Posts Tagged ‘Crime’

Kannadi Thundughal on adultery

May 15th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Yesterday’s edition of Kannadi Thundukal talked about adultery and marital problems. The story started with a lady, Mrs A,  telling how her husband, Mr B, was fooling around with the Indonesian maid. The couple was doing catering business, and employed few Indonesians. The incident was witnessed by the lady’s teenage daughter who complained to her.  One day,  Mrs A caught them both red-handed. The husband left the house. It did not end there. The husband then hooked up with the lady’s brother’s wife!!! The lady’s brother (C) was ill and wheel-chair bound. The brother had 5 kids with wife (D), and yet the wife hooked up with Mr B who is relationship-wise is of brother status to her.

The lady mentioned how heartbroken her brother was until he even try commit suicide. The episode then aired interview with a guy (not sure from where) who talked about couples needing to understand each other. He said the blame could also be on the wife side for failing to understand psychical needs of the husband or maybe the husband is oversexed. He advised couples to seek counseling or medical attention in cases like this.

Imagine now, the impact on the children. What the teenage girl saw will forever scar her life – father in bed with another woman. Imagine the social stigma the family will carry. How in future, will the lady get her kids married off easily?

The story yesterday reminded me of someone I’ve known for the past one year or so. He is actually involved in one of the initiatives that I’m involved as well. I found out last week that the person has left his wife and kids, and now going around with another lady.  Due to work reasons, the person was always on the move, while the family was located in another state. Thus he did not have much quality time with family for last few years. And now, he seems to have dumped the family for a foreign lady. It is sad to hear that while we are fighting for our community’s well being, we have such “educated” people creating bad name for us.  Another broken family. Another single parent in the making. More headache for NGOs and community.

For me, if the marriage is not working out, seek help/advise and if really cannot work together, opt for legal separation. Ensure welfare of spouse and children is settled, and then you can romp around with whoever or whatever you want. Don’t leave things in limbo and create problem for others.

Then said : this kind of people should be shot to death.

how to hold a pepper spray

May 12th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Assemblyman Hee’s version of holding a pepper spray. Looks like she’s ready to use it one someone instead of asking who it belongs too. Do you hold a pepper spray like to use it or to show it? Your guess is as good as mine.

hee-pepper-sprayphoto from Malaysiakini

She said it was thrown at her during the assembly. She said she does not know how to even operate such a device, and that she had held it up to Aulong assemblyman Yew Tian Hoe to demand if he was the one who had flung it at her.

From Malaysiakini:

She is now claiming that the canister allegedly used against DAP Aulong assemblyperson Yew Tian Hoe did not belong to her.

Hee claimed that someone from the assembly sitting had thrown the canister in her direction and she had just picked it up from the floor and asked Yew whether the item belonged to him. She said that is all she did.

She denied using the pepper spray on Yew as alleged by DAP and the media.

Earlier, she said it was her hotel key-chain. Funny how key-chain can transform into a pepper spray. Must be one of those new Decepticon add-ons.

MCPX

On May 8, at a press conference, Hee had claimed that she pointed her hotel key-chain and not a pepper spray canister at Yee.

However, a close-up clip taken during the assembly did show Hee pointing what appeared to be a pepper spray canister at Yew, and not a hotel key-chain as she had claimed earlier.

However she denied using the spray, pointing out that the Aulong assemblyman would have suffered for at least two day is she sprayed on him (hmm…for someone who doesn’t know how to use it, she sure knows how long the suffering is).

One another note, Hee claimed that she had the authority to hold the proceedings in accordance to Article 36A(1) (b) of the state constitution. Malaysiakini notes that:

However, the entire Article 36A makes no mention of the deputy speaker’s powers. Instead, it provides technical details such as the speaker’s renumeration and how the speaker can be disqualified if found to have commercial interests.

However, Article 36A(3) reads: “During the absence of the speaker from a sitting of the legislative assembly, such members as may be determined by the rules of procedure (standing orders) of the assembly, shall act as speaker.”

The question that begs to be answered is when Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker’s chair during the conduct of the sub-assembly, how did Hee assume the power to conduct the sub- assembly?

who stole my mike?

May 8th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


I guess that will be the question on Sivakumar’s mind when he found out that his mike was switched off. not only him, but many of the mikes on certain side of the assembly were off. Looks like they were done for by a staff.

A certain deputy speaker also played a major role. Without independent BN-friendly assemblywoman Hee, the takeover would not have been successful. She convened the sitting after Sivakumar’s mike was switched off, and proceeded with the four motions, which were approved. All in all, a well thought and executed plan by Zambry and co, and another defeat for Pakatan.

Not only that, we have a case where a speaker was dragged/carried/manhandled (photos) (you can decide what word to use) from the assembly hall and kept under custody for more than an hour.

sivakumar-removed

photo from Malaysiakini

If these is the treatment a assembly speaker gets, imagine what will possibly happen to rakyat biasa (common folks)….

As (rightly or wrongly) MIC’s Ganesan takes over Pakatan’s Sivakumar as speaker of the state assembly, I can’t help notice that not many people wore black yesterday, at least where I was (J Card day at Jusco).

UMNO lawyers are defending the action of Zambry, Ganesan and Perak BN. Pakatan people are crying foul over the illegal ways of the BN people and will not recognise Ganesan as new speaker. We can expect more legal suits by both parties that will drag on and waste precious time of the courts. More protests, and use of police that will result in questionable expenses. In the view of that, it will be more cost-saving if the assembly is dissolved and fresh elections are held. A one time cost which will settle the problem. So, from economical sense, its more prudent to go for elections instead of dragging this issue on for next 4 years. Imagine if one or two BN assemblymen dies or rendered incapable of serving his constituents (court case, bankruptcy, illness etc). You will have three friendly independents who may decide to be unfriendly (hey, its politics after all – there’s no permanent friend or foe) and BN will be in trouble. Of course, Pakatan assemblymen can also suffer the same fate, which will increase the majority for BN.

The court will decide who is the valid MB next Monday, and for me, I think its a foregone conclusion.

As for the entry of police into the hall (Anil Netto’s blog mentioned about an unmarked van outside the building with is receiver antenna pointed towards the state building), BN Menteri Besar Zambry said the BN speaker Ganesan was the one who called them in as the situation was out of control and that the speaker had power to do that. In that case, why didn’t Sivakumar use that power to remove the “suspended” ADUN? Sivakumar didn’t know or didn’t trust the police? Also, sergeant-at-arms and the state government top officials were not on Sivakumar’s side. Thus he was a lone figure fighting for his seat. With the such a big force against him, no chance la!

Waiting is common in Malaysia. You wait for ambulance or police car to arrive. You wait one hour for your turn at the clinic. You queue up in the wee hours of the day for buying ASW shares. You wait for some VIPs or official to launch event. And yesterday, Raja Nazrin should be upset that he had to wait for 5 hours to deliver the speech. Must have been boring and tiring especially with the heavy attire and all. You reap what you sow applies to all I guess. He summoned Nizar and Ngeh to the dais to tell them a few admonishing words. He asked the Pakatan fellows to respect his speech if “they want to work with him in the future”. Whatever that means.

Yesterday also saw 69 people being detained (most released after statement taken) around the 500m no-go zone. Among them were MP and assemblymen from Pakatan side. I guess BN side did not have anyone arrested.

I listened to Minnal FM news yesterday and today morning, but nothing mentioned about the takeover in Perak. THR did mention about it in the 3pm news and today’s 8am news. So, for the benefit of readers, below is timeline of the events in Perak as provided by Malaysiakini. Other MK reports HERE, HERE, HERE. You can read some Star reports HERE, HERE, and HERE. Anil Netto’s HERE. NST reports HERE, HERE, and HERE.

5.10pm: BN speaker Ganesan tells reporters that he does not see any problems with regards to executing his duties in future.

“There is a maxim in democracy – majority rules. BN has 31 (seats), Pakatan has 28. The majority elected the speaker.”

perak state assembly chaos ganesan appointed speaker pakatan pc 070509 01Asked on how he plans to keep the House in order, he replies: “I won’t be a dictator. I will do my duty as per standing orders.”

On the manner he was elected, Ganesan (left) says the issue of an ‘illegal speaker’ does not arise because BN has the majority.

“Sivakumar was removed as per standing order.”

5.06pm:
Nizar leaves the building and is seen waving at journalists as well as police personnel.

5.03pm: Sivakumar leaves the state secretariat building. His car briefly stops at the gates to allow photographers to snap a few shots.

perak state assembly chaos ganesan appointed speaker pakatan pc 070509 045pm: Nizar tells a press conference that as far as Pakatan is concerned, the House did not sit today. He says that whatever BN did was “illegal and unconstitutional”.

As for the regent’s speech, the ousted MB describes it “as just a royal speech, nothing more than that. It is not opening the assembly.”

4.30pm: PAS’ Salahuddin Ayub (Kubang Kerian MP) says all the elected reps arrested earlier have been released.

Salahuddin, who was taken into custody along with 63 other people, said that others are also being freed.

“About 30 of us have been released after our statements were recorded,” he told AFP.

4.05pm:
Perak Regent Nazrin leaves the chamber. BN-appointed MB Zambry suggests for the House to be adjourned. Pakatan reps repeatedly shout ‘Dissolve the assembly’ again.

New speaker Ganesan adjourns the assembly to a date to be decided. Pakatan reps to call press conference.

perak state assembly chaos unknown men in hall 070509 044pm: PKR election strategy director and Batu parliamentarian Tian Chua is arrested outside the state secretariat building.

The police inform him that the area has been cordoned off. The opposition politician tells police that he is there to greet his Pakatan colleagues.

Although he is accompanied by PKR treasurer and Selayang MP William Leong and several other party leaders, the police only detain him. He is forcefully dragged to an unmarked police vehicle.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 113.47pm: Raja Nazrin ends his royal speech. He did not touch on the ongoing political crisis in the state during his 30-minute speech.

He spoke on the stimulus packages and development of the state. [More on Nazrin’s speech] A closing prayer session is underway.

3.36pm: Sivakumar’s official car is seen returning to the state secretariat building with the same woman passenger.


3.16pm:
Order is restored in the House and Raja Nazrin starts his royal address, which has been delayed for almost six hours. His speech touches on the stimulus packages unveiled by the prime minister.

3.15pm: ROUND 4 – BN SPEAKER FULLY IN CHARGE

Regent of Perak Raja Nazrin enters the House and talks to ousted MB Nizar and DAP’s Ngeh Khoo Ham. Following this, Nizar tells all Pakatan reps to take their seat and they obey.

injured pakatan adun at perak state assembly chaos 070509 02The police install a new chair for Ganesan as the old speaker’s chair was damaged during the earlier scuffle. The plainclothes personnel have also left the House. Seah Leong Peng (DAP-Pasir Bedamar) complains his jacket was torn during the scuffle (right).

3.12pm: Sivakumar’s official Toyota Camry bearing the registration plate ‘AFD 999’ is seen leaving the state secretariat building with a woman passenger but the speaker is not in the car.

3.10pm: Ganesan adjourns the House for a few minutes in order as the assembly waits for the Regent of Perak to deliver his royal address.

3.05pm: Ganesan starts chairing the meeting and calls for the customary prayers to be recited. He also calls for the removal of two Pakatan reps but no action is taken to do so.

Sivakumar’s wife, who is in assembly, is enraged and demands to see her husband. The ‘officials’ then take her to see the Pakatan speaker but nobody else is allowed to meet him.


sivakumar being dragged abused manhandled by security unknown individual out perak state assembly chaos 070509 023pm: PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub who was arrested this morning tells Malaysiakini via telephone that he is being held at the Sungai Senam police station in Ipoh.

He says some 40 others arrested this morning are also at the station. He adds that he gave a statement to the police but has not been informed when he will be released.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that the police have released 13 people who were arrested this morning.

The exact number of those arrested could not be ascertained but DAP leader Lim Kit Siang said the number stood at 64.

