Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email I’m sure we remember the cabinet directive which has no legal effect during the case of Indira? Remember her? The husband ran away with her 11 months old baby. After that, we don’t hear anything now. What happened to her and her kids?
And just yesterday, we read about the proposed amendments aimed at solving the conversion problem.
While the MCCBCHST did not directly ask any questions on the amendments, the Gurdwara Council did. And must say, really respect them for highlighting this:
The Malaysian Gurdwara Council has called on the government to state whether it is sticking to the April 23 directive that both parents must consent to a child’s conversion .
If so why is this not reflected in the proposed conversion laws, asked the council today.
On April 23, the cabinet had announced:
- the religion of a child under 18 years of age would continue to be that at time of birth and one parent cannot convert the child unilaterally; and,
- the converted spouse cannot use his conversion to run away from his obligations under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976, the law which have contracted their marriage.
However it was reported in the media on Tuesday, quoting a federal counsel of the Attorney General Chambers Mohamed Naser Disa, that the proposed amendment to Section 51(2) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 included a suggestion that the civil court not be empowered to determine the religious status of a child when divorce between a Muslim and a non-Muslim couple takes place.
“The court could also decide on the custody right as stipulated under the constitution, where either the father or mother could determine the religious status of the child. Hence, the parent who has converted to Islam need to register their child as Muslim,” Mohd Nasier was quoted to have said.
The Malaysian Gurdwara Council president Harcharan Singh today said that they strongly oppose any provision allowing unilateral conversion of a child.
“Hence we reject any such proposed conversion laws. We also strongly oppose and reject any amendment allowing a child to be placed in an institution and hence negating the presumption a child below seven is best left with the mother,” he said.Even a day old child can be converted
Harcharan said this would mean that even a day old child can be converted to Islam unilaterally by a single spouse.
“We do not think any religion allows conversion of such minors. Even the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia director-general Dr Syed Ali Taufik Al Attas had stated in a newspaper interview that “a child is deemed ignorant, cannot convert to Islam as the child does not understand the “Kalimah Syahadah” and cannot bear witness of his /her own free will and understanding.”
Harcharan said under Article 12 (4) of the federal constitution should be interpreted that a child can be converted only with agreement between both parents.
“If the law only provides that all that is needed is one parent’s consent for conversion to take place, then that would be unjust and undesirable,” he said.
Harcharan also said the Attorney-General should be working for all Malaysians and questioned why non-Muslim communities were being kept in the dark.
“The so called proposed amendments are being revealed only to one party. The other party who will be adversely affected is not being consulted or briefed, nor a copy of the proposed amendments given to them.”
“The cabinet should clarify whether the decision made on April 23 still stands. If it so why is this not reflected in the proposed conversion law?” Harcharan asked.
Tough questions for the authorities to answer. Why no transparency? Do they plan to just bulldoze the amendments and ignore any opinions/protests from the other groups? Or expect the other groups “to understand” and “look at the bigger picture”?
Not sure how this fits in the new tagline 1Malaysia. Doesn’t seem correct to me. Don’t tell me everything also need PM to step in and clarify!
Oh ya, where’s MIC ah? MIA again? They part of federal government, so surely will know something? Or were they too sidelined?
I think the Apr 23 decision was not a directive but a cabinet decision. What I recall is that PM / Nazri said that it will be the basic for the new amendments which needed to be codified and then tabled in the Parliament before can be made into law.
However, if you also recall the “multi-racial champion” Anwar disputing the cabinet decision saying the govt did not consult the ulamas.
You are mistaken in this, the decision has not been made nor it will be bulldozed through. See below the actual statement from the Federal Counsel taken from Bar Council’s website.He also said that these proposals will be open for debat.
As for the child conversion, both you and Harcharan are wrong again. There is no such thing and I guess this must the work of the pro-Pakatan media trying their usual misinformation tactics. See what the Federal Counsel actually said below.
———————————–
On child custody, a new provision under section 88B prohibits any parent or guardian from registering the change in religion for the child below 18 years old without obtaining the other parent’s or guardian’s permission.
Other amendments in Act 164 also include that converted spouse do not necessarily have to inform the family of the conversion.
