Sunday, August 25, 2019

Converted to Islam just for custody of children?

FMT:

Child rights activist voices fears over unilateral conversions

Activist James Nagayam believes the consent of both parents would be best for a developing child. (Facebook pic)
PETALING JAYA: Child rights activist James Nayagam has warned of potential harm to children if the Selangor government goes ahead with its plan to enact a law to allow religious conversion without the consent of one parent.
Acknowledging that such conversions of children would often involve divorce, he said the trauma they would suffer would often be worse than the kind experienced by children in a divorce that did not involve conversion.
He attributed this to the likelihood of greater animosity between parents of different religions.
The trauma would be even worse if a child were to be forcibly taken by one parent, he told FMT.
“A child may even be confined to a particular area where he or she is cut off from other people,” he said.
Claiming that he was talking from his experience with such cases, he said a child would sometimes develop fear of one of the parents.
He also spoke of identity crises and said these would sometimes happen when such children had grown up.
“I’ve spoken to adults as well and some of them don’t practise the religion they were converted to,” he said.
Nagayam said he believed the consent of both parents would be best for a developing child.
Geshina Ayu Mat Saat.
Psychologist Geshina Ayu Mat Saat agreed with some points raised by Nayagam.
“Children whose parents practice different religions may experience confusion or distress or may later become apathetic to religion,” she said.
But she said the effect such a conversion would have on a child when he had grown up would depend on his relationship with each of the parents before and after the divorce. It would also depend on how much religion was observed in the family, she added.
She said psychosocial and spiritual distress might occur if the child felt strongly towards one religion but was coerced to practise another religion.
“It may not occur if there already is an apathetic attitude towards religion in the family or if the child’s religious belief is in tune with his or her legal guardian’s.”
Geshina said older children in a divorce would have developed their own world view as well a strong relationship with either parent.
Kindergarten teacher Indira Gandhi, known for her long court battle against the unilateral conversion of her three children, said children should be left to decide on the religion they would follow only when they had reached 18.

*********
Kaytee notes:
James Nagayam in saying “I’ve spoken to adults as well and some of them don’t practise the religion they were converted to,” hit the issue right on the dot. Divorce cases involving unilateral conversion of minors in the main (with to-me-as-yet unheard of) involves:
(a) the single parent unilaterally converting his or her minors-children to a different religion have been those who have been suspected of seizing custody of the children by way of religious conversion (thus some of them don’t practise the religion they were converted to), and
(b) the religion which the minors were converted into by one parent has always been Islam, where its practice in Malaysia forbids exit from the religion, thereby preventing the non-Muslim (divorced) parent from gaining or regaining custody of the minors-children.
Can anyone tell me of such acrimonious religious conversions into any religion other than Islam?
M Indira Gandhi's case has been the most exposed because of Indira's brave and persistent efforts over a decade of struggle against almost impossible odds.
The laws pertaining to the case (brief extracts) as reported by MM Online:

Whether the civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction to review the actions of a public authority (e.g. Registrar of Muallafs)?

Short answer: Yes.

Because the civil courts’ powers to review a public authority’s actions is a basic part of the Federal Constitution that cannot be altered or removed. The Shariah courts do not have the same power and cannot be given such power as the constitutional safeguards for judiciary independence do not apply to them.

About the civil courts

The Federal Constitution's basic structure includes judicial powers such as judicial review, the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, protection of minorities. Parliament cannot remove such features by amending the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution’s Article 121(1) vests judicial power exclusively in the civil courts.
Judicial powers — including judicial review or the review of public authorities’ actions and decisions — cannot be removed from the civil courts, and cannot be given to any other body who do not have the same level of constitutional protection as civil judges to safeguard their independence.

About the Shariah courts

Unlike the civil courts that are established by and entrenched in the Federal Constitution, Shariah courts only come into existence when the state legislatures make state laws to establish them.

Unlike the civil courts, the constitutional safeguards for judicial independence in Part IX of the Federal Constitution -- including judges' qualifications, appointment, removal, security of tenure and remuneration -- do not apply to Shariah courts.

About the Federal Constitution’s Article 121(1A)

[kt's comment - Mahathir was responsible for this (1A), one of his zillion amendments to the World's most amended Constitution]

Article 121(1A) says civil courts shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts

The core question: Does Article 121(1A) grant exclusive jurisdiction to Shariah court in all matters of Islamic law, including those relating to judicial review?

Short answer: No.


Article 121(1A) does not remove the civil courts’ jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution or laws even when the matter is related to Islamic law.

Unduly simplistic to say Shariah courts must have sole jurisdiction over matters of conversion (as it involves Islamic law and practice). No constitutional amendment, federal law or state law can remove the civil courts' powers of judicial review, interpretation of Constitution and laws; or give them to Shariah courts.

