Hindraf chairman P. Waythamoorty said it was merely aimed at ensuring they continued in power.
He charged that, with all the delays and, now, the dropping of the clause in the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2016, the government never had the intention of passing a bill to stop unilateral conversion.
He described as “utter rubbish” the statement by Health Minister Dr S Subramaniam that the attorney-general (AG) was of the opinion the new section 88A proviso in the bill would involve a constitutional argument, and that the constitutional concern should be addressed before including this section.
“Does the minister even know the process on how a bill comes by after passing through the parliamentary draftsperson in the AG’s office, reviewed by the AG, then passed on to the cabinet for its approval before it becomes a bill to be tabled in parliament?
“It is obvious why the MCA chief hasn’t said anything because we know majority Chinese votes are foregone, whereas the Indian community can be possibly duped with the Indian minister issuing such a vacuous statement to appear that everything is above board.”
Waythamoorthy asked, in a statement issued today, why the constitutional question, if it was really an issue, had not been addressed since 2009 when the cabinet decision to end unilateral conversion was made.
The government withdrew an earlier bill and introduced a new bill, a day later, that does not include the proposed Clause 88A which states that the religion of the child “shall remain as the religion of the parties to the marriage prior to the conversion”. The clause also states the child can, after turning 18 and with the consent of both parents, convert to Islam.
In explaining the need to drop clause 88A, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said had said: “The amendments needed to be done so that it would not be in conflict with the provisions under the Federal Constitution.”
She said the fresh amendments would be in line with court decisions on the interpretation of Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution.
To this, Waythamoorthy said: “The constitutional issue relating to Article 12(4) is just an eye wash. What constitutional issue is she talking about?
“In custody and guardianship, although the basic definition for defining custody and religion of the minor is governed under Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and Section 5 (of the) Guardianship of Infant Act 1961, whereby consent of both parents is required, this has been totally hijacked through the amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution where (the) operation of (the) judiciary has become subservient to (the) legislature, and destroyed the independence of the judiciary.”
This, he said, had led to the reluctance of the civil court to make a firm stand on the civil rights of the aggrieved non-Muslim party in cases involving a spouse who had converted to Islam.
If any amendment to the constitution was needed, he said, it was to Article 121, which should be reverted back to its pre-1988 position to re-establish the independence of the judiciary.
Waythamoorthy said: “The argument of ‘parent’ meaning singular does not hold any water as the Interpretation Act 1948 and 1967 clearly indicates otherwise, and further the term ‘parent’ in Article 12 (4) must necessarily mean both the father and mother.
“To construe otherwise would mean depriving, for example, a mother of her rights as a parent to choose the religion of the infant under Article 12 (4), if the father unilaterally decides on the religion to be followed by the infant.”
This would invariably also mean depriving the other of the constitutional right under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
He noted that the Interpretation Acts of 1948 and 1967, which generally applied to all acts of parliament, stated that words in the singular “shall include the plural”.
He added: “The reluctant and weak judiciary contributes to the injustices against non-Muslims.”