Unfair new Bill 'disguised' as Islamic law: CABINET HELD RESPONSIBLE!

The Malaysian Consuttative  Council Of Buddhism, Christianity,  Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST)  vehemently objects to some  provisions  found in the RANG UNDANGUNDANG PENTADBIRAN  AGAMA  ISLAM (WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN) 2013 tabled in Parliament  for its first reading on 26 June 2013 as they affect the Non-Muslims.

The Bill under disguise  of lslamic Laws is unilaterally  trying to alter the Federal Constitution by translating  the word "parent" in the Federal  COnstitutiOn to mean "lbu atau Bapa" as opposed  to "lbubapa".

Any conversion of a minor by a single parent will cause  serious injustice  to the non-converting parent and the children of the marriage - Section 107 (b) "jika dia belum mencapai  umur lapan belas tahun, ibu atau bapa atau penjaganya  mengizinkan  pemelukan agama  lslam olehnya"

This provision  would further  creates social injustice and is contrary to the constitutional scheme of things.

Cabinet held responsible

We hold the Federal Cabinet accountable  for this transgression,  that is, in spite of the Cabinet decision of 2314/2013  whereby it was decided  that a single parent cannot convert a minor child of the marriage.

Despite that public  statement, the Cabinet  deem it fit to introduce  the above  provision in D.R. 112013.|t appears  that the Cabinet promise  and undertaking  on this issue was not sincere.

The MCCBCHST  wishes to reiterate that any unilateral conversion of their children by one parent encroaches into the lives of Non-Muslims. Such conversions are not only unconstitutional but are morally  and ethically  wrong.

We ask Cabinet members how they will feel if their children are unilaterally  converted. Do not do things  to others, which you do not want to be done to you.

Absurd and against the spirit & letter of the Federal Constitution
We must warn that if "Parent"  in Article 12(a) is to be interpreted  to mean "single" parent",  it will go against the spirit and letter of Article 4 of the Federal Constitution  - the Supreme Law of the land.

lf this lnterpretation is advanced,  then there is nothing  to stop the other  single parent to convert  back the child to the Original religion.  No religious  law can over-ride  the constitution.  This would  produce  an absurd result and therefore  this could  not be meaning intended.

Reliance on the case of SUBASHINI (2008), may not be in order as the case appears to be wrongly decided due to the following:-

i) The Court did not apply the Statutory Interpretation  clause. Art. 160(1) (Eleventh Schedule) under which "words importing the masculine  gender lnclude female" and "words in the singular  include  the plural, and words in the plural include  the singular.

ii) The guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 which provides for equality  of parental rights.

iii) lf single "parent"  can convert,  then it would lead to an absurd result, as the nonconverting spouse can similarly by virtue of being a single parent convert back her child to the original faith.

Syariah and not civil court to decide if a person is Muslim or not

We understand  that the Bill also provides for Syariah High Court to decide whether a person is a Muslim or not. See Section  51(3Xb)  (x) and (xi). This power has always been with the Civil High Court and not the Syariah  Court. The amendment  thus proposed  is unconstitutional.

The MCCBCHST,  therefore calls upon the Cabinet to withdraw the above Bill, until its provisions have been thoroughly debated by all the stake holders.

Any bull dozing through of the Bill will not be accepted and would also be unconstitutional, giving no choice to the affected persons to look for remedy peacefully through other legal channels locally and internationally.

- MCCBCHST