The Star
By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY
By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY
The Cabinet has won all-round praise for its recent decisions relating to the conversion controversy among spouses and their children. The real test lies in giving legal effect to the decisions for a just and lasting solution.
THE swift decision by the Cabinet on Wednesday to end the long-standing dilemma faced by non-Muslims when one spouse converts to Islam, and proceeds to convert the children to the faith without the approval of the other spouse, has won applause from all sides.
THE swift decision by the Cabinet on Wednesday to end the long-standing dilemma faced by non-Muslims when one spouse converts to Islam, and proceeds to convert the children to the faith without the approval of the other spouse, has won applause from all sides.
Even the most stringent of government critics – anonymous commentators on political blogs – have praised the speed with which the decision was made and the strong display of political will by the less-then-a-month-old Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
However, they are waiting to see how the political decision will be translated into legal effect for a just and lasting solution to this long-standing dilemma.
“Kudos to Najib’s Cabinet ... the decision is the right one,” said a commentator in the Malaysian Insider political website, which normally attracts high volumes of anti-establishment comments.
On Wednesday, the two-week old Cabinet decided on two matters related to the conversion controversy that, in part, had angered non-Muslims voters into punishing the Government in the 2008 general election.
In the first decision, the Cabinet said children should follow the faith that their parents had agreed on at the time of their marriage.
Second, civil courts are the right place to dissolve a civil law marriage in the event a non-Muslim spouse converts to Islam.
The Cabinet has also instructed the Attorney-General to look at all relevant laws needing amendment in line with the decisions.
In addition, any amendment to the Islamic laws will be brought up to the Rulers who are all heads of Islam in their respective states.
These are landmark decisions that seek to finally resolve a host of dilemma faced by the non-converting spouse after the partner converts, and begins to convert the children as well, seize the matrimonial properties, start a war for custody of the children and seek to annul their civil law marriage in the Islamic court.
The Cabinet’s decision follows the latest case of a kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi, whose three children aged one, 11 and 12 were allegedly converted to Islam by her husband K. Patmanathan who, after embracing Islam, is known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah.
Indira Gandhi alleges her children were converted without her consent and is filing a suit in the Ipoh High Court for declarations and various relief.
The indeterminate situation of conversion gives rise to numerous complications. One of them is: while under Islamic law the civil law marriage is annulled, the marriage remains under civil law and is protected by all the provisions of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1967.
Over the years the failure of political leaders, parliament and the courts to find a just and lasting solution had given rise to a huge legal grey area.
“This is a landmark decision and if given legal effect, will resolve numerous legal and other complications associated with the conversion controversy,” said Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan.
“It is also significant the Government has shown political will to address the issue stagnating for many years,” he said, adding that the real challenge lay ahead – to give legal effect to the political decisions.
He also worried over the status of individuals and families – on both sides of the divide – already affected by the issue but have not obtained relief in the court.
He said any forthcoming legal changes must take into account the status of these affected individuals and families.
Lawyer and DAP leader S. Sivanesan who is handling over 30 such cases of conversions, mostly involving Hindu spouses, praised the Cabinet for the “bold decisions.”
Sivanesan, Indira Gandhi’s counsel, said that with the decision the controversies behind conversion cases could be resolved without having to amend Article 121(A) of the Federal Constitution – which stated civil courts had no jurisdiction on matters involving Islam.
One thorny issue was to ensure the converted spouse fulfilled all the obligations under his or her civil marriage including welfare of children, maintenance, custody and divorce, he said.
Currently the converted spouse escapes the obligations, arguing the issues come under the jurisdiction of Islamic law.
The jurisdiction of the various state Islamic councils also needs to be clarified, lawyers and rights activists say.
Numerous suggestions to clarify, streamline and resolve the controversies have been suggested in many memorandums to the Government ever since the deathbed conversion of Everest climber M. Moorthy made the headlines in 2005.
The Cabinet’s display of political will is refreshing. The real challenge, however, is in giving legal effect to the decisions made to ensure a just and lasting solution is possible for all.
However, they are waiting to see how the political decision will be translated into legal effect for a just and lasting solution to this long-standing dilemma.
“Kudos to Najib’s Cabinet ... the decision is the right one,” said a commentator in the Malaysian Insider political website, which normally attracts high volumes of anti-establishment comments.
On Wednesday, the two-week old Cabinet decided on two matters related to the conversion controversy that, in part, had angered non-Muslims voters into punishing the Government in the 2008 general election.
In the first decision, the Cabinet said children should follow the faith that their parents had agreed on at the time of their marriage.
Second, civil courts are the right place to dissolve a civil law marriage in the event a non-Muslim spouse converts to Islam.
The Cabinet has also instructed the Attorney-General to look at all relevant laws needing amendment in line with the decisions.
In addition, any amendment to the Islamic laws will be brought up to the Rulers who are all heads of Islam in their respective states.
These are landmark decisions that seek to finally resolve a host of dilemma faced by the non-converting spouse after the partner converts, and begins to convert the children as well, seize the matrimonial properties, start a war for custody of the children and seek to annul their civil law marriage in the Islamic court.
The Cabinet’s decision follows the latest case of a kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi, whose three children aged one, 11 and 12 were allegedly converted to Islam by her husband K. Patmanathan who, after embracing Islam, is known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah.
Indira Gandhi alleges her children were converted without her consent and is filing a suit in the Ipoh High Court for declarations and various relief.
The indeterminate situation of conversion gives rise to numerous complications. One of them is: while under Islamic law the civil law marriage is annulled, the marriage remains under civil law and is protected by all the provisions of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1967.
Over the years the failure of political leaders, parliament and the courts to find a just and lasting solution had given rise to a huge legal grey area.
“This is a landmark decision and if given legal effect, will resolve numerous legal and other complications associated with the conversion controversy,” said Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan.
“It is also significant the Government has shown political will to address the issue stagnating for many years,” he said, adding that the real challenge lay ahead – to give legal effect to the political decisions.
He also worried over the status of individuals and families – on both sides of the divide – already affected by the issue but have not obtained relief in the court.
He said any forthcoming legal changes must take into account the status of these affected individuals and families.
Lawyer and DAP leader S. Sivanesan who is handling over 30 such cases of conversions, mostly involving Hindu spouses, praised the Cabinet for the “bold decisions.”
Sivanesan, Indira Gandhi’s counsel, said that with the decision the controversies behind conversion cases could be resolved without having to amend Article 121(A) of the Federal Constitution – which stated civil courts had no jurisdiction on matters involving Islam.
One thorny issue was to ensure the converted spouse fulfilled all the obligations under his or her civil marriage including welfare of children, maintenance, custody and divorce, he said.
Currently the converted spouse escapes the obligations, arguing the issues come under the jurisdiction of Islamic law.
The jurisdiction of the various state Islamic councils also needs to be clarified, lawyers and rights activists say.
Numerous suggestions to clarify, streamline and resolve the controversies have been suggested in many memorandums to the Government ever since the deathbed conversion of Everest climber M. Moorthy made the headlines in 2005.
The Cabinet’s display of political will is refreshing. The real challenge, however, is in giving legal effect to the decisions made to ensure a just and lasting solution is possible for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment