matter during the meeting.

Ibrahim said some civil lawyers attending such talks had refused to even consider harmonising the laws between the two systems.

He was commenting on a statement by MCA legal bureau chairman Datuk Leong Tang Chong that any merger would subject non-Muslims to Syariah jurisdiction on all legal matters, including inter-faith cases relating to marriage and divorce.

What do you think?

I think rather than merging both sets of laws, there should be some sort of bridge to link them both. Why should one be tried under a religious law which one does not profess to be part of? I think this idea may be construed as part of a long term strategy to Islamise the country. nearly 50 percent of the country’s population are not Muslims. Thus it is not wise to impose a law that does not relate to them in any way.

It would be better to study the overlapping laws, holes, and gray areas between two laws and clear them up. No one likes to see spouses make use of laws to manipulate children, nor do public like to read that families fighting over properties of the deceased, or bodies being snatched by religious department officers.

For those cases involving marriages being dissolved due to one party converting, then the marriage dissolution should follow civil law. Clear the slate, each person go on his own way. This is only natural as the marriage was done under civil law. So, BEFORE the person want to convert, divorce first.

Same goes for conversion. Those who are married must start fresh by divorcing their spouses and declaring their assets which are divided accordingly. For those who are single, the next-of-kin must acknowledge that he/she has been informed of the impending conversion. NOTE that its not an approval, but an acknowledgment so that family members are aware BEFORE conversion, and not after. The next-of-kin then knows that the body of the convert will end up in Muslim graveyard. No confusion.

For me, the problem is clear. Issues only arise when a party converts. Solve the problem at the root. Setup up proper documentation and procedures.

Your religion onto you … my religion unto mine ….

Popularity: 1% [?]

Other articles related to Subashini and conversion problem can be searched in this blog.

Popularity: 2% [?]

HINDRAF

135-3 KEMAYAN SQUARE

70200 SEREMBAN

NEGERI SEMBILAN.

PRESS STATEMENT 11^TH AUGUST 2008

BAR COUNCIL FORUM - CLEAR EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITARIAN STATE

POLICE COLLUDED WITH PROTESTERS – AN INSULT TO ARTICLE 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

STATEMENT BY HOME MINISTER SYED HAMID IRRESPONSIBLE.

The latest fiasco on the Malaysian Bar Council forum on “Conversion to Islam” clearly indicates that our ruling government practices authoritarian policies where the elected representatives and police are used to suppress civil liberties and freedom of expression in the pretext of security and public order.

The ruling government and its agents, ie police were at their best to exercise their authority to allow the protest by the muslim mobs to incite racial sentiments and storm into the forum and slander, humiliate and insult the non-Malays.

HINDRAF strongly condemns the veiled threat by Home Minister to the Bar Council that “he hoped that the Bar Council got the message that “there are certain things that are out of bounds for public discussion, even if held in a private place.” It is the duty of the country to protect its citizens who have gathered to discuss a legitimate concern of its community (under article 10 of the Federal Constitution) but to come up with such threats (especially) by the minister is most irresponsible and insults the intelligence of Malaysians.

Four (4) members of HINDRAF were arrested in a rainy day for creating an awareness of their cause in the recent CPA conference on 7^th August 2008 but here you have over 300 protesters behaving aggressively, carrying inciting banners and storming into the Bar Council forum raising uncalled racial sentiments against fellow non-Malay Malaysians without fear and protected by the Royal Police Force. The statement by Home Minister appear to be condoning such “violent” behaviour and supporting hooliganism and claims he has not received any complaints of threat to National Security or disturbance to public order is utter rubbish and nonsensical.  

Such double standards is only prevalent in an authoritarian state where any issues that concerns the public and freedom of thought for egalitarianism is suppressed and oppressed to serve the interest of the majority Malay muslim.

There is no actual racial issue in Malaysia, it is only incited and seeded  into the public to create a scenario that best serves an authoritarian state to serve its own agenda against the goodwill and humanity for the Malaysian society that have co-existed irrespective of their color, race, religion and creed.

P.Waytha Moorthy

Chairman

Currently in London

Popularity: 1% [?]