Share |

Sunday, 28 August 2016

MIC hopes LRA amendments will end disputes

KUALA LUMPUR: MIC president Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam hopes that the amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 will put to rest the disputes and conflicts between civil and Syariah laws and overlapping jurisdiction on interfaith child custody.

“We have been vigorously voicing these issues for many years and we are happy to see the fruits of our efforts. I have raised this matter at Cabinet meetings on several occasions and have personally met the Attorney-General and presented our views and suggestions to resolve this matter,” he said in a statement.

Dr. Subramaniam, who is also the Health Minister and part of a five-member committee to look into the interfaith custody issue, said he was pleased that the amendments will be tabled in Parliament in October and finally resolve this problem.

“We will request a briefing from the Attorney-General’s Chambers on these amendments and will put forward appropriate views if necessary to ensure a solution,” he said.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said divorce matters that involved civil marriages must be settled in a civil court even if one of the spouses converts to Islam, under legal reforms to be tabled in Parl­i­­a­­­­­­­m­ent in October.

In announcing changes to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA), he said: “Any vacuum or overlap in existing laws can be resolved once changes are made to the Act.”

Malaysian Consultative Council Of Buddhism, Christianity, Hin­duism, Sikhism and Taoism secretary-general Prematilaka Seriseni said the Government’s proposal still did not address the problem of unilateral conversion of children.

He said the amendments were nothing new and only “mouths” the February 2016 Federal Court decision on the S. Deepa-versus-Izwan Abdullah custody battle where it was determined that the Syariah court had no jurisdiction over the dissolution of marriages even if one spouse had converted to Islam.

Amid all the legal inconsistencies, Prematilaka urged Najib to clear the air on the Government’s ban on unilateral conversions.

“The PM needs to follow his own Cabinet decision in 2009 and address this problem. We need to stop any parent from converting their children without consent of the other,” he said.

Meanwhile, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom welcomed Najib’s amendment proposals, claiming it would put to rest disputes that may arise when one spouse converts to Islam.

The radicalisation of Islam in Malaysia

UNIVERSITI Sains Malaysia political scientist Dr Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid is ringing the alarm bell.

Having studied political Islam for years, he says it is time to alert the authorities that Muslims here are “surely but slowly becoming radicalised”.

“Before the situation deteriorates further to what we see in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is better that we take the necessary precautions and do whatever we need to do – whether it is a revamp of the school curriculum – to correct the situation,’’ he says.

He says the essence of Islam as a loving, compassionate and tolerant faith is as good as destroyed in those countries and he does not want to see that happen here.

For Dr Fauzi, extremism and radicalisation in Malaysia did not happen over a short five- to 10-year period but actually germinated over more than a generation.

He says since the 1990s, the traditional Islamic theology taught in Government schools has gradually shifted to a view of theology derived from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. What this does, he says, is that it moulds a certain kind of mindset, one that is exclusivist, supremacist, with less respect for others, so minorities and dissenting voices are viewed “in a certain way”.

In 1979, the Iranian Revolution sparked an increased interest in Islam all over the world, including in Malaysia. Iran follows the Syiah tradition of Islam. So oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which follows the Sunni tradition and wanted to counter Iran’s influence, tapped into this global interest in Islam by offering many student scholarships and donating money to numerous institutions and charities in the developing Muslim world.

This helped them stamp their strand of ultra conservative Islam – commonly referred to as Wahhabism or Salafism – all over the world, including in Malaysia.

In the 1980s and 1990s, many Malaysians went overseas for their higher education. Due to the interest in Islam, many headed to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular – thanks to those generous scholarships – to study religion and were exposed to the Wahhabi/Salafist way of thinking.

When they returned, Dr Fauzi says, they brought back the Wahhabi/Salafist way of thinking – and that way of thinking makes it easier to radicalise someone because it is intolerant and exclusivist.

He says some of the students who returned became religious teachers and ustaz, so they went on to instil this way of thinking within the younger generation.

And over a span of 30 years or so, he says, the students who grew up imbibing the Wahhabi/Salafist-oriented curriculum in schools are now in the work force. Some are in the civil service, some have become influential bureaucrats, scholars, academics, lawyers, others hold positions of power while some have joined politics. So they hold the levers in administration that allows them to make decisions.

