Maria Hertogh Conversion

 

The year is 1950.

You are a young Malay man, currently standing outside the Tanjong Pagar Railway station in Singapore, waiting to receive relatives from Trengganu. Two days ago, you received news that a distant aunt Aminah Binte Mohamed and her 13-year-old daughter Nadra are coming down to Singapore urgently to settle some "family issues".

You have not seen Nadra since your last trip to Trengganu but you have a very distinct memory of her Eurasian features and halting Malay. That's because Nadra was adopted by Cik Aminah, your mother told you.

You learnt that Nadra, originally Maria 'Bertha' Hertogh, was born to Dutch-Eurasian parents in Java. After her father was taken as a prisoner of war during the Japanese occupation, Nadra's biological mother gave her up to Cik Aminah. Both Cik Aminah and Nadra moved to Kemaman, Trengganu after the war and never heard from the Hertoghs again.

Cik Aminah and Nadra arrived promptly on the seven o'clock train. You notice their tear-stained faces and wonder what is wrong. Nevertheless, you salaam Cik Aminah dutifully before bringing her and Nadra over to your place.

Once settled in at your home, Cik Aminah started to tell her story. It turns out that after the war ended, the Hertogh family enlisted the help of Dutch officials to help look for Nadra. They searched all over the region and finally found her in Kemaman. Now the Dutch have demanded that Cik Aminah bring Nadra to Singapore where she will be taken back to her biological parents.

"What am I going to do?" Cik Aminah weeps uncontrollably while Nadra hugs her tightly.

Round One: The court ruled in favour of the Dutch

The following week, on 17 May 1950, Cik Aminah and Nadra appear in court.

There was a palpable tension in the air. You glance over at the mother and daughter pair huddled together, and whisper a little prayer for them. Unfortunately, the court ruled in favour of the Dutch. Nadra has to return to the Hertoghs.

Cik Aminah is devastated but she is determined to appeal against the court's decision. In the meantime, while waiting for the appeal to be heard, the court orders Nadra to be sent to the Social Welfare quarters at York Hill for safekeeping.

During your calls with Nadra, you learn that a 22-year-old English tutor has been assigned to her at York Hill. His name is Inche Mansoor Adabi and Nadra seems to be enjoying her lessons with him a lot. It has been awhile since you heard laughter in her voice.

Round 2: The court overturns the earlier ruling

Two months later, on 28 July 1950, the court hears Cik Aminah's appeal and overturns the earlier decision. Nadra is now reunited with Cik Aminah. The family and Malay community celebrate with a belated Hari Raya feast at the home of the President of the Muslim Welfare Association.

The atmosphere was electrifying as guests after guests from the community came by and celebrated with Cik Aminah and Nadra. There was abundant music and food -- such a stark difference from her two months at York Hill.

Marriage

Shortly after Cik Aminah's successful appeal, Nadra announces that she is getting married to her English tutor, Mansoor Adabi. Cik Aminah is overjoyed that she has found a respectable husband.

Privately, you wonder if it is a wise decision to let a 13-year-old girl get married to a 22-year old man. While it is permissible under Muslim laws, some in the Malay community raise concerns about marriage.

The marriage takes place on August 1, 1950. It is a grand affair since amidst the ongoing court proceedings, Nadra is becoming something of a national celebrity. Reporters from the newspapers are rushing to snap pictures of the newlyweds while loud music entertains guests who came from all over Malaya. Little did everyone know that soon the tides would turn.

The beginning of the end

It is now the morning of November 15, 1950. The custody fight for Nadra has been renewed for about a month now. Nadra's biological mother, Adeline Hertogh, comes over for a visit, to convince Nadra to stop the fighting and go home with her.

The tense atmosphere in the living room is punctuated by Nadra's insistent 'No's to Mrs Hertogh's pleadings. Hidden away in the corner of the house, you catch snatches of their exchanges* in Malay:

Mrs Hertogh: "Whatever may be the difficulties, I will stay here and overcome them until I can take you back to your father and brothers and sisters in Holland."

Nadra: "If my parents love me, they should leave me where I am. Besides I cannot love you, because when I was a child you gave me away."

The final verdict

Fast forward to two weeks later, December 2, 1950. The court rules in Adeline Hertogh's favour - that the marriage between Nadra and Mansoor Adabi is not legal, and Nadra is to be given back to the Dutch. Cik Aminah applies for a stay of execution to be heard on December 11, 1950.

Before leaving the court, you spot Cik Aminah and Nadra clutching at each other, crying loudly and refusing to leave. Your heart breaks for them. Nadra is then transported to the Convent of the Good Shepherd and placed under the care of Catholic nuns.

The girl with two faces

The newspapers sensationalize the situation.

The Singapore Standard publishes the headlines "Bertha knelt before Virgin Mary Statue" while Melayu Raya publishes a picture of Nadra caught between a mosque and a church. The Utusan Melayu runs pictures of a miserable Nadra with the headline "I am very miserable – forced to wear a gown" while The Straits Times publishes photos of a smiling and happy Nadra posing with Catholic nuns. Which is the real her?

You notice that many members of the Muslim community also feel that by nullifying Nadra's marriage to Mansoor Adabi and separating the couple, the court was not respecting the religious laws that Muslims abide by.

The tension snaps

By December 11, 1950, crowds of demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court to demand the release of Nadra back to Cik Aminah. The situation quickly deteriorates into a bloodbath. As you scramble to run out of the way, you hear Eurasians and Europeans alike being stoned and beaten by the angry mobs.

From December 11, 1950, to 13 December 13, 1950, 18 people died, 173 people were injured, and damages to property amounted to more than 20,000 Straits Dollars.

Nadra was relocated to St John's island during the riots and subsequently taken back to the Netherlands. You never saw her again, just the carnage left behind in her wake.

A cautionary tale

In retrospect, there are many lessons to learn from Nadra's story, but perhaps most of all, it serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of religious disharmony, particularly in a religiously diverse place like Singapore.

Mutual understanding and accommodation of different religious beliefs can only happen when we educate ourselves and appreciate the intricacies of different religions. This is the goal of the Harmony in Diversity Gallery (HDG).

Harmony in Diversity Gallery (HDG)

Set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in collaboration with community partners such as the Inter-Religious Organisation, the HDG was opened on August 2 2016 as a key feature of the SGSecure movement.

It consists of four thematic galleries which aim to present a cohesive and broad understanding of the different religions here and how we can exercise mutual understanding when differences in beliefs create friction.

Visitors will witness unique religious artifacts from various religions in Singapore, as well as the commonalities in a religious expression such as prayer, meditation, and fasting.

While understanding different religions is important, the real test comes when friction from conflicting values creeps up in our daily interactions with each other. At the HDG, visitors can explore an interactive exhibit that demonstrates how our decisions can either build bridges that connect or walls that divide.

Controversial cases of unilateral child conversion in Malaysia

While M. Indira Gandhi won her case at the Federal Court against the conversion of her three children to Islam without her consent, a few other women were not so fortunate.