“It is the responsibility of the registrar of the converts to inform the family and it need not be the parents of the convert but any member of the family, like even the in-laws,” he said, adding that the proposals are open for debate.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/proposal_to_let_converts_file_for_divorce_in_civil_court.html
Hi Killer,
It was cabinet directive, as all the papers refer to it as such. And of course it was not possible to followed since its not a law. that’s why the minister in PM dept in charge of islam went in personally to solve the problem in a muhibbah manner. i’m not bothered if anwar protested or not. the point is that the directive was a pre-emptive shot, as a starting point for the amendments. but what happened to problem it was supposed to solve – indira’s child? no news on the outcome now. where is the child? did indira convert? where’s the other two children? what happened to the husband? i have no idea at all.
Thanks for link. It clears the air a bit. But why no consultation with the MCCBCSHT yet? these proposals are put forth to one party only, and if they oppose? why not the AG office just issue simple statement – first round consultation is with muslim groups, second round with non-muslim groups, 3rd round with bar council (or something like that). so easy right, and no one will be having confusion or apprehension. When we start to blog or make noise in media, then only the firefighting starts. and guys like you have to come and in offer some defence for them. you and i are not free all the time to be doing this. cannot be like this la… 🙂
Poobalan
I think the issue is a bit more complicated that it is. Let me try to explain and also why I brought up the matter of Anwar.
Firstly, about it being a directive. It is a directive to the AG to work on the amendments of the law. However it is not a directive to the court as the cabinet cannot direct the courts as there is a separation of the executive and judiciary. The role of the court is the interpretation of the law and they cannot be directed by anything other than law.
If you go back and read the news about Indra, even at that time some people were calling the court to abide by the decision of the cabinet but then someone also pointed out the same thing ,ie, this has to be made into a law before can be used in the court ruling.
I don’t know what happened to Indra but I guess most likely both sides would have agreed to postpone the case until the law is amended.
Ok, now the part about Anwar. You see Anwar tried to play the religious card by saying the cabinet didn’t consult the ulamas before making the decision and PAS also created much chaos saying this was an insult to Islam.
This put the govt on the defensive and as such what happened what that they govt had to go and get the concensus of these ulamas first.
The reason for this is simple as Islam is a state matter and any amendments needed to be agreed by the state religious authorities and the royalty as well.
So my guess is that the AG is trying to convince these folks first and this is still in progress.
On why MCCBBCSHT has not been consulted, well, that’s easy. The cabinet decision was agreed and wanted by the non Muslims so there is no need to consult them as long as the core principles of the cabinet are retained.
The main party that has objection is the Islamic ulamas and these people need to buy off the idea.
I am sure the non Muslim groups, Bar Council and other stake holders will be consulted before the amendments are tabled.
Hope this helps to clear the issue.
Well, the directive didn’t sound like for certain people only. when people read the newspapers, it sounds like a cure-all for the problem at hand. Until lawyers commented that directives are not applicable to laws (as you mentioned), then only we realise the directive doesn’t solve the problem at that time.
the points you mentioned about islam is state matter was clarified in the papers at that time. that’s why the initial proposals were shot down by the council of rulers, and asked to to do more research.
i don’t agree with the idea that “there is no need to consult them as long as the core principles of the cabinet are retained”. Many things are ideal, but the implementation (the finer, smaller details) are the reasons why situation is bad nowadays. We need to be vigilant and be in the process from A to Z. We can’t simply leave things to authorities to finalise everything. No point complaining later.
I too hope that the non-muslim groups, bar council etc will be consulted. that’s just common sense, but you never know. if never ask, may never get.
I dont think cabinet was unaware that this directive had no legal standing until it was made into a law and approved. It was people who assumed so.
I respect your opinion but I still don’t see why there is a need to consult the non-Muslim groups as the cabinet decision was based on their request. That’s why I said unless there is a change, I dont see any reason to consult them.
However, the issue with the Islamic group is different as this needs to be approved by the rulers, the state as well as the Islamic authorities. And this was made worse by Anwar and PAS who tried to politicise the issue.
of course the cabinet knew about their directive limit. as i said earlier, its the public who got misled due to newspaper coverage and the way the directive was portrayed.
yeah, the bigger problem is with islamic group. any small disagreement, and there won’t be any progress.