OPINION | High Court Rebuke: NRD cannot decide on religion
12 Jan 2026 • 8:29 AM MYT
Citizen Nades
A legally qualified journalist and a good governance champion
Image Credit: Daily Express
OPINION: This was no routine rebuke. Not a teacher wagging a finger at a lazy student, nor the Football Association of Malaysia boss reprimanding a subordinate for botching data entry into the FIFA database.
It was an intense, searing judicial indictment from Justice Celestina Stuel Galid of the Kota Kinabalu High Court, laying bare a pattern of alarming administrative overreach by the National Registration Department (NRD), its systems, policies, and the actions of its officers.
The court’s exacting remarks, issued in granting a family from Pitas in Sabah the right to correct their MyKad to reflect their Christian faith, labelled the NRD’s actions “fundamentally wrong.”
This was not an isolated error, and the court referred to them as “recurring administrative problems” — a bureaucracy casually stamping religion onto citizens without a shred of factual or legal proof.
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2026/01/08/sabah-high-courts-allows-mykad-correction-to-reflect-faith
These bold remarks were made in the grounds of judgment in allowing an application made by Abdul Manap bin Bakusai @ Abu Bakar, and his three children, to correct their Malaysian Identity Card (MyKad) records to reflect their Christian faith.
Saying this was not an isolated case, the court referred to two (previously) decided cases:Satiah Simbunar v. Director of National Registration Department, Sabah, (2022), in which Justice Leonard Shim (then Judicial Commissioner, now Judge of the Court of Appeal), in which the Court found that “Islam” had been wrongly inserted into an identity card based on assumptions made by registration officers.
Zulkifli Adirin v Director of National Registration Department, Sabah (2021), where it was found that despite the applicants’ father expressly stating “tiada” (none) for religion in the application forms, the NRD nonetheless registered the applicants as Muslims and recorded “Islam” in their MyKad details.
The court cited the latter case to underscore that even clear and explicit instructions were disregarded, thereby reinforcing her finding that such errors reflect a recurring administrative problem.
The judge described it as “fundamentally wrong” for the NRD to determine an individual’s religion on its own, holding that the department had gone beyond its administrative role.
Describing this pattern as troubling, the court voiced particular concern for illiterate applicants from rural areas who rely heavily on NRD officers for assistance.
The court made clear that this was not a case of the plaintiffs renouncing Islam because Abdul Manap and his children, their family, including their grandparents, had always practised Christianity and had never converted to Islam.
Additionally, there were various documents, including other identity documents, baptism records, and letters from churches.
The court held that the NRD had wrongly recorded their details, adding that the department’s errors barred Manap and his children from exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Why must citizens endure years of hassle and expensive litigation to correct the state’s mistakes?
Why are they recurring?
This case forces uncomfortable questions:
This case forces uncomfortable questions:
Are there hidden hands at work, ignoring applicants' wishes “for reasons better known to themselves”?
The NRD’s defence in court was rightly rejected as it was absurd -- arguing religious determination belongs to the Syariah Court, after the department itself had already made that determination administratively.
This contradiction reveals a system operating without logic or accountability.
This is not the NRD’s first brush with notoriety. Just months ago, it “re-created” birth certificates for deceased grandparents of seven foreign footballers so they could play for Malaysia.
Ordinary Malaysians do not get such convenient fixes. Instead, they face years of bureaucratic stonewalling.
Like previously, has it continued the policy of “if you don’t tell, no one will know”?
Some may mistakenly dismiss this as a “clerical mistake”, but with the fingers being pointed at NRD officers, these are lessons for other ordinary Malaysians who have been victims of such mistakes leading to issues with various degrees of consequences.
It leads to fear, suspicious thoughts, and creates doubts about the ability and integrity of a certain section of our civil servants and their questionable decisions.
A moot point: According to news reports in May last year, a police report was lodged in Sabah by a woman who alleged that her identity had been fraudulently used to register her as a Muslim more than a decade earlier without her knowledge or consent.
The report raised public concern that similar cases may exist, particularly among individuals from rural communities.
Issues of religious rites after death, referred to as “body snatching,” can be found in the archives, suggesting that the mistakes pointed out by the High Court can turn into bigger issues.
“Body snatching” is a term commonly used in the media and public discourse to refer to controversial incidents where Islamic religious authorities seize the bodies of deceased individuals from their non-Muslim families for burial according to Islamic rites, based on claims the deceased had converted to Islam.
These cases often involve disputes over the deceased person's religious status at the time of death and highlight the conflict between civil and Shariah law jurisdictions in the country.
One of the most-publicised cases was that of M. Moorthy, who was part of the 10-man Malaysian team that reached Mt Everest in 1997, and died in December 2004.