The apex court’s decision to nullify the unilateral conversion of Indira’s children ― which was done by her Muslim convert ex-husband who also abducted their youngest child nine years ago at the age of 11 months ― was the opposite of a previous verdict in another case of unilateral child conversion ― R. Subashini’s case.

The Federal Court yesterday ruled that according to the Federal Constitution, the consent of both parents is needed to convert a minor, while another apex court panel in Subashini’s case had interpreted the Constitution to only require the permission of one parent.

Here are three cases of the unilateral conversion of minors to Islam.

S. Deepa

In 2012, Izwan Abdullah, formerly known as N. Viran, converted his children, V. Mithran and V. Sharmila, without the knowledge of their mother, S. Deepa.

Izwan then applied and was given custody of the children by the Seremban Shariah court and changed Viran and Shamila's name to Nur Nabila Izwan and Muhammad Nabil Izwan respectively.

Deepa applied for and won in 2014 custody of her two children at the Seremban High Court.

Despite the Seremban High Court’s custody orders, Izwan reportedly abducted his son.

In 2016, the Federal Court split custody of the two children, granting Nabil to Izwan while Shamila was given to Deepa, after the judges spoke to both children about which parent they wished to remain with.

The panel recorded agreement by Deepa and her ex-husband to access their children once every two months on a Saturday, at the home of the children's Muslim maternal grandmother Siti Aishah Abdullah, who is also Deepa's mother.

R. Subashini

In July 2006, R. Subashini received a notice from the Registrar of the Shariah High Court Kuala Lumpur that her husband had commenced proceedings in the Shariah High Court for divorce and custody of their eldest son.

This was because her husband, T. Saravanan or now known as Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, converted himself and their elder son to Islam in May 2006.

The couple, married since July 2001 under Hindu rites and registered under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, have two children ― Dharvin Joshua and Sharvin.

After discovering Shafi’s custody application in the Shariah Court, Subashini filed a petition on August 4, 2006, which was after the husband’s conversion, for dissolution of the marriage and an application for custody and ancillary reliefs in the civil High Court. In September 2006, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Subashini’s application to stop Shafi from resolving their marital problems in the Shariah court.

The Federal Court decided, in a 2-1 decision in 2007, that the unilateral conversion of Subashini’s eldest son was constitutional, interpreting the word “parent” in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution to be singular.

Article 12(4) states that “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.” In the same judgement, the apex court also decided that the Shariah Court cannot dissolve a civil marriage and all dissolutions made in the religious court are only effective and applicable within the confines of Islamic law.

S. Shamala

In 2002, Dr Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah embraced Islam and subsequently converted his two sons to Islam without the knowledge and consent of his wife, S. Shamala.

Dr Jeyaganesh, now known as Dr Muhammad Ridzwan, also obtained custody of both sons from the Shariah court in 2003.

Following the Shariah court’s decision, Shamala applied to the civil High Court for the custody of her sons.

The High Court granted joint custody to both parents on July 20, 2004, but Shamala was prohibited from teaching her children Hinduism and from allowing them to eat pork.

Shamala later reportedly fled to Australia that year with her two children.

This led the Federal Court in 2010 to avoid hearing constitutional issues regarding the conversion of children to Islam without the consent of both parents.

The majority of the panel also declined to grant time to Shamala to return to Malaysia to appear in the court to determine her referral application.

In 2011, Shamala withdrew her legal representative as she who did not want to pursue her civil case concerning her children's custody, following three appeals made by her husband.

She cited that there was no legal remedy following the Federal Court's decision to decline to answer five constitutional questions.

Loh Siew Hong

Controversy regarding Penang mother Loh Siew Hong’s objections to her three children’s conversion to Islam, a decision that was made unilaterally by her now ex-husband Nagahswaran Muniandy, has reopened discourse on high profile religious conversion cases in the country.

Malaysia is no stranger to cases like this, with some notable ones having garnered international attention and media coverage.

The following are some of the landmark religious conversion cases that have set legal precedents in the nation.

Lina Joy

Among the significant cases in Malaysia, one involving a Muslim converting to Christianity, is the case of Lina Joy, who was born a Muslim with the name Azlina Jailani.

In 1998 she converted to Christianity to marry her Christian boyfriend but was legally unable to do so seeing that her identification card (IC) stated that she is a Muslim.

After being baptised that year, the woman had sought to have her conversion legally recognised by the Malaysian court.

Although she managed to change her name, the National Registration Department (NRD) did not change the status of her religion in her IC, seeing that it did not receive any confirmation document from the shariah court.

Hoping to live as a Christian, in 1999 she filed a suit with the high court and bypassed the shariah court (the Islamic court holding authority on conversion and other Islamic jurisprudence).

In 2006, in her bid to embrace Christianity, Joy took the matter to the country’s apex court.

On May 30, 2007, her appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court in a 2-1 majority verdict – a three-man bench with chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff ruling against her.

They stated that: “A person who wants to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practises of the particular religion. Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity.

“In other words, a person cannot, at one’s whims and fancies, renounce or embrace a religion.”

The dissenting view by chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum wrote: “Hence, in my view this is tantamount to unequal treatment under the law. In other words, it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down.”

“For this reason alone, the relief sought for by the appellant should be granted, namely for a declaration that she is entitled to have an identity card, in which the word ‘Islam’ does not appear.”

If Joy had succeeded in her bid, she would have created a precedent allowing Muslims to officially change their religion on their IC, while also removing the barrier for Muslim and non-Muslim marriages.

M. Indira Gandhi

Another notable case is M. Indira Gandhi, whose ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, also known as K. Pathmanathan, left their house with their youngest 11-month-old daughter, Prasana Diksa in 2009.

Prior to the separation, he had converted to Islam, and then unilaterally converted their three children to Islam after he left the house. This action was made without Indira’s knowledge.

In that same year, he was granted permanent custody of the children by the shariah court. However, the Ipoh High Court granted Indira full custody of the children the following year.

While her two eldest children have stayed with Indira, she is still unable to contact her youngest daughter and despite the ruling, the police were not able to recover Prasana.

Riduan also remained missing, even though the high court had issued an arrest warrant in 2014. Prasana was just 18 months old when Indira last saw her.

Nyonya Tahir/Wong Ah Kiu

Wong Ah Kiu was born in 1918 to a Muslim family as Nyonya Tahir but was later adopted by a Chinese family and raised as a Buddhist.

In 1936, she married a Chinese man, who did not convert to Islam, and she continued to practice Buddhism and adopted the Chinese way of life, with her children also culturally raised as Chinese.

While her children were recorded as ethnically Chinese in their identity cards, she was still recorded as a Malay. In 1986, when she applied to change her name and religion recorded in her IC, the application was denied after being investigated by the Alor Gajah Islamic Affairs office.

When her husband died in 1989, she wished to be buried next to him, but this was not possible without legal recognition of her status as a Buddhist.

She then filed two more applications to recognise her change of religion in 1991 and 1998 but both were rejected.