2.55pm: The same group of ‘officials’ escort Ganesan to the speaker’s chair and the speaker then started chairing the sitting.

sivakumar being dragged abused manhandled by security unknown individual out perak state assembly chaos 070509 the best2.41pm: Several uniformed police personnel grab hold of Sivakumar and forcibly remove him from the speaker’s chair.

He was then dragged out of the House by a group of plainclothes personnel wearing tags which read ‘official’. Sivakumar resists and shouts, “I am the legal speaker. Why am I being treated like this?” It cannot be ascertained if these were police personnel.

Pakatan reps try to shield him but more plainclothes personnel enter the House and manage to breakthrough the human barricade.

Several Pakatan reps are also dragged out and the ensuing melee sees several flower pots in the assembly are smashed.

2.35pm: Attempts by the sergeant-at-arms and state assembly staff to remove Sivakumar are being resisted by the speaker and Pakatan reps. Some other Pakatan assemblypersons are continuing with their attempts to eject BN speaker Ganesan from the house.

2.30pm: The situation is still chaotic in the house. The sergeant-at-arms is now trying to remove Sivakumar from the speaker’s chair to allow Ganesan to assume the chair.

2.15pm: ROUND 3 – TUSSLE FOR SPEAKER’S SEAT

The assembly resumes. Pakatan reps are trying to physically stop Ganesan from entering the chamber.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 06There is a lot of pushing and shoving among the state reps. A few punches are being thrown about as well. A number of reps climb up the table. It is complete pandemonium in the assembly.

A couple of police officers are now inside the assembly to try to restore order. Pakatan reps shout at the police to leave the assembly.

At the same time, the BN reps are trying to force Sivakumar out of the speaker’s chair but he is being protected by some Pakatan assemblypersons.

12.55pm: BN speaker Ganesan announces that the House will be adjourned for another hour. This is the second adjournment he has announced since been appointed by the BN as the speaker.

As he is unfamiliar with the House standing orders and has to be helped by BN exco Hamidah (Sungai Rapat), he is laughed at by Pakatan reps.

Despite the adjournment, all elected reps remain in the House, waiting for Round 3.

12.50pm: Umno Youth’s Saiful Adli files a police report against Sivakumar for ordering Zambry and others out of the House. He says this is in contempt of court.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 0712.45pm: The situation turns ugly in the House. Pakatan rep Thomas Su (Pasir Pinji) ridicules Hee by offering her RM50 and shouting ‘Go and die’ in Cantonese.

Following this, another Pakatan rep Yew Tian Hoe (Aulong) throws two RM1 notes at the deputy speaker, prompting a vexed Hee to pick up the notes and tear them to pieces.

Other reps – from both sides of the divide – are recording the happenings in the House with their handphones.

Earlier, Yew claimed that Hee had sprayed him with pepper spray.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 1012.37pm: BN speaker Ganesan comes under heavy pressure from the Pakatan representatives to leave the house. Some of them even shouted at him to leave. “Ganesan, go out!” was among the shouts heard.

By now the BN elected representatives have come to support Ganesan, who is a top state MIC leader. Both sides are engaged in a heated argument, resulting in a minor scuffle among some of the reps, but this was quickly stopped by the remaining elected assemblypersons.

Ganesan remained seated in a chair belonging to a sergeant-at-arms and is refusing to budge.

12.15pm: ROUND 2 – SPEAKER VS SPEAKER

After an hour-long recess, the session continues with Pakatan speaker Sivakumar asking BN-appointed speaker Ganesan to leave the chamber.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 08Five Pakatan reps have gone to Ganesan to ask him to leave but latter is arguing with them over his status as the new speaker. BN reps are watching the arguments from the sidelines.

11.48am: Pakatan-elected representatives told Malaysiakini that their seating arrangements were changed before they entered the house this morning – moving their places from the right of the speaker to the left.

However, since they arrived into the House much earlier than the BN reps, they changed the seating arrangements back to when Pakatan was in power – their seats are now on the right of the speaker.

By convention, the ruling party sits on the right side of the speaker.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 0511.37am: A ceasefire seems to be in place.

Pakatan reps are still in discussion with Nizar while the BN reps are glued to their seats worried that Sivakumar would start the sitting if they leave the House.

11.30am: “As long as I am here, the other speaker (Ganesan) is haram (illegal),” says Sivakumar while attempting to start the assembly sitting. His microphone is still turned off.

11.25am: Pakatan reps walk over to their ousted MB Nizar to discuss their next strategy. The verbal salvos continue in the background.

11.23am:
Sivakumar once again asks the 10 BN reps to leave the House. Failing which, he warns that he will not convene the sitting. But as far as BN reps are concerned, their speaker has adjourned the sitting for an hour. A shouting match erupts again.

11.21am:
Amidst the pandemonium in the House, BN still manages to pass four motions. These include to (1) remove Sivakumar as the speaker, (2) to appoint Ganesan as the new speaker, (3) to appoint new state committee members and (4) to declare the tree assembly illegal.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 0411.20am: Zambry moves a motion to adjourn the sitting and the motion is passed.

The new speaker announces that the sitting has been adjourned.

Pakatan reps respond by shouting ‘keluar’. But both sides return to their seats later while Sivakumar continues to occupy the speaker’s seat. The House is calm again. The regent of Perak has yet to deliver the royal address.

11.13am: BN representatives seem to have the upper hand in the House now with new speaker Ganesan controlling the proceedings.

His microphone is the only one which is working at the moment. With Ganesan chairing the proceedings, BN is now moving a motion to appoint members of various state committees.

They are also moving a motion to declare that the tree-assembly held on March 3 was illegal. In that sitting, a motion moved by the Pakatan representatives to dissolve the assembly was passed. BN reps did not attend the sitting.


11.05am: Deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong, who is now a BN-friendly independent, announces that she has taken over from Sivakumar. Standing behind a cordon of BN state reps, she orders the sergeant-at-arms to expel Sivakumar. However, no action is taken by the sergeant-at-arms.

Zambry again reads out the motion to sack Sivakumar. All BN state reps raise their hands in support. Zambry also moves the motion to appoint R Ganesan as the new speaker. This is again backed by BN reps and the three BN-friendly Independents.