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Religious-tussle-over-Everest-hero's-burial-4941.html
He was deemed a Muslim by the Islamic authorities after his army colleagues claimed he had verbally converted to Islam in October 2004.
Ignoring his widow's pleas that Moorthy practiced Hinduism until his death, the Islamic Affairs Department took his body from a hospital morgue and buried him in a Muslim grave.
In January 2021, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) cited various complaints in Sarawak where indigenous people had “Muslim” stated in their Mykad, due to the mistaken belief that names which have “bin” or “binti” are connected to Islam.
These terms are common among Christian Bumiputera who practise their faith in Bahasa Melayu.
“When a few individuals of indigenous ethnicities or communities wanted to change to a new MyKad, applicants who are not Muslims or have never practiced the Islamic faith had their status changed to Islam (Muslim) just because their names have bin or binti,” it said.
Commissioner (the late) Madeline Berma then she had spoken with the then Minister of Religious Affairs (Datuk Zulkifli Mohamad), who told her that it was an administrative issue.
Using “administrative issue” for all the wrongs is no longer acceptable, but in the meantime, some questions:
The NRD’s defence in court was rightly rejected as it was absurd -- arguing religious determination belongs to the Syariah Court, after the department itself had already made that determination administratively.
This contradiction reveals a system operating without logic or accountability.
This is not the NRD’s first brush with notoriety. Just months ago, it “re-created” birth certificates for deceased grandparents of seven foreign footballers so they could play for Malaysia.
Ordinary Malaysians do not get such convenient fixes. Instead, they face years of bureaucratic stonewalling.
Like previously, has it continued the policy of “if you don’t tell, no one will know”?
Some may mistakenly dismiss this as a “clerical mistake”, but with the fingers being pointed at NRD officers, these are lessons for other ordinary Malaysians who have been victims of such mistakes leading to issues with various degrees of consequences.
It leads to fear, suspicious thoughts, and creates doubts about the ability and integrity of a certain section of our civil servants and their questionable decisions.
A moot point: According to news reports in May last year, a police report was lodged in Sabah by a woman who alleged that her identity had been fraudulently used to register her as a Muslim more than a decade earlier without her knowledge or consent.
The report raised public concern that similar cases may exist, particularly among individuals from rural communities.
Issues of religious rites after death, referred to as “body snatching,” can be found in the archives, suggesting that the mistakes pointed out by the High Court can turn into bigger issues.
“Body snatching” is a term commonly used in the media and public discourse to refer to controversial incidents where Islamic religious authorities seize the bodies of deceased individuals from their non-Muslim families for burial according to Islamic rites, based on claims the deceased had converted to Islam.
These cases often involve disputes over the deceased person's religious status at the time of death and highlight the conflict between civil and Shariah law jurisdictions in the country.
One of the most-publicised cases was that of M. Moorthy, who was part of the 10-man Malaysian team that reached Mt Everest in 1997, and died in December 2004.
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Religious-tussle-over-Everest-hero's-burial-4941.html
He was deemed a Muslim by the Islamic authorities after his army colleagues claimed he had verbally converted to Islam in October 2004.
Ignoring his widow's pleas that Moorthy practiced Hinduism until his death, the Islamic Affairs Department took his body from a hospital morgue and buried him in a Muslim grave.
In January 2021, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) cited various complaints in Sarawak where indigenous people had “Muslim” stated in their Mykad, due to the mistaken belief that names which have “bin” or “binti” are connected to Islam.
These terms are common among Christian Bumiputera who practise their faith in Bahasa Melayu.
“When a few individuals of indigenous ethnicities or communities wanted to change to a new MyKad, applicants who are not Muslims or have never practiced the Islamic faith had their status changed to Islam (Muslim) just because their names have bin or binti,” it said.
Commissioner (the late) Madeline Berma then she had spoken with the then Minister of Religious Affairs (Datuk Zulkifli Mohamad), who told her that it was an administrative issue.
Using “administrative issue” for all the wrongs is no longer acceptable, but in the meantime, some questions:
- Didn’t the NRD know of Manap’s case before it was filed in court?
- Why did they not rectify the error after the documentation (baptism certificates etc) were provided?
- Why do ordinary citizens have to spend time, money, and effort to rectify an error made by the NRD?
Justice Galid’s ruling is a loud call for change and reform. It demands an immediate halt to automatic religious assignments to protect the vulnerable. The era of excuses is over. The state must record identity, not dictate faith.
And finally, will someone accept responsibility for this total abuse and misuse of power, or is this something condoned and protected by the state?
No comments:
Post a Comment