Yes, the above successful challenge by M Indira Gandhi has been thanks to the wise ruling by 5 judges on the Federal Court's five-man panel, namely, Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zainun Ali, Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin and Tan Sri Ramly Ali.

Tan Sri Zainun Ali 


There was another case where the players were/are Chinese, with the divorced mother being the Muslim. Several years (or more) after the divorce, when the kid has grown up somewhat, she returned to Penang as a Muslim and just seized the kid from the poor shocked father who could do nothing as no one in authority wanted to touch his plight with a ten-foot bamboo pole.
Even the so-called brave and defiant then-CM Lim Guan Eng kept his mouth shut and his hands clean a la Pontius Pilate - such was been the predicted outcome of any dispute pertaining to such cases involving one Muslim parent.

usually loud mouthed but ... 

T'was M Indira Gandhi's sad story (still sad until today, no thanks to pathetic piss-poor police so-called investigation and search) that justice has been rightfully restored a la the original (English-version) Constitution [the translated Malay version of the Constitution was a victim of either unwitting or deliberately mis-translations which allowed only one parent to make such an unilateral decision to convert minors into Muslims - can you imagine any unilateral religious conversion of minors by one parent into a non-Islamic religions?].
Today the MB of Selangor wants to propose the restored correct law be reversed to allow once again conversion of minors into Islam be made by only one (Muslim) parent.

MB of Selangor
his aim is just to win Malay votes, a purpose just as wicked as the parent who converted his or her minors-children to Islam but who doesn’t practise the religion he or she were converted to


4 comments:

  1. WARNING...WARNING...WARNING.....FAKE NEWS.....

    QUOTE
    Even the so-called brave and defiant then-CM Lim Guan Eng kept his mouth shut and his hands clean a la Pontius Pilate - such was been the predicted outcome of any dispute pertaining to such cases involving one Muslim parent.
    UNQUOTE

    FACT CHECK....
    QUOTE
    Unilateral conversion unconstitutional, say DAP leaders
    FMT Reporters - August 8, 2019

    PETALING JAYA: Two DAP leaders said today that the proposed amendment to allow unilateral conversion of minors to Islam in Selangor is unconstitutional.

    DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said the party’s stand is to abide by the Federal Court ruling on the M Indira Gandhi case, which upheld that the word “parent” in the Federal Constitution constitutes both the parents of a child.

    “This is a provision in the Federal Constitution and a judgment of the Federal Court. Any conversion cannot be unilateral and must be bilateral,” said Lim.

    “Therefore, we must respect the protection given by the Federal Constitution.”

    Selangor DAP chairman Gobind Singh Deo echoed Lim, saying the party will not give its support for any bills in the state assembly that allow for the unilateral conversion of minors.

    In a statement, Gobind said it is constitutionally guaranteed that both parents have the individual right to decide on the religion of their children who are minors.

    He also supported state assembly speaker Ng Suee Lim’s decision to adjourn the last sitting of the Selangor assembly, adding that he did not violate any provisions or rules of the state assembly.

    “He has explained that he adjourned the house in accordance with the Standing Orders and that all agendas had been settled then,” he said.

    “As such, it was entirely in order for him to adjourn the house, as he did.”

    News reports said there was a proposed amendment in the Selangor state assembly recently to allow the unilateral conversion of minors to Islam in the state.

    Four non-Muslim state executive councillors held an audience earlier today with the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, at Istana Bukit Kayangan to raise this issue, along with other matters.

    A source from Selangor PH told FMT yesterday that PH leaders have also asked Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari for an immediate meeting.

    It has been speculated that the proposed amendment is to strengthen certain leaders’ political power among the Malay voters, as cracks between PKR president Anwar Ibrahim and his deputy, Mohamed Azmin Ali, have emerged after a gay sex video surfaced in June.
    UNQUOTE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stop BS-ing TS, when as CM of Penang, Lim GE was silent as a tikus when the mother seized the child from the shocked father - all happened in Penang

      Don't talk about now

      Delete
    2. Kerbau Free Zone Here. OK let's talk about what Guanee said about unilateral conversions when he was Penang CM:

      QUOTE
      DAP: BN betrayed voters with child conversion law
      03 July 2013 By Ida Lim

      KUALA LUMPUR – BN's defence of a proposed law allowing unilateral child conversions to Islam shows the coalition had “hoodwinked” voters in 2009 with a Cabinet prohibition on the issue then, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said today.

      Lim alleged that BN was now rolling out the controversial law after it secured another five years’ rule, having won the May 5 general election.

      https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2013/07/03/dap-bn-betrayed-voters-with-child-conversion-law/490097
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Sunday, August 25th THE ROCKET
      No Federal Court resolve if Home Minister and IGP refuse to comply with court orders By Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister for Penang

      Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s suggestion urging families involved in interfaith child custody cases to use the Federal Court to resolve them is an empty one when his own Minister of Home Affairs Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and IGP Khalid Abu Bakar is in contempt of civil court orders. What is the point of the Prime Minister referring interfaith child custody cases to the Federal Court for resolution if both the Minister for Home Affairs and IGP prefers to politicise the issue by refusing to comply with civil court orders?

      Instead Najib should be directing the Attorney-General, Home Minister and IGP to perform their constitutional duty to enforce civil court orders as set out in our Federal Constitution. Have they and even the Prime Minister forgotten their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Malaysian Federal Constitution?

      https://www.therocket.com.my/en/no-federal-court-resolve-if-home-minister-and-igp-refuse-to-comply-with-court-orders/
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Religion conversion for children allowed only if both parents agree to it: Guan Eng
      26 DEC 2016

      GEORGE TOWN: Penang government will only allow religion conversion for children if both parents agree to it, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said in his Christmas Day message. He said the state government will not allow unilateral conversion of religion by any one parent. He added that both parents must reach a consensus in changing the religion of their child. "We must uphold Islam as the official religion of the country without jeopardising freedom of religion," he said in his message released to the media today. He urged the people to reject any form of racism and stressed the importance of upholding rule of law instead of looking through the racial lens. The child conversion issue has been contentious in the country with many people having expressed differing views.

      https://www.thesundaily.my/archive/2106149-ATARCH417253
      UNQUOTE

      Delete
    3. Methane-Free-Zone...

      Guanee's Press Statement on Unilateral Child Conversion when he was Penang CM.

      JUNE 13, 2014
      What Is The Point Of The Prime Minister Referring Interfaith Child Custody Cases To The Federal Court For Resolution

      Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur

      What Is The Point Of The Prime Minister Referring Interfaith Child Custody Cases To The Federal Court For Resolution If Both The Minister For Home Affairs And Inspector-General Of Police(IGP) Prefers To Politicise The Issue By Refusing To Comply With Civil Court Orders?

      Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s suggestion urging families involved in interfaith child custody cases to use the Federal Court to resolve them is an empty one when his own Minister of Home Affairs Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and IGP Khalid Abu Bakar is in contempt of civil court orders. What is the point of the Prime Minister referring interfaith child custody cases to the Federal Court for resolution if both the Minister for Home Affairs and IGP prefers to politicise the issue by refusing to comply with civil court orders?

      Instead Najib should be directing the Attorney-General, Home Minister and IGP to perform their constitutional duty to enforce civil court orders as set out in our Federal Constitution. Have they and even the Prime Minister forgotten their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Malaysian Federal Constitution?

      The question is not about the Federal Court giving priority to these sad interfaith custodial cases but whether the BN Federal government respects natural justice or practices injustice by giving the right to either one parent to conduct unilateral conversion of their children merely on the strength that he or she has converted to Islam.

      The Court of Appeal last month dismissed the application of Muslim convert N Viran (Izwan Abdullah) to set aside the Seremban High Court decision giving his former wife S Deepa, a Hindu, custody of their two children. In another case, M Indira Gandhi got a Ipoh High Court order early this year to cite her former husband K Patmanathan for contempt of court for failing to hand over their youngest child, six-year-old Prasana Diksa. However the syariah courts have given custody to the convert father on the basis that he is a Muslim.

      To separate underaged children from their mother has not been recognized by any democratic country that is compassionate and respects the rule of law. Unless evidence can be shown of the mother’s incapacity to take care of the children, separating the mother from the underaged children merely on the basis of her religious status is unacceptable and cruel. Unfortunately no proper consideration has been given to the genuineness of the father’s conversion to Islam as a matter of faith or a mere device to exact revenge against the mother and gain custody of the children.

      If Najib is indeed worried over the fate and welfare of the children caught in these interfaith cases, then he should carry out his constitutional duty as set out in his oath of office to protect, preserve and defend the Malaysian Federal Constitution by complying with the civil court orders to return the children back to the mother,

      Najib should also give due attention to the failure of the Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the police and IGP to prevent police custodial deaths. The latest police custodial death happened a few days ago in Penang, bringing the number of police custodial deaths involving Penang to seven cases this year, and ten nationwide.

      By blaming the police custodial deaths on the health of the victim is not only an abdication of responsibility but also indicates that custodial deaths will only persist, continuing this inhuman cruelty and sorrow to many helpless families. Clearly the IGP has shown himself to be incapable of carrying out his duties and should resign.

      https://limguaneng.com/index.php/2014/06/13/what-is-the-point-of-the-prime-minister-referring-interfaith-child-custody-cases-to-the-federal-court-for-resolutionencn/
      UNQUOTE

      Delete