“People don’t realise it but this way of thinking has now become mainstream,’’ says Dr Fauzi who recently published a research paper on “The Extensive Salafization of Malaysian Islam’’.

Shaped by history

Dr Chandra Muzzafar explains that Wahhabism is a puritanical notion of trying to restore a “pure and unadulterated” Islam.

One thing that he finds “very dangerous’’ about Wahhabism is the “takfiri” attitude.
Concerned: Dr Chandra feels people here are ‘very comfortable in their ignorance’.
Takfiri is the labelling and accusing of a Muslim of apostasy or being impure because that person does not adhere to the Wahhabi/Salafist way of practicing Islam.

“They think, ‘We are the only ones who are pure and the only ones who represent Islam’. Takfiri is dangerous because it allows Muslims to take very extreme positions. It actually legitimises killing. They might think spilling this person’s blood is halal (permissible) because he is not really a Muslim or because his wife doesn’t use a hijab (head scarf) or because he does all these things (that Wahhabis/Salafis disallow),” says Dr Chandra, who is a political scientist and the president of the International Movement for a Just World.

Dr Chandra says one interesting fact to note about the founder of Wahhabism/Salafism, Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab, is how his thinking was shaped by what he saw in Istanbul during the rule of the Ottoman Empire, which spanned 600 years, ending only in 1922.

“The Ottoman empire was actually the most important political entity within the Muslim world at that time but when Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab went to Istanbul and saw the lifestyle there, he was revolted. He saw it as the Ottoman’s corruption of Islam.’’

This led him to propagate “his version of ‘pure and unadulterated’ Islam”.

Dr Fauzi believes that what Malaysia is experiencing right now with troubled interfaith relations is the result of this exclusivist Wahhabi/Salafist thinking that has crept into the education curriculum and mindset.

He says this explains why incidents in which members of other faiths are treated insensitively keep cropping up, like Universiti Teknologi Malaysia’s use of slides demeaning Hindus in one of its courses, or school principals making Hindu students watch the slaughtering of cows (which Hindus consider sacred) in the school compound for Hari Raya Haji celebrations.

“It shows the exclusivist line of thinking. They can’t think along the lines that a particular action will aggrieve a part of the school population even though they are the minority.

“When the Holy Prophet practised justice, justice is most meaningful when it is practised on those who are not a majority,’’ he says.

Dr Fauzi also points out how the Holy Prophet engaged Christians in dialogue and this was done without agreeing with the Christian view of Jesus, which means there was tolerance during the Holy Prophet’s time.
Closing off: Dr Ahmad is concerned about the lack of debate and closing of minds.
He also notes that during the Holy Prophet’s time, when it was time for a visiting delegation of Najran Christians to pray, they prayed in the mosque.

“The tolerance of the Holy Prophet is just amazing. Can you imagine the Saudis and the orthodox Muslims of this day agreeing to this?’’

Dr Fauzi says it is of concern too when there is also a closing off of Muslim discourse, debate and the mind.

He says some respected international Muslim scholars are labelled “secular” or “liberal’’ to keep the Muslim masses from hearing them out; others who are deemed to be not toeing the establishment line are banned or find it hard to book venues in which they can speak.

All this means that only one way of thinking is allowed to perpetuate. And that, says Dr Fauzi emphatically, is not healthy.

He was disappointed when the debate on religion between Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin and Home Ministry religious officer Dr Zamihan Mat Zin in February was cancelled. He says allowing such exchanges and differences of thought to come out should trigger more research, more thinking and a flourishing of ideas – but, unfortunately, this is not happening currently in Malaysia.

He also questions why when fatwas (religious edicts) are issued, no one offers an explanation and rationale for them so that people can intellectualise, argue and understand or accept.

“The religious establishment gets very irritated when they are criticised,’’ he adds.

The genie’s out already

Dr Chandra knows all about the lack of debate in Malaysia.

In 2010, he organised an international conference in Malaysia and managed to get the attendance of the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, “who is 100% Sunni’’, and one of the world’s leading experts on Imam Syafie (whose Sunni school of jurisprudence Malaysia follows).