Ganesan walks into the assembly hall to accept the speaker’s gown. He is quickly sworn in among the turmoil and signs the appointment document at the BN side of the assembly.

Sivakumar, who is still occupying the speaker’s seat, keeps shouting “Speaker ini haram” (He is an illegal speaker) referring to Ganesan.

Ganesan conducts the assembly meeting from the floor among the BN state reps. Zambry tries to move a number of other motions.

10.35am: The Perak assembly is still at a stand-off. Sivakumar keeps repeating that BN MB Zambry’s motion to sack him as speaker is “null and void” and orders the sergeant-at-arms to expel the 10 state assemblypersons. However, the sergeant-at-arms refuses to abide by the speaker’s instruction.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 01A group of state reps from both sides surround Zambry as the shouting match continues. State assembly secretary Abdullah Antung tries to talk to the speaker but he is ignored by Sivakumar.

10.25am: Contrary to the chaos inside the assembly, the situation outside the state secretariat building is much calmer with the police successfully dispersing the crowd.

The police have widened the no-go cordon, as a result the coffee shops are deserted.

Earlier the police ordered all those having drinks in the restaurants to leave immediately. Many left without paying for their drinks. Two refused to budge and were arrested.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 0210.20am: The impasse between speaker V Sivakumar and BN state reps continues.

The speaker refuses to begin proceedings unless the seven suspended reps and three BN-friendly independents leave the hall.

Assembly secretary Abdullah Antung tries to take his seat in front of the speaker. But about 10 Pakatan reps walk up to him and physically stop him from doing so. They instruct Antung not to interfere with assembly business as he is a civil servant.

Both sides then engage in a free-for-all shouting match. Pakatan reps are also seen trying to prevent BN MB Zambry from speaking.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 27Zambry moves motion to sack the speaker. According to Zambry, the speaker has abused his powers. All BN reps raise their hands in support of Zambry. The motion was seconded by Hamidah Osman.

But speaker Sivakumar is unmoved. He rejects the motion and says his decision to expel the 10 state reps is final. The assembly plunges into chaos.

Meanwhile, Raja Nazrin, who is to give his royal address and officially open the assembly, waits in a VIP room.

10.19am: Two more politicians have been arrested by the police for breaching the injunction against gathering at the state secretariat – MPs Dr D Jeyakumar (PSM-Sungai Siput, Perak) and Mujahid Yusof Rawa (PAS-Parit Buntar, Perak).

Also arrested was Malaysiakini columnist and activist Helen Ang.

10.05am:

The speaker said his suspension of Zambry and his six exco members was made in his capacity as the chairperson of the privileges and the special rights committee and not as the speaker.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509He said the Federal Court decision was based on his standing as a speaker and as such the matter was inapplicable.

He also asked the three BN-friendly independents to leave the assembly as his legal suit against the three was still pending in court.

His order for the 10 to leave the assembly was greeted by cheers and table-thumping by the Pakatan representatives. They shouted ‘keluar‘ (out) repeatedly.

However, the 10 elected representatives are still in the house. A shouting match between the two sides is presently underway.

Nizar is seated in the right side of the speaker – the place allocated for the ruling party – while Zambry is on the left.

9.55am: ROUND 1 – CHAOS IN THE HOUSE

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 28The action has now moved inside the state assembly.

House speaker V Sivakumar, after immediately taking his seat, asks the seven suspended BN state reps including BN appointed MB Zambry to leave the hall.

He says he won’t begin the assembly sitting until they are out of the hall. According to Sivakumar, he has the power to do so. Pakatan state reps thump their table in support.

9.45am: PAS Youth chief and MP Salahuddin Ayub (PAS-Kubang Kerian, Kelantan) is arrested near the ‘democracy tree’ behind the state secretariat building.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 25It is learnt that another state assemblyperson has also been arrested – Ng Chin Tsai (DAP-Temiang, Negri Sembilan).

9.40am: Pakatan supporters, estimated at around 200, are scattered in various places near the state assembly building. There is no crowd at the gate of the building. The compound is barricaded by about 200 police.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 249.30am: Perak crown prince Raja Nazrin Shah arrives. He inspects the guards of honour. Unlike the cold reception given to BN MB Zambry, all Pakatan state reps rise to their feet to welcome Raja Nazrin.

He was greeted by Zambry, assembly speaker Sivakumar and deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong (who defected from DAP to become a BN-friendly Independent rep).

9.25am:
BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir arrives to inspect the guard of honour. He shakes hand with assembly speaker V Sivakumar. Only BN state reps stand up to welcome Zambry. Pakatan state reps however snub him by remaining seated.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 299.23am: All 59 state reps seated outside the state secretariat building where the opening ceremony will be held. They are waiting for the arrival of Perak crown prince Raja Nazrin Shah.

BN appointed state cabinet members could be seen wearing ‘exco’ (executive councillor) tags while Pakatan reps, including ousted MB Nizar, were wearing ‘Adun’ (state representative) tags.

9.15am: The police have moved in to arrest people gathered at the restaurant, including people having their breakfast. Many people have been arrested. Exact number of those arrested is uncertain.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 12The police first allowed those having their breakfast to do so but then soon changed their mind and started arresting them as well.

One man who was having tea lashed out at the police for their actions. He was allowed to have his tea and then was arrested. [SEE VIDEO]

The restaurant has decided to close its shutters for the day.

9.11am:
The police are issuing warning to people who have gathered near the state secretariat, asking them to disperse by reminding them of the ban against gathering.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 13People having breakfast in a nearby restaurant are also being told to get away. Fresh arrests are expected.

9.09am: The crowd which had gathered at the Umno headquarters has started to disperse. Umno Youth exco member Lokman Adam told reporters that their members were now free to do their own work.

“We gathered to show support this morning and now that the assembly is about to start, we have decided to disperse.

