Group urges cabinet to amend laws on child conversion

 

A multi-religious group has urged Putrajaya to uphold the position that a child's conversion to Islam requires consent from both parents.

The appeal from the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) followed arguments made by senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly on Feb 3.

Representing the federal territories at the hearing of a lawsuit brought by M Indira Gandhi and 13 others, Hanir asserted that Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution does not mandate the approval of both parents, but requires only the consent of at least one responsible adult, whether a parent or guardian.

Hanir also said a broad construction of Article 12(4) should be adopted by interpreting the word “parent” in its plain, singular form.

ADS

He noted that such an understanding allows for "greater flexibility" in the administration of laws relating to the conversion of minors, thus ensuring that no aspect of a child’s welfare is overlooked.

Commenting on the stance, MCCBCHST called on the cabinet to affirm that both parents have equal rights over the child under the Federal Constitution.

Arguing that it would be in the child's best interest and welfare to require both parents' consent before a conversion, the group also pointed to the Federal Court's 2018 ruling that the definition of "parent" should be plural.

"Any move to allow a single parent to convert would be unjust, immoral, against the interest of the child and family, and against the said Federal Court decision," MCCBCHST said in a statement yesterday.

"We appeal to the cabinet to discuss this matter on an urgent basis and take steps to ensure that both parents’ consent should be mandatory before a minor could be converted, and to introduce legislation in Parliament if necessary to crystallise this."

It asserted that such moves are vital to prevent "unnecessary challenges" in the future.

Landmark ruling

In his submissions, Hanir argued that the 2018 ruling, which the plaintiffs are mainly relying on for their case, is insufficient as the apex court's decision was fact-specific and did not directly challenge the relevant state provisions or Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.

The plaintiffs had filed the originating summons on March 3, 2023, seeking to rely on the landmark ruling linked to the case of Indira’s Muslim convert ex-husband, who had unilaterally converted their three children without her consent.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court declaration to nullify the unilateral conversion laws contained in the state enactments of the federal territories, Perlis, Kedah, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Johor.

Apart from Indira, the 13 other plaintiffs are NGOs Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, Indira Gandhi Action Team chairperson Arun Dorasamy, two alleged victims of unilateral conversions, and eight residents from the states mentioned.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has since fixed May 21 to decide on the plaintiffs' originating summons application. - Mkini