According to Dr Chandra, Sheikh Ahmad has been described as the “Mufti of Humanity” and is very much against hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since Dr Chandra thought it would be good for all the muftis here to meet with the Syrian Grand mufti, he arranged a meeting but no one turned up.

“They didn’t want to meet him. I think it’s a classic case of ‘katak di bawah tempurung’ (frog under a coconut shell, an idiom meaning to live a sheltered life).

“They are very comfortable in their ignorance. They don’t want anyone to tell them, ‘Look maybe you are not right’. They don’t want dialogue.”

Dr Fauzi adds that because of this closed mode of thinking, many Wahabis/Salafists have joined Umno including 40 ulama muda in 2010.

And, he says, they are already influencing the party.

Although Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has given the assurance that Umno will not turn into an extremist party, Dr Fauzi feels there are no guarantees it will not happen some time in the future when Najib is no longer in office.

“It is like taking a genie out of the bottle. You can’t put it back in,’’ he says.

Dr Fauzi also cautions against closing the gates on discourse because this might have adverse effects.

“In this age of social media where there is easy access to all sorts of information, when you repress and people are not able to release their intellectual curiosity and youthful energy, they may gravitate towards IS and radical movements online.

“They want religion. They want Islam but they don’t want something that is identified with the establishment. Youths get fed up and this could be another cause of radicalisation.’’

Dr Chandra simply wishes people would engage.

“I hope there will be discussions of things like this rather than allowing one particular stream of thought to establish a monopoly and say that everyone else should keep quiet.’’

Successful racial integration is a hallmark of great leadership

We will soon celebrate our 59th Merdeka Day. Every one of us we must surely beam in pride witnessing the socio-economic progress which we have made together as a nation since gaining independence from the British in 1957.

Influenced by diverse colonial rule, Malaysia is probably the most multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation amongst its Asean neighbours, if not the wider Asian community. Guided by the profound principles of the Rukunegara, we have demonstrated to the world that people of diverse backgrounds can indeed live in harmony, work together and build a great nation.

Ever since we gained independence, we have never looked back. We have continued to enjoy political stability and worked relentlessly, together, transforming our beloved country into an economic powerhouse. We have enjoyed an economic growth rate of up to 8 percent for much of the past 25 years. The fruits of our own labour can now be seen everywhere. Today, we enjoy a quality of life parallel to that of in developed nations.

What has facilitated this success story is our willingness to coexist in peace and harmony, except for the ugly chapter of the May 13 racial riots, which unfortunately sticks out like a sore thumb. The May 13 chapter perhaps reinforces a powerful message that intolerance can shatter years of collective hard work within an instant.

Unfortunately, this unity and harmony, which we have always celebrated, is slowly but surely disintegrating. Ethnic relationships are continuing to deteriorate especially post the 12th general election. An obvious tell-tale sign is the fact that the authorities are now forced to compel citizens to fly the national flag in the run up to Merdeka Day. This is indeed a sad reality which should ring alarm bells.

Racial slurs are becoming a norm these days where vested groups selfishly pawn the well-being of the nation by organising racially-charged demonstrations. Unfortunately all these happenings appear or seemingly appear to be condoned by politicians. We crave for a rebuke from our national leaders, but the culprits continue repeating such lowly acts.

While it is the responsibility of every individual, national unity is eventually shaped by political will. Politicians have to decide if they want a divided or united Malaysia. The peace and stability which we enjoy today can only be sustained if the politicians chose preserve it.

Differences in political ideologies and varying viewpoints are bound to exist in any diverse country, but we must continue to respect each other’s existence. There are bound to be challenges but all that we have achieved thus far must never be traded in ransom.

Agreed that racial polarisation is probably the biggest hindrance in achieving a unified Malaysia, but we have entrusted political leaders and administrative institutions to effectively deal with it. As such, people who walk the corridors of power must react decisively to current realities before we reach a point of no return.

Commendable leadership in a country like ours cannot be judged merely on mega infrastructure development, but it must be grounded on how successfully racial integration is realised.

Selamat Hari Merdeka!

DARSHAN SINGH DHILLON is president, Malaysia Consumers Movement (MCM).

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.