Wong left behind a written declaration stating that she was Buddhist and that she wanted to be given a Buddhist funeral instead.

When she died on January 19, 2006, her burial was put on hold after the Negri Sembilan Religious Affairs Department had the Tampin Shariah Court issue an injunction after they found out she was a Malay.

The head of the Negri Sembilan Religious Affairs Department went to her family’s house to present the order that she be buried in Muslim fashion.

However, after hearing testimonies from her children, the shariah high court eventually ruled that she lived and died as a Buddhist, which permitted her family to proceed with Buddhist funeral rites.

She was finally buried next to her husband in the Chinese cemetery in her birthplace of Simpang Ampat, Alor Gajah.

This case marked the first time that a non-Muslim had testified in a shariah court in Malaysia and it remains as one of the most well-known religious conversion cases until today.

Juli Jalaludin

Juli Sumardiati Mohd Jalaludin was born in Ketereh, Kelantan as a Malay and was raised in a Muslim family with a strict cultural and religious upbringing.

However, her faith slowly eroded over the years after she started questioning the rules she had to adhere throughout her life.

In her blog, she said “I wanted to know the answers to simple questions I had since I was a child. For example, why was hijab mandatory? Why were dogs forbidden to be touched?

“Why were we still being taught the prayer and fasting rituals for a slave even though slavery had been abolished more than a hundred years ago?

“Slowly, I started to see the imperfections of Islam. I thought, what else could be wrong? Little by little, as I got more answers, my faith in Islam gradually weakened.”

She also disliked the fact that she was taught that “infidels” would not earn a place in heaven.

Unlike other notable cases, Juli did not go through any court processes but instead, she made controversial postings online.

At first, she joined a local apostate group on Facebook to find other like-minded folk. But eventually, she and other members of the group were harassed online.

This took a severe toll on her that caused her to suffer from depression. However, she chose to fight back as she realised that “my silence would only make bullies stronger”.

She left Malaysia in June 2013 after receiving a job offer in Norway.

She, together with a group of Facebook friends, went on to create the Facebook pages, Murtad di Pantai Timur (Apostate in the East Coast) and Murtad in Kelantan (Apostate in Kelantan).

However, these pages were perceived to provoke and insult Islam, and were later blocked by the government.

The Muslim community also reacted aggressively and sent threatening messages to her posts that encourage her to gain the status of an asylum seeker in the United States as she did not feel safe at home.

Syarifah Nooraffyzza, Tiong Choo Ting, Salina Jau, Jenny Peter

Even though the previous cases saw issues hitting Peninsula Malaysia, Sarawakian Muslims wishing to convert out of the religion also face similar problems as their Malayan counterparts.

In Syarifah Nooraffyzza’s case, she is ethnically Malay but had left Islam and embraced Christianity in 2009. On the other hand, Tiong Choo Ting, Salina and Jenny had all converted due to their marriages.

Although Sarawak has its own high court separate from the peninsula, the state’s high court still deemed that it has no jurisdiction to hear apostasy cases and dismissed their appeals for a civil court hearing.

Even though the four of them had taken their case to Sarawak’s Federal Court, they were still unsuccessful in their bid to renounce Islam. Instead, the state’s apex court ruled that their apostasy applications can only be heard by the Sarawak Shariah Court, resulting in successful applications.

Unilateral conversion: Federal law prevails, says Azalina

Perlis’ amendments to state law will become inapplicable upon the passing of amendments to Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, says the de facto law minister.

Where there is inconsistency between a federal law and a state law, the former shall prevail, says Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said.

Hence, once the federal government succeeds in amending the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA), Perlis’ recent amendments allowing for a child to be converted to Islam with the consent of only one parent will be inapplicable.

According to Azalina, it is the Perlis state assembly’s prerogative to amend the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006.

“At the same time, the Bill tabled by the government to amend the LRA is timely and must be seen as a positive step.

“Once this amendment is passed, it becomes a federal law.

“It should be noted that Article 75 of the Federal Constitution provides that when any state law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law will prevail,” she said in a statement today.

The proposed amendments to the LRA, seeking to make it compulsory for both parents to consent before a child can be converted to Islam, will be debated in the Dewan Rakyat sometime next year.
At the moment, three states — Selangor, Penang, and Terengganu — have enacted this rule.

“The government is committed to solving this matter holistically and the input of all parties will be taken into account,” said Azalina.

“I hope all parties will look objectively at the proposed amendments and avoid politicising it for any reason or make any premature statements.”

The Perlis assembly passed the amendment to the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006 yesterday, but Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man told the New Straits Time Online today that this had been taken out of context.

Azlan said the amendment had only replaced the phrase “ibu dan bapa” (father and mother) with “ibu atau bapa (father or mother), in line with the words used in English.

He claimed the amendment had no legal effect and was only about standardising the language.

Perlis mufti to seek clarification on 'conversion' issue

Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said today he will seek clarification from the state government on amendments passed to the state’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006.

Responding to parties who contacted him on the issue, Asri said in a Facebook posing that he was currently overseas and as such, did not have details of the amendments.

“Later maybe I will refer to the state government to get the information.

“However, if you are asking about the official fatwa from the Perlis Mufti Department that was approved by the Perlis State Islamic Council on the issue of child custody, then that matter had been announced a long time ago,” said Asri, who also shared a copy of the landmark fatwa issued in July last year.

Among others, the Perlis Fatwa Committee decided that custody rights of children of non-Muslim parents shall not be evaluated based on religion when one of them converted to Islam.

Instead, custody should be awarded to the parent who was able to ensure the child's moral and emotional development, while the Muslim parent was responsible for introducing Islam to the children.

The fatwa also stated that a child who was still being breastfed should not be separated from the mother.

Amendments passed to Section 117(b) in the Malay language version of the Perlis enactment replaced the term “father and mother” with “father or mother” - allowing for the unilateral conversion of a child below the age of 18.

Perlis menteri besar Azlan Man had reportedly said the amendments were passed to standardise it with the English version which used the term “parent” in the singular form.

Perlis MB claims child conversion law spun out of context

Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man claimed the amendment to the state’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006 has been spun out of context.

"They are spinning things out of context," Azlan is quoted as saying by New Straits Times.

He was responding to the outcry against the Perlis state assembly’s approval yesterday of an amendment to Section 117(b) of the Malay language version of the 2006 enactment.

The section previously stated that a child who had not attained the age of 18 may only convert to Islam with the consent of both "father and mother" or the guardian.

"Father and mother" was replaced with "father or mother" in the amendment.

Azlan claimed the amendment had no legal effect as it was only a case of standardising the languages.

He pointed out that the English language of the law had used the word "parent" in the singular.

As such, Azlan said, the amendment to the Malay language version was to make it consistent with the English language version.

MIC and MCA have today expressed their dismay with the amendment.

The issue of unilateral conversion has given rise to lengthy custody battles and setting the civil and syariah courts on collision course.

