Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email Today’s Tv3 news saw coverage of dewan rakyat proceeding. Nazri Aziz was quoted as saying:
On the issue of determining the religion of children below 18 when one of the parents converts to another religion, he said the Cabinet had agreed that it must be made in accordance with Clause (4) Article 12 of the Constitution.
In the case of R. Subashini versus T. Saravanan last year, the Federal Court had interpreted the word “parent” in the law as singular and not plural and as such, the converting parent had the right to determine the religion of their children below 18, he said.
Note: Clause (4) of Article 12 is as follows: For the purposes of Clause (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.
Now, the question is which parent should one follow? The converting parent have right to convert the child, but the non-converting parent ALSO HAVE THE SAME EQUAL RIGHT to maintain the child’s religion! Why divert into the converting parent’s rights only?
Isn’t this a deadlock? Both have EQUAL RIGHTS. Just because one of them is a coward who wants to hide behind the name of certain religion, doesn’t make it correct action.
Subashini has all the right to maintain the religion of her kids. How can the court make such an erronous, logic-defying, ill-thought decision?