“We are not like the Pakatan crowd who want to protest at the state secretariat despite a police ban,” he said.

perak state assembly police blockade and arrest of opposition mps and ngo reps 070509 229.01am: The 11 people who have been arrested are herded into a police lorry inside the state secretary compound. They include one MP and three state assemblypersons – MP Zuraida Kamaruddin (PKR-Ampang, Selangor), state reps Khoo Poay Tiong (DAP-Ayer Keroh, Malacca), Jenice Lee (DAP-Teratai, Selangor) and Tey Kok Seong (DAP-Bahau, Negri Sembilan).

The police lorry leaves the compound with those inside shouting “1BlackMalaysia”, “Dissolve the assembly” and “Reformasi”.

9am: All elected representatives are getting ready for the official ceremony to start. The regent is expected to arrive at any time.

8.59am: DAP’s Ipoh Timor member of parliament Lim Kit Siang, under whose area the state secretariat is located, is turned away from the building.

Also with Lim are DAP’s MPs for Ipoh Barat M Kulasegaran and Teluk Intan MP M Manogaran. The three MPs had official invitations to attend the sitting from assembly speaker.

In an ensuing shouting match with the police, Kulasegaran’s aide was arrested.

janice lee smiling arrested ipoh 070520098.50am: More arrests by the police. This time four people, including a Pakatan elected representative from Negeri Sembilan and Teratai state representative Jenice Lee (centre in photo), were arrested while having breakfast in a mamak stall.

8.47am:
Batu MP Tian Chua, who has donned a black suit, arrived at the state secretariat compound. He was in Tai Sing Ng (Perak’s Kuala Sepetang rep) car. While Tai was allowed into the building, Chua was told to stay outside the ‘500m exclusion zone’. Chua left the area in another car.

So far, eight have been arrested, including Ampang MP Zuraida (PKR-Selangor), Ayer Keroh state rep Khoo (DAP-Malacca) and her aide.

ampang mp zuraida arrested ipoh 070520098.45am: Ampang MP Zuraida Kamaruddin, who wanted to give a press conference outside the state secretariat building, was arrested by the police. She resisted, resulting in a slight scuffle. Police officers forcibly subdued her and put handcuffs on the parliamentarian.

“Why do you handcuff me?” she shouted at the police. The Ayer Keroh state rep Khoo Poay Tiong from Malacca, who was arrested minutes earlier, was also handcuffed.

8.44am: A group of Umno/BN supporters numbering about 100 have started to gather at the Umno headquarters since morning. A spokesperson said they will be at the building until the official opening of the state assembly sitting. The crowd is carrying banners and placards. Some police officers are on standby.

notice on tree ipoh 070520098.37am: The police have totally cordoned off the road behind the state secretariat with barbed wires. A copy of an injunction obtained yesterday to bar people from gathering has been pasted on the ‘democracy tree’.


8.35am:
Ousted menteri besar Nizar Jamaluddin and Pakatan reps enter the state secretariat building. All their bodyguards are stopped at the gate. Only their drivers can go through the entrance.

8.30am: All Barisan Nasional elected representatives arrived at the state secretariat in one bus. Their arrival is greeted by a small group of demonstrators wearing black. The demonstrators are located outside the state secretariat.

Pakatan ADUNS Ipoh 07052009The police have moved in to stop the demonstration by arresting three people. Among those arrested are DAP’s Ayer Keroh elected representative Khoo Poay Tiong.

8.15am: Security is tight at the Perak state secretariat building in Ipoh, where the controversial legislative assembly meeting is to be held. About 100 police and FRU personnel have been deployed in the area. Five FRU (riot police) trucks are at the back entrance of the building complex.

SUK Perak 07052009The assembly hall will be opened at 9am. There will be a guard of honour by crown prince Raja Nazrin Shah, who is expected to represent the Perak sultan. Journalists will be allowed into the hall at 9.45am. [SEE VIDEO]

The assembly will officially be opened by Raja Nazrin, who will give his address to the 59 assemblypersons.

8:05am: The 28 Pakatan Rakyat state assemblypersons leave for the Perak state secretariat building in a convoy from the Grand View Hotel in Ipoh. They were accompanied by assembly speaker V Sivakumar and police escorts complete with outriders. The hotel is about 600m from the state secretariat building.

Earlier this morning, the state representatives had breakfast together at a mamak stall near the hotel. There are about 50 Pakatan supporters milling around the area – all wearing black. They are being watched by an equal number of police.

No solution for Indira yet

May 6th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


The court granted interim stay on the earlier interim grant. I’m getting confused with all these terms, so why not look at it in a timeline manner:

24 May 2009 – inter-parte hearing for the husband to provide his arguments.

14 May 2009 – Court hearing of application by Pathmanthan to set aside the interim custody order

5 May 2009 – Interim stay of the interim custody order granted to husband, thus Indira will not be getting her baby back soon.

24 april 2009 – High court issues interim custody order granting rights of custody to mother, Indira

23 april 2009 – Cabinet decision that children in a case where one parent converts are to remain in the original religion. Further to that, the cabinet also decided that civil marriages must be resolved in civil courts and the convert can’t use the excuse that he converted to escape from his obligations.

20 april 2009 – Committee headed by Koh Tsu Koon meets over the issue of Indira Gandhi.

4 April 2009 – Husband snatches baby away from the home and disappears.

11 March 2009 – Pathmanathan converts to Islam.

On May 14, Wan Afrah will also give her decision on whether contempt of court has been committed by Ridzuan for evading service of the interim custody order issued on April 24.

The issue of contempt was raised orally by Indira’s team of counsel during submissions by Ridzuan’s team, led by counsel Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdullah, on the application to obtain a stay of the interim custody order.

Views on cabinet directive on conversion

May 6th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Views below from NST (here and here),

Lets look at the various view first:

Karpal Singh (support):

Karpal said that “there was no doubt the Cabinet’s decision was pragmatic, reasonable and in accordance with the considerations of justice.”

The Lion of Jelutong even roared at PAS guy Mahfuz Omar, thus giving more credence to the fact that Pakatan Rakyat coalition is fragile saying that the reaction by PAS is “unjustified attack on the decision of the Cabinet”.

“Non-Muslims who embrace Islam should not do so for the purpose of defeating the rights of their non-Muslim spouse, or in any way affect the rights of children born during their marriage,” Karpal Singh said in a press statement Friday.