The federal government had, in the last Parliament sitting, sought to address the issue by tabling the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Under the proposed federal law amendment, if one parent converts to Islam, the child must remain in the original religion prior to the parent's conversion.

The child may only be converted to Islam if both parents consent to the child's conversion.

This amendment bill is expected to be debated and voted on in the next Parliament sitting in March.

MCA chief accuses Perlis of sabotaging Putrajaya

MCA president Liow Tiong Lai has accused the Perlis government of sabotaging efforts by Putrajaya to end unilateral conversion of a child to another religion.

Liow said this in reference to the Perlis state assembly passing an amendment to the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006, allowing a minor to convert to Islam with the consent of one parent instead of both father and mother.

"Surely the Perlis government is aware that the federal government had only just recently tabled the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Amendment Bill 2016, which is to safeguard the unilateral conversion of minors.

"This amendment is unacceptable. It is not only a step backwards, but a direct challenge to what the federal government is trying to do at cabinet level.

"What is the Perlis menteri besar trying to prove?" Liow said in a statement published on Facebook.

He described the amendment by the Perlis state assembly, just two weeks after the tabling of the federal bill in Parliament, as "underhanded".

Liow stressed that the issue of unilateral child conversion was not a political or religious issue but that it is about justice.

"This is a matter that requires compassion and fair play.

"The conversion of a child by a parent, regardless of religion, in order to win custody after a failed marriage is without a doubt a gross miscarriage of justice.”

Lengthy custody battles

The issue of unilateral conversion has given rise to lengthy custody battles and has set the civil and syariah courts on collision course.

The federal government had, in the last Parliament sitting, sought to address the issue by tabling the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Under the proposed federal law amendment, if one parent converts to Islam, the child must remain in the original religion prior to the parent's conversion.

The child may only be converted to Islam if both parents consent to the child's conversion.

Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man defended the amendment of the state enactment, claiming that it was "spun out of context".

Azlan claimed the amendment had no legal effect as it was only a case of standardising the languages.

He pointed out that the English language of the law had used the word "parent" in the singular.

As such, Azlan said, the amendment to the Malay language version was to make it consistent with the English language version.

Wee: MCA disappointed, dismayed with passing of Perlis Enactment

PETALING JAYA: MCA is disappointed and dismayed that the Perlis state legislative assembly had passed the Administration of Islam Enactment 2006, said MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong.

Wee said in a statement on Thursday that state legislation should be consistent with Federal Bills, and added that the amended enactment contravenes the aims and the spirit of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Bill 2016 "which is intended to secure the Constitutional rights of non-Muslims".

He said that Section 88A of the Federal Bill specifically states that "conversion to Islam can only be done with the approval of both parents".

Wee added that MCA would never compromise on its stand that the religion of a minor is to be determined by the consent of both parents as enshrined in the Federal Constitution as of 1970.

“While Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution reads that the religion of a minor religion shall be determined by a "parent", Article 160 clearly spells out that words in the singular includes the plural and vice versa,” he said.

He said that since the Law Reform Bill had gone through its first reading on April 21, Perlis lawmakers should have “followed” the Federal Bill instead of trying to “subjugate” it.

Wee added that any state or federal legislation, government policy or guideline that does not abide by the Constitution must be rendered null and void, and said that MCA is determined to see the proposed changes and new insertions in Law Reform Bill passed at the next session of the Dewan Rakyat.

He also said that MCA president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai has summoned Titi Tinggi assemblyman Khaw Hock Kong to provide an explanation for his walkout to the MCA Central Committee.

Khaw had staged a walkout on Thursday in protest against the passing of the amended Enactment, which was passed by the Perlis state legislative assembly on the same day.

“Our party leadership is of the view Khaw should have expressed our party's firm position of the consent of both parents during the debate inside the Perlis state legislative assembly,” said Wee.

Perlis amends law to allow unilateral child conversion

The Perlis state assembly today passed an amendment to the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006, allowing one parent to convert a child to Islam.

The amendment was to the Malay language version of the enactment, which previously stated that a child who had not reached the age of 18, may convert to Islam with the consent of both "father and mother" or the guardian.

"Father and mother" was replaced with "father or mother" in the amendment to Section 117(b) of the enactment, according to a report by Sin Chew Daily.

The report said MCA's sole representative, Titi Tinggi state assemblyperson Khaw Hock Kong, did not vote while PKR's Indera Kayangan state assemblyperson Chan Ming Khai voted against the amendment.

All other state assemblypersons, 12 from Umno and one from PAS, voted in favour.

Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man said the amendment to the Malay language version of the enactment was to harmonise it with the English language version.

Speaking outside the state assembly hall, Azlan was quoted as saying that the English version of the enactment referred to "parent" in the singular.

However, Chan warned the amendment would raise serious conversion issues.

"The state government cannot simply use the excuse of standardisation while ignoring the problems that the amendment will create," he was quoted as saying.

Azlan cited the case of R Subashini versus T Saravanan in 2007 where the Federal Court ruled that Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution allows a child to be converted with consent from one parent.

The amendment appears to run contrary to efforts by the federal government to end unilateral child conversion to Islam.

Putrajaya had in the last Parliament sitting introduced the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Under the amendment, if one parent converted to Islam, the child must remain in the original religion prior to the parent's conversion.

The child may only be converted to Islam if both parents consent to the child's conversion.

The Bill is expected to be debated and voted on in the next Parliament sitting in March.

Only one parent’s consent needed for child’s religious conversion, Federal Court told

The consent of one parent is sufficient for a child to be converted to another religion, the Federal Court heard today in a high-profile dispute on the validity of three Hindu children's unilateral conversion to Islam.

Senior federal counsel Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari, who acted for the Malaysian government, cited four dictionaries and the Federal Constitution's treatment of the word “parent” to back his argument that the consent of both parents were not required.

“In all these four dictionaries, the ordinary meaning of the word parent without 's' has been defined to mean 'a father or a mother,” Arik Sanusi, who is also the director of the Shariah section in the Attorney-General's Chambers, told the court.

He referred to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, the Reader's Digest Great Dictionary of the English Language and Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, saying: “Based on the above references, we submit 'parent' in its singular form means father or mother, 'parent' in its plural form means father and mother.”

He was presenting his arguments at the Federal Court's hearing of Hindu mother M. Indira Gandhi's challenge of the validity of her Muslim convert ex-spouse Muhammad Riduan Abdullah's unilateral conversion of their children to Islam.

Arik Sanusi agreed that Article 160 of the Federal Constitution read together with section 2(95) of the Eleventh Schedule ― which states that “words in the singular include the plural” and “words in the plural include the singular” ― meant that words could be interpreted either way.

But he insisted that the Federal Constitution distinguishes between the words “parent” and “parents”, highlighting two separate provisions there.

He noted the Federal Constitution's Article 12(4) says a “parent or guardian” shall decide the religion of those aged below 18 years old, while Part I and Part II of the constitution's second schedule regarding Malaysian citizenship used the word “parents”.

