MM Online - Home minister says no plan to amend law to ban unilateral child conversions (extracts)
KUALA LUMPUR, April 4 — The government has no plans to add Clause 88A to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, Home Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said in the Dewan Rakyat today.
Clause 88A was proposed by Barisan Nasional (BN) when it was in power to effectively prohibit any religious conversion of minors by one parent when he or she converts to Islam, but was never implemented due to strong public objections.
“Based on the Federal Court and the High Court's decision in 2018, this ministry is aware of the decision to cancel the unilateral conversion for five individuals under 18 years of age,” Muhyiddin said in response to Pengerang MP Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said who raised the issue in the lower House of Parliament.
The home minister said the decision not to proceed was based on a conclusion reached by the Attorney General's Chambers after reconsidering the proposed Clause 88A, which is that it is the judiciary’s role to interpret current laws.
“They came to the conclusion that the courts as a judicial body has the freedom to interpret any legal provisions and the decision of the Federal Court is binding to the lower courts,” Muhyiddin said.
When it is spelt out clearly in the Constitution, there can be no further argument about the matter. We should NOT rely too much on the Judiciary, which we know as in the Adorna case, could be as crooked as the letter 'Z'.
Why is there Pakatan's reluctance to put Clause 88A into black and white?
After all, Clause 88A was proposed by the former BN government to effectively prohibit any religious conversion of minors by one parent when he or she converts to Islam.
Is Pakatan worried about objections from ultra conservative forces?
But then wouldn't such a fear made Pakatan far far worse than BN?
What makes Pakatan far, far worse than BN?
ReplyDeleteHow can Harapan be FAR FAR worse than BN if they are just maintaining status quo? They are only just as bad because religion does things to your brain. It paralyses your thinking. Just like the people who think kidnapping is OK because they were brainwashed into thinking they were doing God's work.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand the Harapan move to table the Bill to reinstate Article 1(2) of the constitution to its original form to restore Sabah and Sarawak to their original status is a giant step forward. Parliament is to vote, 2/3rds majority needed to amend.
Sabah and Sarawak opposition MPs now in a quandary. Toonise is calling their bluff. He will win whatever the outcome. Checkmate.
If their MPs support the Bill and the two states become equal territories to Malaya then they (like Jeffrey Kittingan) have lost a big arguing point. Harapan will be fulfilling their Manifesto. Kaching.
If they oppose the Bill then they will be seen as hypocrites and betrayers, having pushed for this equal status for eons. Harapan will be seen as wanting to fulfil their Manifesto but the opposition stopped them.
QUOTE
CMs have agreed with constitutional amendments, says law minister
Law Minister Liew Vui Keong said the proposed amendments to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution was a "giant step" for Sabah and Sarawak towards restoring its former status.
He said he could not comprehend why opposition MPs from those two states now oppose the amendment bill despite having campaigned for the amendment in the past.
Liew said a briefing on the amendment for MPs was held today but none of the opposition lawmakers showed up
UNQUOTE
Mamak knows it but just can't do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone still remember a previous IGP saying he won't interfere in executing court judgements since he does not know which Laws and Court to apply and follow?
ReplyDeleteAnd the latest news revelations by Suhakam just seems to confirm that the PDRM are already infiltrated by IS ideology and acting as religious enforcement policing.
It's time to get rid of religious extremists hibernating in the PDRM inplementing their own version and form of policing.
What a disgrace the PDRM has become.
If BN was far,far, better than Pakatan, as Ah Mok is saying, why are we arguing today about Clause 88A ?
ReplyDeleteIt never got affected by BN , did it ?
did I say "BN was far,far, better than Pakatan"? Don't put words of your fabrications in my mouth
DeleteIf YYY is alleged to be far, far worse than XXX, it is the same as alleging that XXX is far, far better than YYY.
DeleteThat is just two sides of the same coin.
Just swap the names with Pakatan and BN, and the same logic applies.
'far far better' is very very different from 'far far worse'
DeleteThe former compares the 'better' aspects of two sides, whilst the latter looks at a more shameful angle
can i say ph is far far better than bn when they put a thief on trial in case like 1mdb n src. at the same time, can i say ph is far far worst than bn when they let a thief go without trial in case like bangaloooo n tunnnnnel?
Deletevery very confuse la.
So easy to confuse a wagging dog!
DeleteTrump is alleged to be a far, far worse US President than Obama.
DeleteObama is alleged to be a far, far better US President than Trump.
Just a different way of saying the same thing.
I suspect the Lims made a Faustian bargain over the Bungalow and Tunnel cases.
DeleteThat is why , while lower rung DAP leaders like Ramkarpal may make tin kosong noises, the Lims have stopped being fighters.