Political Decision

The decision has been made, but i dont think its a "constitutional decision" but made based on political situation which i called it as a "political decision." Its a sad day for those who are struggling for the freedom to practice the religion. Its a open secret that she has converted to christianity, so i dont see the victory as "proclaimed" by some religious bigots. On paper her religion will be "Islam" but by soul she will not. If she die in Malaysia, religious authority will get her body but definately will fail to get her soul. If you are strong enough in your stand as what you are, then the religious authority dont need the law to put those who decided to renounce behind the bar just to make he/she to remain as a muslim. The decision has not solved the problem and this type of cases will prolonged and in future we will see more cases which will create more tension and will widen the gap on our unity. If you love this country and you believe you are part of this country, then you can make a changes. How? Show your disatisfaction on ballot paper.

Datuk Richard Malanjum on his dissenting judgement said "it was not the function of the NRD to ensure that Lina had properly apostasised as such a matter should be left to the relevant religious authorities to take any action as deemed necessary. The NRD has not shown that one of its statutory duties is to ensure that a person has properly renounced the Islamic faith in accordance with the requirements of the Islamic authorities. The principle of administrative law stated that a public authority must not act mechanically and must consider each case on its merits."

Formal Complaint Letter

Sheena Moorthy

2nd May 2007

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Prime Minister Of Malaysia

Prime Minister Department,Malaysia

Ref.: Racial Insult - Formal Complaint

Datuk Sri,

I, Sheena Moorthy, a 3rd year Biotech Malaysian student in CALPOLY would like to submit a formal complaint against our Minister of Science & Technology, YAB Jamaluddin Narjis. I would like to bring to your attention the following incident which was totally uncalled for from the minister.

Date: 30th April 2007Time: 6.30pmVenue: Belacan Grill Malaysian Restaurant, Redondo Beach, CaMinister of Science, Dato Jamaluddin Jarjis was here on an official visit. He wanted to meet some of the Malaysian students studying in California especially the ones from TPM Academy twinning programme.

During the 3 ½ hour session, he passed a few racial remarks on me, being one of the two Indians present there.

Incident 1 - Each student had to briefly introduce themselves. When it came to my turn, while speaking he interrupted me and asked if I knew Samy Velu, because he knows him. I don't see any relevance in that and he mentioned it a few times for no apparent reason.

Incident 2 - He gave a speech regarding how agriculture started in Malaysia. He mentioned how the British invested in Malaysia and made farmers work. Due to the lack of work force, "buruh India" was brought in. While mentioning this, he looked at me saying that's how we get Indians in Malaysia.

Incident 3 - After saying he is going to get MARA to help the Bumiputra students, he looked at me and asked "How many Indians are here?, I don't have and don't keep track of number of Indian students here so I mentioned that "In this room, there are two (pointing to my another Malaysian Indian friend, who is fair skinned) and J.Jarjis looked at him and asked "Oh. You are an Indian", which means you are an upper class Indian and she is the lower class one (pointing at me). He went on to say that, "Oh, I am not going to help upper class Indians, I only help to lower class ones. They are the ones that need it'. I left the room feeling very insulted. Basically he judged me based on my skin color.

Being a Minister and respectable figure, these statements that he mentioned was unethical and biased. This happened in front of a crowd about 100 people. Being a true Malaysian at heart, and being taught not to discriminate among races especially in Malaysia, I feel humiliated as well as insulted by these racial remarks.

I demand a public apology from him because he does not have a right to judge me nor pass any remarks to me.

Also, I would greatly appreciate if you could kindly review his performance and take appropriate action to mitigate another unwanted racial remark, insults and shame to our country from this minister.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

Sheena Moorthy

Subashini's pain, Malaysia's anguish

Aliran----Non-Muslim husbands who abandon their spouses and their families and convert into Islam have acted in an irresponsible manner leaving them in the lurch. When these wayward husbands convert their children without the consent or knowledge of their spouses, they inflict further trauma and pain on their spouses and leave them helplessly in an agonising situation. When these suffering spouses turn to the civil courts for justice, they are treated unjustly. The recent event involving R Subashini is a case in point. We carry three reactions from civil society organisations to highlight this problem.

In the first reaction, Honey Tan Lay Ean says that the palpable sense of injustice and disillusionment surrounding the case makes a mockery of the upcoming Merdeka celebrations.

The All Women’s Action Society (Awam) reads with concern the decision handed down by the Court of Appeal in R. Subashini’s case. The main impact of that decision was that her husband, T Saravanan, may convert their children without her consent, commence proceedings in the Syariah Court to dissolve their marriage and take custody of their children.

We are disturbed by Justice Hasan’s judgement that R. Subashini should seek remedy from the Syariah Court in this matter. Similarly, we note with concern Justice Suriyadi’s comments that T Saravanan is well within his constitutional right in bringing matters concerning his civil marriage to Subashini to the Syariah Court. This is contrary to the Federal Constitution, which clearly states that Syariah laws only apply to people professing the religion of Islam. R Subashini is Hindu. We ask: what of R Subashini’s rights and the rights of her children?

R Subashini’s marriage to T Saravanan was conducted under the civil system. By forcing her to seek relief through the Syariah Court, R Subashini is deprived of her legal rights under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

We are also concerned that the rights of their children have been shunted aside. Both parents must have a say in deciding their children’s religion. If there is no agreement, the children can choose their religion upon turning 18 - the age of majority in Malaysia. Until then, there should be no change in the children’s religion.

The first principle of the Rukun Negara is ‘Belief in God’. Religion plays a significant role in our lives. It is unjust that one parent is deprived of having a say on an important matter which has a great impact on their children’s future. Furthermore, R Subashini’s children were not given a choice as to whether they want to convert to the religion their father had chosen for himself.

Malaysians more disconnected

There is also a larger moral question of the anguish suffered by R Subashini and other women in her position. Even if she were to eventually win custody of their children, she may be prevented from imparting the knowledge of her religious traditions to her children. This happened in Shamala’s case. Awam fears that every move she makes in bringing up her children may then be scrutinised to ensure that she does not “expose” her children to Hinduism. At a time when religion has become synonymous with ethnicity, unfortunately this may also extend to Indian culture.

R Subashini’s case is symptomatic of problems in the everyday reality of negotiating rights and legal jurisdictions under the Federal Constitution. We agree with Justice Sri Ram’s dissenting judgement on this case that the Federal Constitution “confers jurisdiction on a Syariah High Court in civil matters where all parties are Muslim”, and that any other interpretation would be unjust towards non-Muslim spouses.

The Federal Constitution is not simply a document. Certain interpretations on the matter of jurisdiction have far-reaching social consequences, beyond the two parties confronting each other in court.

First, how could any non-Muslim woman feel secure in marrying and having children when her husband could potentially threaten to convert and thus take her children away? Awam fears that violent husbands could use this threat to prevent women from reporting cases of domestic abuse, forcing them and their children to suffer in silence.

Secondly, the way with which cases such as Subashini and Shamala was handled does nothing to help the cause of national unity. The palpable sense of injustice and disillusionment makes a mockery of the upcoming Merdeka celebrations. How much have we achieved as a nation, really, when pain and injustice are shrugged off as collateral damage? Fifty years after we have embarked on realising the hopes and dreams of a free nation, Malaysians are more disconnected from each other than ever.