Arik Sanusi also cited the Federal Court's 2008 decision in the case of Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray, which he said decided that the word “parent” is singular and that the Muslim convert father's unilateral conversion of his child is valid and in accordance with Article 12(4).

When asked how his argument that the consent of one parent alone for child conversion could be consistent with the Indira's lawyers' contention that the Guardianship of Infants Act meant the wishes of both parents should be considered, Arik Sanusi said the Federal Constitution should be referred to as it is the supreme law and pointed to Subashini's case.

“So on this point, since the word parent has been interpreted by the Federal Court to be singular, we should not rely on interpretation in other legislation. That's the purpose of Article 4 (of the Federal Constitution) where the Constitution is supreme,” he said.

K. Shanmuga, who represented Indira, argued however that all laws should be read harmoniously ― including Guardianship of Infants Act, the interpretation rule under the Federal Constitution's Eleventh Schedule, the Constitution's Article 12(4), Articles 5, 8 and 11 which among others guarantees equality and bars gender discrimination.

“We read all that against the backdrop of the Guardianship of Infants Act, it leads to the conclusion that both parents must consent unless they have been stripped of their guardianship rights,” he said.

Summing up the arguments for Indira, Shanmuga said the civil courts have jurisdiction to hear the challenge against the validity of the Perak religious authorities' conversion certificates and that the conversions must have complied with a Perak Islamic state law's requirements.

“And if both parents are alive, as long as there's no order under Guardianship of Infants Act or Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act stripping my client of her guardianship rights, as long as her guardianship rights are intact under Guardianship of Infants Act; then her consent is necessary before the certificates can be issued,” he said.

Fahri Azzat, another lawyer for Indira, said that interpreting “parent” to be the singular form only would lead to “absurdity” and an environment of “anxiety and tension” with no peace in the family.

He highlighted the High Court judgment in Indira's conversion challenge which said that such interpretation would lead to a never-ending chain of a parent unilaterally converting a child, before the other parent unilaterally converts the same child to another religion.

Indira's lawyer Aston Paiva also noted that her three children had not uttered the Muslim affirmation of faith and that there was no consent in writing from Muhammad Riduan for their conversion ― both which are required under the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004.

Indira is appealing against Muhammad Riduan’s covert conversion in 2009 of their three children — then aged 12 years old, 11 years old, and 11 months old — without their knowledge and without Indira’s consent.

Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, who chaired the five-man panel, said the decision will be delivered along with the full grounds of the judgment at a later date.

The other judges on the Federal Court panel are Chief Judge of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin, Tan Sri Ramly Ali and Tan Sri Zainun Ali.

In her legal challenge against the children’s unilateral conversion, Indira had named the Perak Islamic Religious Department (JAIPk) director, the Registrar of Muallaf, the Perak state government, the Education Ministry, the government of Malaysia and Indira’s ex-husband K. Pathmanathan as respondents.

Indira’s appeal is against the Court of Appeal’s 2-1 ruling last December, in which it said only the Shariah courts have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a person’s conversion.

The Court of Appeal had set aside the Ipoh High Court’s 2013 judgement, which found that the three children had not been validly converted to Islam and declared their conversion certificates null and void.

Indira’s eldest daughter Tevi Darsiny and son Karan Dinish are now aged 19 and 18 respectively, while the third child Prasana Diksa now aged eight is with Muhammad Riduan who had snatched her shortly before unilaterally converting the trio in 2009.

Timeline of key events in the Ipoh child custody tussle

Interfaith body lauds Nazri's assurance on end to unilateral conversion

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has welcomed Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Aziz’s statement that amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and divorce) Act 1976 will do away with unilateral conversions.

"The MCCBCHST’s consistent stand has been that to ensure justice and to abide by the constitution, there can be no unilateral conversion of minors.

"That is, both parties to the marriage must consent before a minor can be converted to another religion," said its vice-president Jagir Singh in a statement.

This, the group said, is consistent with the cabinet's April 2009 decision that requires both parents to give consent before a child of a civil marriage can be converted to another religion.

Yesterday, Nazri told a news portal that the LRA amendments will eventually do away with the thorny issue of unilateral conversion.

Jagir noted this is the first time since 2009 that a minister has stated that the earlier cabinet decision will be adhered to.

He related that MCCBCHST lawyers previously faced deadlocks in meetings with the Attorney-General's Chambers in 2010, 2012 and 2014, where the proposed amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) 1976 (LRA) still allowed for the unilateral conversion of a minor.

"MCCBCHST could not agree to such unilateral conversion being allowed," he stressed.

Long wait for justice

Jagir mentioned two cases, that of non-Muslim spouses Indira Gandhi and S Deepa, whose husbands converted to Islam, which have been fought through the courts for the last seven years.

In Deepa's case, the contention was over the matter of the dissolution of marriage and child custody under a civil marriage when one spouse converts to Islam.

Indira's case meanwhile concerns unilateral conversion of children conceived under a civil marriage.

Jagir said in Deepa’s case, the court had delivered judgement in January that “the civil court had the exclusive jurisdiction to grant decrees of divorce of a civil marriage under the LRA and to make all other ancillary orders".

The Federal Court had further stated it would be an abuse of the process for the spouse who has converted to Islam to file for dissolution of the marriage and for custody of the children in the syariah courts.

Jagir posited that with the decision in Deepa’s case, the only thorny issue left was whether a single parent could convert a child without the other parent’s consent.

The courts meanwhile have to decide in Indira’s appeal to the Federal Court on the status of her children's conversion by her convert husband.

The case, Jagir said, will be heard on Nov 15, although he hoped Nazri's announcement may render the matter academic, if indeed what the minister has said is passed into law.

End to loophole hoped

MCCBCHST expressed its confidence that if the unilateral conversion loophole is closed off, then there would be no more cases like Indira and Deepa in the future.

Indira's and Deepa's cases are landmarks in the fight by MCCBCHST and those who are seeking to ensure that unilateral conversions will not take place to the detriment of the non-Muslim spouse, who at present find they have no locus standi to challenge any arising legal decision in the syariah courts.

This is because some Muslim converts from a civil marriage have used the loophole of unilaterally converting their children to Islam, and then proceeded to file motions of custody in the syariah courts where their non-Muslim spouses do not have the standing for legal representation.

More still needs to be done to resolve unilateral conversion of minors

The G25 warmly welcomes the announcement by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak at the launch of the National Women’s Day celebrations on Aug 25, 2016, that the cabinet has agreed to amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce ) Act 1976 ( Act 164 ).

According to the prime minister, the proposed amendments are scheduled to be tabled by the Home Ministry at the next sitting of the Dewan Rakyat in October this year.

The prime minister said that Act 164 would be amended based on three core principles.

The first is that any issue relating to divorce where the marriage had been solemnised under civil law , must be settled in the civil court.

This is to ensure that ancillary matters such as child custody rights and child maintenance until higher education are protected and assured.

The second principle is universal justice, whereby the amendments to the Act will give both parties the opportunity to resolve civil marriage issues at the civil court.

The third principle is the resolution of conflicts between the civil court and the Shariah Court where one party converts to Islam.

