Not quite.
The 2017 amendment to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act will go without Section 88(A) which is supposed to extend protection to Indira and others suffering similar destiny.
Eight years ago, Indira's ex-husband embraced the Islamic faith and had his identity changed from K. Pathmanathan to Muhammad Riduan Abdullah.
As if that was not enough, he even converted their under-one daughter with the blessing of the syariah court.
Indira took the case to the civil court to fight for the custody of her daughter. The case lasted for years, from the High Court to the Federal Court, in a dramatic twist that should make a perfect teaching material for the law school.
From the legal point of view, it involves a grey area between civil and Islamic laws and the ensuing confusion over legal jurisdiction.
Extrajudicially, it has evolved into a major social issue for our existing legal system has failed to provide an unambiguous verdict on this case such that similar incidents keep happening with no definitive solution in hand.
Other than Indira, we still have the cases of S. Deepa and R. Subashini, just to name a few.
To address the issue once and for all, the cabinet made a decision several years ago to evade controversies over the unilateral conversion and custody of underage children.
That was how Section 88A came about, which states that in the event either of the parents is converted, their children can retain their original religion until they turn 18, when they will be able to decide which religion to embrace.
In other words, if this were to become law, Indira's ex-husband would not have been able to unilaterally convert their young daughter, and he would have to settle the divorce with Indira in a civil court first instead of running away with their daughter.
Which should be a good thing, anyway, as it safeguards the right of the unconverted spouse while settling religious and social disputes.
Moreover, a distinct line will be drawn in the grey area between the civil and Islamic laws.
But the thing is, Section 88A is perceived by religious conservatives, including PAS, as transgression into the sanctity of the Islamic faith, and hence a political issue.
The retraction of Section 88A will render the 2017 amendment to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act powerless in resolving the existing and future problems arising from religious conversion.
Minister Azalina Othman cited the reason of avoiding clash with the Federal Constitution, but we wonder why this concern has never been detected earlier when drawing up the bill such that it pops up only after two tablings.
Are there any other factors, extraconstitutionally?
Prior to the tabling of the bill, conservative forces -- PAS included -- were already vocal against the amendment bill. From their point of view, the bill has infringed upon Islam and the religious entitlement of Muslims.
It has been rumored that some sort of tacit agreement has been reached between the ruling coalition and PAS, whereby PAS will give its consent to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act amendment in exchange for Umno's nod to the tabling of RUU355 amendment bill.
The thing is, RUU355 has now been tabled (albeit yet to be debated and voted), but the Law Reform Act now has to relinquish its most substantial content.
Under the prevailing political climate, the ruling coalition is eager to please the conservatives, more so to cooperate with PAS, at the expense of the amendment bill apparently.
We can see from here that the influences of conservative forces remain powerful, and are dictating the way the country is headed to in the future.
By Tay Tian Yan
No comments:
Post a Comment