However, he questions the validity and power of the cabinet’s decision: whether the Cabinet’s decision, which was an Executive act, could override or in any way supersede the Federal Court’s decision in Subashini Rajasingam vs Saravanan Thangathoray and other appeals.The Federal Court ruled on Dec 27, 2007 that the husband in that case, who had embraced Islam, could lawfully, following his conversion, have the right to convert his under 18-year-old child without the consent of his non-Muslim spouse.

The Federal Court in that case considered Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which states: “For the purposes of Clause (3), the religion of a person under the age of 18 shall be decided by his parent or guardian.”

Karpal said the Federal Court interpreted the word “parent” in the said Article to mean “either parent”.

“It has been pointed out, and rightly so, by law professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi that what was missed by the court and counsel in that case was that in the 11th Schedule to the Federal Constitution, which deals with the law on interpretation of the Federal Constitution, words in the singular include plural, and words in the plural include the singular.

“The word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) must, in the circumstances, be taken to mean ‘both parents’ without whose consent the religion of their child under the age of 18 cannot be determined.”

Karpal said that in the public interest, the Federal Court should forthwith review its own decision.

“This step is more than necessary now in the light of several similar cases having come to public attention.”

Indeed, the earlier judgment is flawed as it doesn’t solve the problem. Parent means “parents” as well in the interpretation of the law.

FT PAS Youth (oppose):

Action speaks louder than words, so these guys decided to do the “in-thing” nowadays – protest. They protested the cabinet decision at Masjid Jamek in Kampung Baru last Friday.

The 15-minute gathering attended by about 100 people was held after Friday prayers. The crowd dispersed after being asked to do so by police.

Federal Territory Pas Youth chief Kamarulzaman Mohamad said the cabinet had no right to direct the attorney-general to review and propose changes to the law to prevent any future complications to families when a spouse converted to Islam.

“It is the right of Parliament and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, not the cabinet.”

He said the ruling had interfered with the powers of the syariah court, the state muftis and the Religious Department.

Again, back to the main points – who has the power to issue decisions?

MCA (supports):

The MCA hailed the cabinet’s decision in resolving the dispute on the religion of minors should one parent convert to Islam.

Its president, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, said the decision would provide a good reference to other similar cases.

“This is a good move and will help solve the current problems regarding religious conversions.”

He said while the party acknowledged freedom of religion, there were a few individuals who renounced their faith solely for their own needs or to be absolved from responsibilities.

This shows how meek and powerless MCA was in the last 10 years or so. Nothing happened in previous cases, but suddenly or Indira’s case there’s a directive. Either that, or it shows new PM is far better than the last two. The decision by cabinet is meaningless until it becomes word of law.

MIC (in support):

MIC secretary-general Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said a permanent solution should be found and the laws amended to ensure the implementation of the government’s decision.

“I urge all parties to cooperate on this matter. We will do our best to ensure such problems do not recur,” said Dr Subramaniam, who is also human resources minister.

Subramaniam said the government’s decision would resolve the problems faced by Indra Gandhi.

Refer comment on MCA above. It applies to MIC as well. Another ill-informed comment by Dr S. Subra in saying that the decision will solve Indira’s problems. The directive is not binding, not law. The convert will say civil court order have not effect on him because he already obtained a conflicting Syariah court order.

Law Practitioner Pushpa (in support but skeptical?):

Family law practitioner Pushpa Ratnam said Section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 only allowed a non-converting spouse to file a petition to dissolve the civil marriage.

“The provision does not empower the converting party to take steps to file a divorce petition.”

… Pushpa said, at present, most of the converting spouses would not inform their partners of their religious status nor did the authorities.

“The non-Muslim spouse is in the dark and is unaware of when and where the conversion took place.”

She said Nazri’s statement did not address the issue of nullifying the conversion of non-Muslim children.

What happens to the children who are converted through no fault of theirs because of disagreements of one spouse?

Pushpa said the conflict between the syariah and civil jurisdictions had to be resolved immediately and this could be done only through amendments to the Federal Constitution and other federal laws.

She said the Federal Court ruling on R. Subashini’s case was worrying as it served as the law (see accompanying story).

Actually, Nazri’s statement said that children should be following their religion before either one parent converted. So, in Indira’s case, the kids should be Hindus. But, remember, its not binding. What can be done now is to ask religious department to declare the conversion null and void for some “technical reasons” and get Syariah court to retract its order to give custody of child to the father. If not, this mockery will continue. Indira will not be subjected to Syariah court, and the husband will not subject to civil court. Again, only solution is amendments to Federal laws, and Syariah laws.

Lawyer Vicky (unsure):

Lawyer Vicky Alahakone said she had come across cases of spouses converting to evade rulings of the civil court over maintenance, division of matrimonial property and custody of children.

“This is done in refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the civil court.”

She said the maintenance of children below 18 could be stopped by a father following a Federal Court ruling in September 2004.

“It is causing a lot of problems in divorce cases,” said Alahakone, who is a member of the Malaysian Bar’s family law committee.

She said the council had submitted numerous memoranda to the Attorney-General’s Chambers in the past.

This lawyer touches on another aspect – money. The conversion is used to escape from responsibility to original spouse.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff (oppose):

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the cabinet had a constitutional duty to uphold and protect Islam as the religion of the federation.

“This is because the religion of a child due to the conversion of a spouse and custody is based on Islamic principles.”

Haniff, the lawyer who appeared for Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah in the Federal Court in 2007, said the cabinet decision ran contrary to the Islamic principles.

Under what authority did the cabinet give the direction?

This guy hit the nail on the head. If follow their religion, its correct move by the converting spouse. So, how can cabinet issue a directive which is against the law?

Should one uphold and protect their religion at the expense of others? What justice is there? You see, this is the problem when you put one religion on higher ground that others. There will be inequality, which flies in the face of religions itself, especially, when the one selected is seen as strict and intolerant.

JAKIM DG:

To determine the religious status of a child when a parent converts to Islam, one has to look at the syariah as well as the existing Malaysian laws, said the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) yesterday.