The amendments aim to overcome legal loopholes and overlap in existing laws.

The G25 is hopeful that the amendments to Act 164 will put to an end the injustices suffered by non-Muslim wives in the numerous cases that have come before the civil court since the Shamala case in 2004, where the husband converts to Islam and, to compound matters, converts the infant children of the marriage without the consent of the wife.

The common factor in all these cases was that the unilateral conversion was done to spite the wife and deny her custody of the children.

The relevant provision of the federal constitution in respect to the religion of a minor is Article 12(4).

This provision states :-

12(4) 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.

However, the Federal Court decision in the case of Subashini in 2008, has compounded the problem for the mothers in such cases because it ruled that “parent” means either parent and not both parents.

The Bar Council and many legal experts are of the view that the Federal Court ruling in the above case is wrong.

Article 160 of the federal constitution explains the rules of interpretation .

The Eleventh Schedule under section 2 (94) and (95) state that words importing the masculine gender include females and words in the singular include plural and vice versa.

It is also to be noted that until 2002 , the Bahasa Malaysia version of the federal constitution, as published by the government printers, translated the word “parent” as “ibu bapa”.

However, in the 2002 edition, the word “parent” was translated as “ibu atau bapa”.
Clearly, for the word “ibu bapa “ to be changed to “ ibu atau bapa” would require an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

But from what could be ascertained, there has been no such amendment.

In light of the above, the G25 would urge the government to amend Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution in order to nullify the Federal Court decision in the Subashini case and make it very clear that the word “parent” in the above Article means both parents and not just a single parent.

In the meantime, we would also urge the government to rectify the mistake made by the government printers in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the federal constitution and restore the translation of “parent” to the original “ibu bapa”.

The G25 sincerely hopes that the government will at the same time address the controversial issue of unilateral conversion of minors by one parent without the consent of the other parent .

At present this is allowed under the existing Federal Territories Islamic Law Enactment and several other state Islamic law Enactments.

However, in April 2009 the Cabinet had decided that children of parents where one of them chooses to convert to Islam, must continue to be raised in the common religion at the time of the marriage.

Enforce cabinet decision on conversion

In this regard we urge the federal government and the relevant state governments to translate the above-mentioned cabinet decision into law by amending the Federal Territories Islamic Law Enactment 1993 and the relevant state Islamic law enactments by making it a requirement for both parents to consent to the conversion of their child /children.

This would be in line with the third core principle announced by the prime minister of resolving conflicts between civil and syariah courts where one party to a marriage converts to Islam, and will put into practice the government’s intention to overcome legal loopholes and overlap in existing laws.

Our objection to the idea of unilateral conversion of minors to Islam, is that, besides being unfair to non-Muslims, it entrenches inequalities in Malaysia and does so in the name of Islam.

It implies that a Muslim parent, even if newly converted, has more rights than a non-Muslim parent.

This is contrary to Article 8 of the federal constitution which guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

This article further provides that there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the grounds only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender, in any law.

We note that in all the cases of unilateral conversion of children following the father’s conversion to Islam, the Islamic authorities had allowed the conversion apparently without inquiring into the background of the husband involved and without giving the wife the opportunity to be heard.

In this respect, we would urge the Islamic authorities to undertake the proper investigations in order to determine the real reason for the person wishing to convert.

This may prevent would-be converts from using conversion to escape his responsibilities to his family under civil law, thus abusing the right to convert and making a mockery of Islam.

We would further urge the Islamic authorities concerned to guide the convert on the path of righteousness and prevent him from denying the rights of his non-Muslim wife and that of their children.

Indeed, good and righteous conduct on the part of husbands and fathers towards their wives and children are enjoined in the Quran.

Finally, the G25 also welcomes the announcement by the prime minister of the setting-up of a task force to study the issue of sex crimes, especially rape, involving children.

This is timely given the reported rise in sexual crimes against children.

We hope that the task force will recommend the setting-up of a register of sex offenders and to make it an offence to be in possession of child pornographic materials.

G25 is a group of retired Malay top senior civil servants.

Kula bids guarded welcome to Najib move

DAP Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran hailed the government’s move to have interfaith disputes besetting civil marriages resolved in a civil court as a “crucial dent to an otherwise relentless drift towards syariah law in the country”.

Counsel to kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi, perhaps the most poignant victim of the tug-of-war between civil and Islamic jurisdictions that has in recent years roiled race-cum-religious relations in Malaysia, Kulasegaran said:

“Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s disclosure that amendments to the Law Reform Act 1976 on marriage and divorce will be tabled in October’s sitting of Parliament is balm for battered hearts, especially in cases where estranged parents fight for the custody of children who have been converted to Islam by a converted spouse.”

He said the proposed admendments to enable child custody disputes in civilly-contracted marriages to be resolved in civil courts under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 was the “only logical nostrum for a troubled scenario, where the application of supremacist religious principles inevitably means civil ones are trolled”.

Kulasegaran cautioned that the PM's disclosure, on National Women’s Day yesterday, that balm was coming for the fraught issue of mothers left bereft of their surreptiously converted children by an abruptly converted father should not be taken as a fait accompli.

“The forces of religious reaction may yet intervene to derail matters - let’s hope they don't and if they do, they don’t succeed, because this has been a hopelessly protracted issue that cries out for the civil remedy now proposed by the government,” said the lawyer-legislator.

Kulasegaran has, since 2009, been counsel to Indira, whose three children were converted to Islam by her estranged husband after he himself converted to Islam.

Her struggle for the custody and her right to determine the religion of her children has become a cause celebre.

The pre-school teacher had applied to the civil courts for relief of her predicament but remedies she obtained on occasion turned out to be transient as syariah imperatives supervened to trump civil considerations.

“I hope we are about to witness a crucial dent to an otherwise relentless drift towards syariah law in this country,” observed Kulasegaran.

“Being neither an optimist nor a pessimist, I wait to see the fine print on the proposed amendments to the 1976 law before I can say for sure a stall has been dealt to the forces pushing for theocracy in this country,” he asserted.

Najib: Interfaith disputes in civil marriages to be resolved in civil court

The cabinet has agreed to table amendments to the law to ensure interfaith disputes involving civil marriages be resolved in civil court, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said today.

He said the amendment to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 will be tabled in the next parliamentary sitting in October.

“One issue that is controversial and has courted all sorts of reaction from society is the problem of conversion, especially when a divorce takes place and one spouse has converted to Islam,” said Najib at the National Women's Day celebration in Putrajaya today.

“Cases like this arise from time to time with voices demanding that we seek a way out.”

He said there were three underlying principles to the amendment, the first being that any issues related to divorce in civil marriages be resolved in civil court.

This would ensure that issues such as child custody and child support were handled fairly, he said.

The second principle is that it would allow couples a chance to resolve their marriage dispute, and let them carry on with their lives and even re-marry, in the case of non-Muslims, Najib said.

