“Why the sudden inclination to set up this division, which among others aims to resolve conflict between civil and Shariah law,” the Ipoh Barat MP asked.
Kulasegaran said the AGC should first realise it operates under the framework of the Federal Constitution and it should not only be seen as harmonising the laws to be “Shariah compliant” but also to ensure that necessary protection was accorded to non-Muslims.
He said the AGC’s first priority should be adhering strictly to the aspirations and the needs as spelled out in the Federal Constitution.
“The AGC should be an implementing arm of the government. It should be clear in its tasks and obligations and must protect the basic structure and secular nature of the Constitution,” he said in a statement after a meet-the-people session in Bercham today.
The lawyer, who represented Indira in her successful appeal to set aside the conversion certificates of her three children, said this in response to a statement by the AGC that the division was set up as the attorney-general had a constitutional duty to advise the king, the cabinet or any minister on legal matters.
Kulasegaran said under the constitution, Islam and Shariah matters come under state jurisdiction and each state is empowered to allocate funds for the development of the religion and its followers.
“For the AGC to go out of its way to promote ‘harmonising’ Shariah matters without mentioning on ‘harmonising’ non-Muslim matters and interest shows the lack of understanding and appreciation of our constitution,” said Kulasegaran, who is also DAP national vice-chairman.
Yesterday, the AGC released a statement saying that it has set up a Shariah and Harmonisation of Law division to address issues related to Islam and shariah laws that arise at the federal and international levels.
It said the division would be the focal point for shariah issues referred to the department.
Act on government policy
Kulasegaran called for the AGC to explain the “basic structure“ principle to the government as held in Indira’s case rather than trying to undermine it by trying to get around this by forming the division.
He said the AGC must act based on government policy of the day, citing that in 2009, the Cabinet decided that the religion of non-Muslim minor children whose mothers or fathers converted to Islam shall remain status quo till the child reaches age 18.
“Despite that, lawyers from the AGC went against this Cabinet policy in Indira Gandhi’s case up to the Federal Court for nine years,” Kulasegaran said.
He called for the government to present a White Paper on this so-called “division” when Parliament meets next month.
Earlier this week, a five member-bench also ruled that the consent of both parents was needed to convert minor children when one partner of the civil marriage had embraced Islam.
Justice Zainun Ali, who delivered the court’s unanimous judgment, said the power of judicial review was part of the basic structure of the constitution.
She also said judicial power was still vested in the courts despite an amendment to the Federal Constitution in 1988.
Indira Gandhi verdict has far-reaching implications, says ex-judge
Shariah courts not on equal footing with civil courts, says Federal Court