Its director-general, Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz, said that under Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.

“Based on this provision, the consent of just one party is sufficient in determining the religion of a child because the word used in Article 12(4) is ‘parent or guardian’ not ‘parents or guardian’ which means ‘mother or father or guardian’,” he said here.

He said Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 provided that a child who has not attained the age of 18 years may convert to Islam if his parent or guardian consented to his conversion.

“Among the cases that can referred regarding the right to determine the religion of a child is Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray, where the Federal Court ruled that the father had the authority to convert his child to Islam under Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.

“This was because according to Article 12(4), the religion of a person below the age of 18 years shall be decided by his mother or father or guardian; therefore, in this case, the husband had the right to convert his child to Islam even though his wife had disagreed.”

Wan Mohamad said from the syariah angle, the person with the right to take care and raise a child must be a Muslim because if the person is not a Muslim, there is a worry that it would harm the religion of the child under his care.

He said the rights of a Muslim convert should be protected, and a person who converted should not be seen as shirking his obligations.

On the Mohd Ridzuan case being tried by the Perak Syariah High Court, Wan Mohamad said all parties should be patient since the case was ongoing.

The word “parent” is one of the root cause of the problem. This guy interprets his version, while some say parent is taken to refer both parents even though its singular. Only solution, add an “s” to it by amending the Act. The landmark ruling of Subashini case is actually detrimental to the non-Muslims, as pointed out by Bar Council last time. It allows the parent to convert unilaterally. I believe its is one of the fatal mistakes done in courts, though can’t really blame the judges because the law is flawed. By using the flawed judgement, more cases will be supporting the convert and not the non-converting spouse, because there’s a precedence already.

However, the court in Subashini’s case granted custody to her, with the rule that she shall not attempt to convert the kids into Hinduism. Here, the DG of JAKIM is telling that the Muslim child should be raised by the Muslim parent. So, effectively, by converting, you will get your kids, as you can convert them, and then since they are Muslims, you can take care of them. Can you see the spiraling effect of one person converting? By one stroke of the pen, you increase the population of one group, and reduce the population of others dramatically.

Based on Article 12(4), as the Jakim DG says, one parent can convert without approval of the other. So, father converts the kids in Muslim, then mother can surely convert the kids back into Hinduism or other religion also right? The law should apply to everyone right? If we follow this logic, it will be a never-ending seesaw of conversion until the kids turn 18! Unfortunately, the convert husband then will make use of Syariah law and position of the religion to block attempts by mother to reconvert the kids. So, the convert has the privilege of using parts of either set of laws to suit his needs, while the mother is stuck. So, the conversion is basically one way street.

Perak Mufti (oppose):

In Ipoh, Perak mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria has urged the government to seek the views of the Malaysian Mufti Council before making any decision regarding Islam to avoid confusion.

He said the government decision that a child’s religion must be in accordance with the common religion of the parents at the time of marriage should have been discussed by the council first.

In Islam, when the father or mother is a Muslim, the child automatically becomes Muslim unless the child is above 15 years old and can choose his own religion.”

He says child automatically becomes a Muslim if father or mother is one. So, why need to convert the kids? So, in this case, better get divorced first, see who gets custody, and then attempt to convert.

ABIM, Syariah Lawyer Assocation, Welfare Association for Muslim Converts (oppose):

In Kuala Lumpur, several Islamic non-governmental organisations urged the government to review the decision, saying that it was made without taking into consideration the existing laws and views from the relevant parties.

The decision denied the rights of those who converted to Islam, said Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association president Mohamad Isa Abdul Latif at a press conference attended also by other bodies, including the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement and Pan-Malaysian Dakwah and Welfare Association for Muslim Converts.

The Syariah Lawyers Association even expressed shock over the Cabinet directive.

Well, this is something that the groups should have helped to avoid by compromising with MCCBCHST in earlier talks/discussions, but until now, there was no agreement between them.

PKR MP Zulkifli Nordin in The Star (oppose):

A PKR MP has questioned the Cabinet’s decision to amend the laws of conversion for children. He thinks it contradicts the Federal Constitution and Federal Court decisions.

Kulim-Bandar Baru MP Zulkifli Noordin disagreed with the decision to allow children whose parents are divorced — and where one parent had converted to another religion — to be brought up in the “common religion at the time of marriage”.

In his blog, he said the issues relating to the conversion of children did not arise as the Federal Court had made several rulings in the past to address them.

“Actually this issue had been addressed clearly by the Federal Court in the Subashini case, where the court stated that the issue is bound by Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution,” he said.

Article 12(4) states that the religion for a person under the age of 18 is determined by his or her parents or guardian, and this meant either one of them can decide which religion the child practises.

“Therefore the issue does not arise in the case of Patmanathan @ Mohd Ridhuan who decided that Islam is the right religion for his children,” he said.

He added that the issues of conversion and custodial rights were two separate matters, as addressed in the S. Shamala case where the father embraced Islam and converted his children’s faith but was not given custodial rights.

“The custodial rights were given to the mother, a Hindu, with a caveat that the mother cannot convert the children’s religion,” he said.

He said the presumption that the father would automatically get custodial rights from the Syariah Court while the non-Muslim mother would definitely lose her case was unfounded.

This guy is in the wrong party. PKR should ditch him or send him over to PAS. I would argue that the same Article 1294) can be used by Indira to convert her kids back to Hinduism. Why not? She need not get approval of her convert husband. If Pathmanathan can decide which religion is right for his kids, so does his wife. So have the last say? Pathmanathan, because he is Muslim? Then that is discrimination.

And does Zulkifli think that it easy for a parent to raise the kids who were converted without her consent, seeing her kids praying to a different God, not able to take part in festivals, or even eat mother’s cooking (halal food)? Be practical lah. Talk also must use the brain a bit.

MCA (support):

The MCA had condemned the statement by PAS info chief, Mahfuz Omar who criticised the cabinet decision.

Wanita MCA has taken PAS information chief Mahfuz Omar to task for his criticisms against the Cabinet’s latest decision that minors follow the common religion of the parents before their divorce.