“Thirdly, the conflict between the civil and syariah court arises when one spouse converts to Islam. (This amendment) will resolve the lacuna which exists,” he said.

Najib said the Home Ministry will table the amendment bill in the Dewan Rakyat.

Also present were Minister in the Prime Minister Department Azalina Othman Said and Women, Family and Community Development Minister Rohani Abdul Karim.

At a press conference later, Rohani said Azalina, who is the de facto law minister, will be handling the amendments.

She said the cabinet did not discuss in detail how to resolve ongoing interfaith custody cases, but added that a task force will be set up to address the matter.

The cabinet had decided in 2009 that a child must be raised in the faith professed by both parents at the time of the marriage.

The decision was made following news that M Indira Ghandi’s estranged husband, K Patmanathan aka Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah, had converted their three children to Islam without her consent.

However, the Conference of Rulers later that year put the brakes on the issue and the proposed amendments were never tabled in Parliament.

Early this year, another cabinet committee was set up to resolve the outstanding issue of unilateral conversions.

Court rejects appeal by trio who want to leave Islam

The Court of Appeal in Kuching, Sarawak, today dismissed an appeal by three people from the state who want to leave Islam.

The three are Jenny Peter @ Nur Muzdhalifah Abdullah, Tiong Choo Ting @ Mohd Syafiq Abdullah and Salina Jau Abdullah. All of them were represented by state PKR chief Baru Bian.

They named the director of the Sarawak Islamic Department, Sarawak Islamic Council and the National Registration Department (NRD) as the respondents.

All three of them want to compel the Sarawak Islamic Department, and the council to issue letters of release (surat murtad) to the applicants to be released from the religion of Islam.

They also sought to compel the director-general of the NRD to change the Muslim names of the applicants to their original names.

The three-member bench led by Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ruled that the question on whether they could leave Islam, should be brought to the Syariah Court.

The other judges were Justice Badariah Sahamid and Justice Kamardin Hashim.

Their fate is different from that of Rooney Rebit – the High Court in Kuching on March 24 granted his judicial review and ruled that he had a constitutional right to choose his faith. The decision was made just before the Sarawak state elections.

The High Court had then disagreed with the NRD's insistence that Rooney @ Azmi Mohamad Azam required a release letter from the Syariah Court to change his religion.

In Rooney's case, even Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had stepped in and assured Sarawak chief minister Adenan Satem that the NRD would drop its appeal against the Bidayuh man.

Setback to freedom of religion

Lawyer Baru described the decisions in the trio's case as a setback for freedom of religion in Sarawak.

He said the applicants were originally non-Muslims who had left Islam after a divorce or death of a spouse.

“All three had sworn in their statutory declarations that they are no longer practising the Islamic faith,” said Baru in a statement today.

“The main issue before the High Court and the Court of Appeal was whether the Syariah Court or the Civil Court has jurisdiction in such cases.

“Our argument is that since the applicants are no longer Muslims, as sworn in their statutory declarations, the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over them.”

But the High Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled that the question of whether the applicants are now ‘murtad’ (apostates) should be decided by the Syariah Court, according to Baru.

They had cited the Federal Court's decision in the Lina Joy case and the interpretation of Article 121A of the Federal Constitution.

Lina Joy had mounted a legal challenge against the NRD to change her religious status from 'Muslim' to 'Christian', but after much controversy, the Federal Court ruled against her in 2007.

Baru said that they relied on the dissenting judgment by the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Richard Malanjum, in the Lina Joy case.

He had argued that the three are no longer practising Islam and the statutory declaration and documentary evidence of their baptisms are sufficient.

“We also argued that the Syariah Court Ordinance 2001 of Sarawak is silent on the issue of jurisdiction over apostasy or ‘murtad’ matters," he said.

“The Syariah Court itself submitted that since the Syariah Court ordinance 2001 is silent on jurisdiction, then the civil High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction and its powers under the Courts of Judicature Act to allow the applications."

The Ba'kelalan assemblyperson said that they had initially asked for an adjournment in today's appeal as there is a similar case at the Federal Court, namely Syarifah Nooraffyzza Wan Hossen vs the director of Sarawak Islamic Department and three others.

However, Baru said the appellate court decided to hear the cases as no dates had been fixed for Sharifah's case.

“As a result of today's proceeding, the three must now appeal to the Federal Court for the Lina Joy case to be revisited. We hope leave (permission) will be granted to have this case fully ventilated at the apex court,” he said.

To questions whether the cases are different from Rooney's, Baru said the Rooney case was politically resolved but the facts are also distinguishable from the three cases.

‘Please stop the rumours’

ACTOR and comedian Acappan (pic) is asking the public to stop spreading rumours that he has converted to Islam, reported Kosmo!.

The rumours started when a photo of Acappan attending a buka puasa event at a mosque in Sepang circulated on social media.

In one of the photos, Acappan was seen with four other men, including former dangdut singer Iwan and actor Isma Aliff.

He was also rumoured to have traded in his birth name, Samynathan Rethinan, for a Muslim name, Shahrin Abdullah.

“I only took the photos as a keepsake,” said the 58-year-old actor.

Acappan, who acted in many Malay dramas in the 1990s, said the fake stories shocked his family before they discovered the truth.

“Please stop spreading these rumours because it involves my family’s dignity as well as mine,” said Acappan, who is a Hindu.

Precedent set, MIC leader moots bill on unilateral conversion

A MIC leader urged all lawmakers to take advantage of the government’s openness since a precedent had been set with the fast-tracking of the controversial Hudud Bill.

What transpired during the last Dewan Rakyat sitting for the May session, according to S Vell Paari, had opened the door for others.

“Since the bill set a precedent, other members cannot be denied from proposing bills to protect the rights of all Malaysians,” he added in a media statement to Malaysiakini.

The MIC central working committee member suggested a bill on the contentious issue of children being unilaterally converted to Islam by one of their parents who embraced the faith.

“Table bills to further strengthen and protect the rights of vernacular schools in Malaysia.

“Also a bill calling for serious punishment against those who continue to criticise communities in Malaysia for exercising their democratic right to vote whom they choose such as the Chinese community,” he said.

“When these bills are tabled, I hope they too will be fast-tracked in line with the current openness to such matters,” he added.

Vell Paari was responding to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said who said the government fast-tracking Hadi's bill proved its openness and commitment to parliamentary reforms.

The proposal to bring forward the motion yesterday was brought by Azalina and seconded by Deputy Works Minister Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin.

Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia had allowed the proposal to lift the motion listed as number 15 or the last item in the Parliament's order paper despite objection from DAP lawmakers.

The debate, which was slated for the afternoon, was postponed after Hadi requested for more time to allow MPs to prepare themselves.

Meanwhile, Vell Paari expressed appreciation to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and Azalina over the government’s commitment towards parliamentary reforms.

As for Hadi’s bill, the MIC leader said being a MP, the PAS president had the right to propose a bill which is in line with the policies of the Islamic party.

“But for those who are against it like me, it is also our democratic right to oppose the bill. We should call upon our representatives to lobby other MPs to vote against the bill,” he added.

Hadi’s bill seeks to amend the law governing the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts to allow for the implementation of the Islamic penal code in Kelantan.

MCA and other BN component parties have also voiced their objection.

MP seeks PM assurance on 2009 Cabinet unilateral conversion issue

KUALA LUMPUR, May 24 — Claiming confusion, opposition lawmaker M Kulasegaran wants Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to provide assurance that the 2009 Cabinet decision against unilateral religious conversions of children by one parent still stands.

The Ipoh Barat MP described Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom’s recent remark that unilateral conversion to Islam by one parent was constitutional, was a “U-turn” of the Cabinet decision for minors to be raised in the original religion practised by their parents at the time of their marriage should one spouse later convert.

“The PM must step in to clear the air and assert that the 2009 Cabinet directive on unilateral conversion is very much intact,” Kulasegaran said during a press conference at the Parliament lobby.

“He should be bold enough to ask Jamil Khir to withdraw the new stand which is unfair, illogical and unreasonable,” he added.

Jamil Khir, in a parliamentary written answer yesterday, said that any law banning unilateral conversion would be “unconstitutional”.

“The public is shocked by this answer which is a set back on promised reforms in this area,” Kulasegaran said.

Despite the Cabinet directive, Putrajaya has yet to introduce laws regarding unilateral conversion.

Last year, a five-man Cabinet committee was set up to deal with interfaith custody and conversion.

“So is the parliamentary answer provided by Jamil Khir the latest and new policy stand taken by the Cabinet committee?” Kulasegaran asked.

The DAP legislator and lawyer insisted that the word “parent” under Article 160 (1) of the Federal Constitution mentioning the conversion of a minor should mean consent of both parents and not just one parent.

“It is obvious and clear that the 2009 Cabinet ruling on this issue was correctly decided and in line with the interpretation aspect,” he said.

'Jamil Khir’s stand on unilateral conversion defective'

The government is wrong in citing the Subashini case to say that it is unconstitutional to ban unilateral conversions, says the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST).

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom in a parliamentary reply yesterday said a ban on unilateral conversions contravenes Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.

Jamil Khir said this is affirmed in the R Subashini vs T Saravanan case.

However, MCCBCHST chairperson Jagir Singh said this view is defective, given the facts of the Subashini case.

“The MCCBCHST reiterates that if a single parent is allowed to convert a child, then there will be no justice and finality in the matter and it will have the effect of ignoring the constitutional provisions.

“If a single-parent-can-convert-a-child approach is taken, then this matter will persist even for the next 100 years, with justice being denied to the non-converting spouse and the matter can never be put to rest,” Jagir said.

The case cited involves Hindu mother R Subashini’s challenge of her son’s conversion to Islam by her estranged husband after he embraced Islam.

Jamil Khir said the Federal Court case’s dismissal of Subashini’s application affirmed that the word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) means a single parent can change the religion of the child.

However, Jagir (photo) said Jamil Khir is mistaken because the court dismissed Subashini’s application on a technicality.

Subashini had filed for divorce before three months had lapsed since her estranged husband T Saravanan’s conversion to Islam, but the law states it could only be filed three months after the conversions have lapsed.

Jagir also cited constitutional law professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, who had then observed that the Federal Court’s 2-1 judgment did not change the word ‘parent’ to mean singular instead of plural.

The highest law

In the dissenting view, Justice Abdul Aziz Mohamed also states that the wife has equal right in preferring that the child is not converted to Islam, Jagir said.

“In view of the above, it is wrong for anyone to quote the Subashini case as authority for allowing unilateral conversion by one parent.

“If Article 12(4) were to be so interpreted, then it (Federal Constitution) being the highest law, a single parent could one day convert a child to one religion and the next day the other parent can convert the same child to a different religion. This would be absurd,” he said.

Furthermore, he said, it would be equally absurd to later say that a child who has been converted to Islam by a single parent cannot convert to another religion due to syariah law.

“Religious law cannot override the constitution,” Jagir said.

On March 9, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri said the drafting of laws pertaining to the unilateral conversion of minors has been completed.

“From the aspect of civil (law), we do not have much problems, but this also relates to syariah (law),” Nancy said then.

From the syariah law aspect, she said, Jamil Khir has been obtaining feedback from the state religious bodies.

“A series of consultations with the states have been conducted,” Nancy said.

The cabinet had set up a five-member special committee in its latest attempt to deal with the interfaith conversion dispute and custody matters.

Kelantan cops on hunt for Indira Gandhi’s ex-spouse, border teams on alert

PUTRAJAYA, May 23 — Kelantan police today said they are already searching for M. Indira Gandhi’s fugitive ex-husband and have asked border authorities to be on the lookout for him.

Kelantan’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) chief Assistant Commissioner of Police Mohamad Fakri Che Sulaiman said the state police are working with the Immigration Department to “monitor the movement” of Muhammad Riduan Abdullah.

“Kelantan Police has informed all the districts in Kelantan and the districts close to the border plus the marine police to be on the alert,” the officer in charge of criminal investigation under the Kelantan police contingent told Malay Mail Online in an email response today.

Indira and her lawyer M. Kulasegaran had previously voiced fears that Muhammad Riduan may have or is planning to flee across over the Malaysian border from Kelantan to other countries such as Thailand.

Kulasegaran had said Muhammad Riduan’s last known location in 2014 was in Kelantan’s Kota Baru.

Today, Mohamad Fakri noted that Indira’s ex-husband has been put on the wanted-list by the Perak police and said the Kelantan police will “follow through”.

“To date there (has) been no information as to the whereabouts of Muhammad Riduan in Kelantan,” he told Malay Mail Online.

He confirmed the Kelantan police have already initiated the search as directed by the federal police.

He said anyone with any information on Muhammad Riduan’s whereabouts can directly contact Ipoh police headquarters’ senior investigation officer Assistant Superintendent of Police Kamariah Jamaludin (016-5249091) or Pasir Mas district’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) chief Deputy Superintendent of Police Samsulmuddin Sulaiman (012-998 2027).

In a protracted legal battle, the Ipoh High Court had in 2010 granted Indira custody over all three of her children and later ordered Muhammad Riduan to return the youngest child he had snatched away in 2009.

But Muhammad Riduan did not comply with the 2014 order to return Prasana Diksa, resulting in the Ipoh High Court’s order the same year for his arrest over his contempt of court.

The Ipoh High Court also issued a mandamus order the same year to compel the police to arrest him and return Prasana Diksa to Indira.

On April 29, the Federal Court upheld the order to compel the police to arrest Muhammad Riduan and said the Ipoh High Court will monitor the progress of the execution of the arrest warrant.

The apex court said then however that the Ipoh High Court should not have asked the police to recover the youngest child due to conflicting child custody orders from both the civil courts and Shariah courts.

On May 4, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said that he had instructed his officers to locate and to arrest Muhammad Riduan for contempt of court from the day the Federal Court gave its decision, adding that there was no information to show that he had left the country.