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 great impact on the future lives of their children. 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.
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 Muslimâ€, 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.
HONEY TAN LAY EAN
Executive Director
All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
85 Jalan 21/1, Sea Park
46300 Petaling Jaya
Tel: 603-7877 4221
Fax: 603-7874 3312
E-mail: awam@awam.org.my
http://www.awam.org.my/
–
Yasmin Masidi
Media Officer
All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
85 Jalan 21/1, Sea Park
46300 Petaling Jaya
Tel: 603-7877 4221
Fax: 603-7874 3312
E-mail: yasmin@awam.org.my
http://www.awam.org.my/
This is not the case, and it will certainly not be the last. My concerns :
1. How can a civil marriage, contracted via the civil law, come under the purview of the syariah law/court ?
2. The parties concerned married as Hindus, and have to divorce as muslims ?
3. Why should the non-muslim party submit to the syariah law/courts ? The law clearly states that syariah law shall be applicable for persons who profess Islam.
4. The judges who ruled in favor of item #3, clearly are biased, and put their religious fervor ahead of justice.
5. What about the children ? Why doesn’t the mother have equal rights to determine their religion ? Why is it that when one spouse converts to islam, he/she automatically gets the green light from syariah court to convert the child ? In all instances, the syariah court overrules the civil court’s injunctions.
6. The civil law is THE law of the country. The syariah is always subservient to the civil law.
7. Freedom of religion is our constitutional right. No one religion can/should over-write another.
this concerns the FUTURE OF ALL HINDUS.
1- Put the Person’s photo in all the newspaper if he wants to convert to ISLAM that why ,if he is married Hindu man at least his hindu wife will know what is going to happen to her life.
2- THE ISLAM LAW should prevent the person If the man is still married to hindu lady he simply cannot convert to ISLAM without divorcing her. In this way In future such a case like Shamala , Shubashini and any OTHER case in future to come can be prevented.
3- In Shubashini ’s case , the civil court should rule the case as below mentioned:-
- the husband should have divorced the wife before converting to ISLAM
- he simply cannot convert his under age children to islam ,untill the children reaches age of 18.
- she has every right to have the child custody of her children and the children was born as hindu ,
No saperation of power…. this is the TUN’s lagecy…..
In Malaysia we cannot have a fair trial when it between Malay and Non Malay…. Muslim vs. Non Muslims…. when the judges are Muslims they will be bias…. against non-malay and non-muslims….. it also happens in our own police stataions where the non-malays treated diffrently…. and in the govenment departments…
That is what HINDRAF fighting for ….
This is clear discrimination of Hindu’s right