The movement added that Mahfuz had also erroneously accused the Barisan Nasional Government of “becoming harsher against the rakyat to the level of confiscating the rights of parents towards their children”, as reported in HarakahDaily.Net.

Movement chief Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun said the announcement by the Prime Minister’s administration served to counteract some quarters’ attempt to evade their family responsibility through the justification of converting to Islam.

“Such irresponsible practices should not be condoned. We believe this announcement is a pertinent step towards preserving harmony and respecting the rights of non-Muslims, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in a plural society with diversities such as faith and ethnicity.

“We stand by the decision of the Cabinet under the leadership of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak on this long-standing inter-faith conflict arising from conversion of one spouse to Islam and subsequently converting their children to Islam without the consent of the other non-converting spouse,” said Chew in a press statement.

She added that the announcement was in tandem with the spirit of the 1999 amendment to the Guardian of Infants Act 1961, which guarantees the rights of mothers to guardianship.

MCA focuses on the irresponsibility of the parent who converts and the rights of mothers to guardianship. We have to see how far MCA will push to ensure the decisions is translated into appropriate amendments in the law.

Pakatan Rakyat (unsure):

The three parties in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition have arrived at an initial stance on the cabinet decision that bars parents from secretly converting their children to another faith.

MCPX

As each of the parties – PKR, DAP and PAS – hold a different and contradicting view on the matter, their leaders have agreed that priority should be given to resolving custody issues before taking up matters relating to religion.

PKR deputy president Syed Husin Ali said when contacted that issues linked to conversion need to be further studied.

Explaining that Pakatan does not necessarily have to adopt a common position on every matter, he said “we need only a minimum (stance) to hold us together”.

Those at the high-level meeting on Sunday were PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang and PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.

Pakatan decides to take a safe route by proclaiming that the custody issue should be solved first before religion issue is tackled. While it may reflect the idea of “agree to disagree”, it also reveals the gap between the three parties. DAP and PAS on separate corners, and PKR in the middle, holding them together.

DAP (support):

Lim said the DAP is of the view that conversion of children should only be done with the consent of both parents. In the event of a dispute, the children should remain in their original religion until they reach legal age.

“Family unity and parental rights cannot be compromised,” he said yesterday in a telephone interview.

Lim welcomed the cabinet’s decision but pressed the Barisan Nasional government to amend the federal constitution to give legal effect to its decision.

Article 12(4) of the constitution states that ‘the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian’.

Some law experts are of the opinion that ‘parent’ is understood to include the plural, to vest guardianship rights in both parents.

However Federal Court last year interpreted the word ‘parent’ in the singular, concluding that either parent could convert a child to Islam.

Lim pointed out that there is an alternative to amending the constitution, and it would involve a Federal Court review of its decision.

He, however, refused to respond when asked if Pakatan should adopt a common stand in this matter.

“Let us be clear on DAP’s stand and let the issue develop,” was all he would say.

DAP doesn’t want to rock the boat, especially with possible by-elections on the way. Anyway, DAP is among the clearest ones when making a stand. Let’s see how long they can keep up their stand in the face of Pakatan’s unity.

As LKS says, the only legal and binding solution is amendment to the laws. And he agrees with the cabinet decision.

PAS (oppose):

Publicity chief Mahfuz Omar lambasted the cabinet decision as having gone against the constitution.

Sin Chew Daily quoted him as saying that the decision had superseded both the constitution and the law, thereby denying the right of parents to take care of their children.

Mahfuz said there was a political agenda behind the move, to win back support from non-Muslims who had backed the opposition in recent elections.

PAS obviously has to oppose in order to been seen as protector of their religion. Mahfuz is right in the sense that the decision is going against the law, but then, the law is biased and not perfect. Two wrongs doesn’t make a right though.

Political agenda always exists, but for the citizen, fairness and justice is important. They want the leaders to use common sense, but that may be contradicting someone’s religion. So how?

PKR (unsure):

The party chose the middle path that focuses on the custody of children.

The parent who is awarded custody of the children by the civil court should then have the right to convert the children, said Syed Husin.

He too described the cabinet decision as being politically motivated and as having overlooked problems that may arise.

For example, if a Hindu couple divorces because the wife converts to Islam and she gains custody of the children, they would have to be brought up as Hindus, going by the cabinet decision.

For this reason, it is necessary to determine custody rights before deciding on the children’s religion.

Syed Husin points out a case where its possible that a wife who converts will bring up kids who are non-Muslim if the cabinet directive is followed. Yes, possible. The permutations are limited to four possibilities – father or mother converting, and who gets the kids. So, it can be:

1. Father converts and gets custody – raises non-muslim children

2. Father converts and no custody – no problem

3. Mother converts and gets custody – raises non-muslim children

4. Mother converts and no custody – no problem

My views:

I think the problem starts when the intention to convert arises. At that point of time, a person may need counseling from an independent group or representatives from his own religious group. This will be protested as infringing on personal rights. On the other hand, it will help to ensure that the convert knows what he is getting into and the possible problems that will happen. Anyway, we can consider making it an “application” process also. In order to convert, the person must submit to divorce proceedings in civil court. Can only convert once the slate is wiped clean so that will be fair to the other spouse (imagine the guy who converts have “kosong empat” while the wife can’t remarry because status is still legally married). The question of alimony, children custody, and property division should be cleared before the conversion takes place.

Next, if one party has custody, does it automatically means that parent can unilaterally convert the children? If no, what if the parents cannot come to an agreement on what religion the kids will take up? The children then should maintain their status quo. What if father converts to Islam, mother remains Hindu. Children remain Hindu becomes both parents can’t come to an agreement. Suddenly, the mother converts to Christianity. How then? Father Muslim, mother Christian, children Hindu. How to avoid this? Perhaps the kids will be housed in an orphanage or center belonging to the particular religion (Hinduism in this case). If that’s the case, we end up fighting for religion instead of the children’s welfare.

So, possible solution is to say that the parent that gets custody can determine the religion of the children.

In the mean time, community groups must take immediate action to educate the community on the pros and cons of converting. If one really loves another religion, then its OK, and its not compulsory that you convert every offspring you have along with you.