To carry an argument further

I don’t understand why we are arguing about the issue of ‘forced’ conversion when in the first place children are being forced into a religion not of their choice. They did not choose to be a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. They were forced, due to an accident of birth, to be a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. Then we argue about conversion when in the first place you ‘converted’ your children into a religion at the time of their birth.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Administration of the Religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013 on unilateral conversion of minors to Islam is against the spirit of Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Malaysia has acceded to on 17 February 1995.

The purpose of the CRC is to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights for children, who needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not.

Article 18 of the CRC provides that:

Article 18

1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

As a party to the CRC, Malaysia recognizes that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. By allowing a minor to be converted to the religion of Islam with single parent’s consent, we are going to deny the non-converting parent from playing his/her role in the upbringing of the child.  

By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention, Malaysia has committed ourselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and we have agreed to hold ourselves accountable for this commitment before the international community. We are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child. Unilateral conversion of minor will have huge impact on the development of the child hence should be reviewed and withdrawn immediately.

Teo Nie Ching

*********************************************

Why are we arguing this matter midway? If we want to argue this issue then we should argue it from the beginning, not midway, like what we seem to be doing now.

First of all, for many of you who do not know -- and many of you do not know -- religion comes under the Rulers. Hence the Conference of Rulers decides what happens regarding matters related to Islam. And that is why The Sun reported today: Open secret that Rulers objected to cabinet's decision on conversion.

Senior Umno leader Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said today that "it was an open secret" that the Conference of Rulers objected to the implementation of the cabinet's 2009 decision against the unilateral conversion of minors to Islam.

He said the conference was the only institution in the country that could object in the matter, which ultimately led to a suspension of the decision that both parents should agree to the changing of a child's faith.

The tourism minister said a bill is tabled in Parliament only when the cabinet has decided and approved it.

So there you have it. This is not a 2013 issue, like many of you thought. This is a four-year old issue that met with a stalemate back in 2009 when the Rulers opposed the Cabinet decision that BOTH parents must approve any change of religion of minors.

I suppose what the Cabinet can now do is to tell the Conference of Rulers to go to hell and proceed with what they think is best for the country.

But hold on. If I am not mistaken, Their Highnesses the State Rulers have to act on the advise of the Menteris Besar while His Majesty the Agong has to act on the advise of the Prime Minister. On matters regarding Islam, however, the Rulers also have to act on the advise of the Muftis. (In fact, the Prime Minister and the Menteris Besar also attend the Conference of Rulers).

So can Nazri tell us, to make the matter clearer, what was the advice the Prime Minister, the Menteris Besar, and the Muftis gave the Rulers back in 2009? The rakyat need to know how the Prime Minister, the Menteris Besar and the Muftis ‘voted’ back in 2009. Did they oppose the Rulers and advised Their Highnesses/His Majesty what the government would like to see or did all these people advise Their Highnesses/His Majesty to oppose this Bill?

Based on Nazri’s statement we know that the Rulers were against this Bill. Nazri, however, did not reveal what advise the Prime Minister, the Menteris Besar and the Muftis gave Their Highnesses/His Majesty. And since Nazri is in the mood to ‘reveal’, he should reveal everything and not just part of the story.

We must remember, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia stipulates that His Majesty has to act on the advise of the Prime Minister while Their Highnesses the State Rulers have to act on the advise of the Menteris Besar and the Muftis.

We know what the Conference of Rulers did. Nazri has told us already. What we want to know now is whether the Rulers did what they did based on advise, as what they should do, or against advise.

Remember what His Majesty the First Agong, Tuanku Abdul Rahman, said soon after Merdeka in August 1957. His Majesty said that in Malaysia the Prime Minister (then Tunku Abdul Rahman) can sack the Agong but not the other way around. Hence the Rulers must listen to the government and not the government listen to the Rulers.

Yes, I wait with bated breath Nazri’s response to this. Maybe this issue can be used to trigger a Constitutional Crisis so that the power of the Rulers in matters regarding Islam can be removed totally. And once the Rulers no longer have power over Islam then we can contemplate removing the Monarchy and turn Malaysia into a Republic, like many of you want (since the purpose of having Rulers no longer exists).

Actually, removing the Monarchy is not only good for matters concerning Islam but the added advantage would be they would also not be Colonels-in-Chief/ Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces as well. The military would then come directly under the command of the Generals. That would be good if we get a government we don’t like and we want to remove that government like what just happened in Egypt plus many other countries before this.

This will mean we need not worry about the EC or about electoral reforms. If we feel the government was not properly elected we can just take to the streets and the military will help us change the government. That will solve the problem of fraudulent elections in Malaysia. In fact, once the military takes over we do not even need elections and if there were no elections then there would be no fraudulent elections as well.

Problem solved.

Anyhow, that is not really want I want to talk about today -- so no need to respond to what I wrote above. What I want to talk about is what I said in my opening paragraph:

Why are we arguing this matter midway? If we want to argue this issue then we should argue it from the beginning, not midway, like what we seem to be doing now.

Yes, why argue midway? Why argue about the ‘forced’ conversion of a minor from one religion to another? Agreed we should allow the minor to decide once he/she is 18 as to what religion he/she wants to follow. That is sensible, as many of you argue, and that should be the law we pass.

However, in the first place, why was this minor ‘forced’ to follow any religion? We should not force the minor to be a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. The minor should be allowed to choose his/her own religion once he/she is 18.

Hence the law should not be just about ‘forced’ conversion of a minor from one religion to another. It should be about not forcing any minor to follow any religion whatsoever until 18 when he/she can decide for himself/herself.

I don’t understand why we are arguing about the issue of ‘forced’ conversion when in the first place children are being forced into a religion not of their choice. They did not choose to be a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. They were forced, due to an accident of birth, to be a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. Then we argue about conversion when in the first place you ‘converted’ your children into a religion at the time of their birth.

Teo Nie Ching talks about civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights for children. Well, forcing children to become a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever, just because they are under-18, is a violation of the civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights for children -- just like forcing them to change religions.

How stupid religionists can sometimes be.