A ‘non-justiciable’ issue is an issue which the court may have jurisdiction to rule upon (ie the issue in this case – whether or not it has jurisdiction), but due to the circumstances of the case (sensitive religious issues, or political etc), the court will not make a decision. The key point here is that the court recognizes that the issue, while legally they may rule upon it, they choose not to, for they realise that they may be not be the suitable place to resolve the issue.

That is how i remember it anyway – hehe, been awhile since I touched my public law book.

I agree with you that Parliament, or at least BN (or UMNO specifically) would like us to think of it as a problem of interpretation. And with BN majority, I won’t count on our rights being protected.

But the key point is that by ruling the matter non-justiciable, parliament has to take matters into their own hands whether they like it or not – less they leave a black hole in the judicial machine. Even if parliament ‘decides’ against Lina Joy (and other cases of the sort), the matter had fallen into their lap; they can’t say ‘well that’s what the court said’. In that case, BN necessarily will have to find a better justification for their argument and not hide behind the Federal court.The outcome may potentially be the same, but the source is different and politically significant.

You have the correct interpretation of the law when you say, “Sultans are the guardian of Islam” – each in their own state, I might add.

To the extent there is a conflct between syariah law and civil law, such conflict will have to be resolved in favor of the constitutional rights of non-Musliims. The Constitution is supreme and any law that conflicts with constitutional law is null and void. That is clear.

Meanwhile, syariah courts have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the religion of Islam. These courts still have jurisdiction over such matters and until they relinquish that jurisdiction, this problem will never be resolved.

It appears that these courts are reluctant to relinquish their jurisdiction for obvious reasons. They have a vested interest in seeing that Islam wins converts – not lose them.

So where do we go from there?? We look to the electoral process for change.

That is my 2-cents.

Don’t know what you mean by ‘justiciable’ here but I can agree with you that the forum to discuss and debate and resolve this issue would be Parliament.

But having said that, the problem here is that Parliament thinks or would like us to think that the problem has nothing to do with the law or the constitution but only its interpretation – otherwise they would have suggested by their own volition to amend the Constitution.

The balance of power favours the BN run government. There will not be an amendment to the Constitution one way or the other so long as the government is run by BN. The lack of clarity or the presence of such inherent ambiguities in the law ordinarily would have prompted Parliament to ‘plug the holes’ so to speak through a re-drafting of the relevant law or laws. In this case with a judiciary heavily under its influence, they feel there is no need to start a national debate on ‘religious freedom’ or the jurisdiction of the syaiah courts – both sensitive issues closely connected to a host of other issues.

Let us wait to see the Federal Court decision in the case of Lina Joy.

It remains one of jurisdiction.

As to which is more supreme, this is one issue that concerns Parliament and the Constitution. Students of Malaysian politics have long debated the theory of the supremacy of the Constitution (which some say is only a legal fiction) and that of Parliament. Syariah courts, I submit, have never been part of that debate.

You’re here putting the cart before the horse! Like I said, the problem is one of jurisdiction until and unless our constitution says otherwise.

“Is the classification not based on biological parent?”

This is a matter that has to be resolved by the syariah court. Civil courts do not have jurisdiction.

All things said the problem is still over jurisdiction. Which court has jurisdiction? Like all things political, the solution must also be political – otherwise it ends in an impasse like what are seeing.

If the jurisdiction lies with the Syariah court does it mean that it has to follow the teaching of Islam, and the provision of the constitution is not applicable. When it follows the teaching of Islam, then it there a universal islamic rule applicable to all, or would it be based on the rule of each state, since the rulers are the head of the Islamic religion in each state. It has been said that Muslims in Turkey are free to change their religious belief, and that it is not the case here.

///Because she was once a Muslim or one of her parents was, she remains under the jurisdiction of the syariah court.///–undergrad2

According to report she was adopted by the family where one of them was a muslim. Is the classification not based on biological parent?

BN has two-third control, remember?

It does not necessarily lead to bias.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Federal Court decision on an earlier case which involved the “Kelantanese Four” (reduced to three when one died in prison). If I remember correctly the justices were not of one mind. What happened was the justices avoid having to make their decision. According to them it was a matter for the high court and the syariah court.

Let’s see what they have to say this time round!

I see no truth in violating human rights. I see cruel muslims committing inhuman actions against non-muslims, tearing a family apart, which is a sin by any standard, is it not Islam sin?

The family must be release from torture and reunite as soon as possible.

If this were possible then we would have executive tyranny – besides making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Federal Court is perfecting their written judgment. The decision is aimed to preserve the status quo.

For those who feel that judges look at the facts, apply the law to the facts and then make their decision are being naive. It does not happen that way. What actually happens is judges make whatever decision they think is just and equitable, then search for the legal reasoning to arrive at the conclusion which they have made.

What this means is that Lina will be denied her joy – yet again.

‘Democracy’ is defined by some as the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

The issue is simply one of jurisdiction. Because she was once a Muslim or one of her parents was, she remains under the jurisdiction of the syariah court. She will need to appear before this court for its decision.

As for JAIS or bodies like it, the fact that their activities go against the letter or spirit of the written Constitution does make JAIS or bodies like it, unconstitutional.

DAP has no big voice and many MPs to meet. DAP should join with other opposition parties to meet.

DAP should ask quietly MCA, MIC and Gerakan to meet PM.

The constitution is very clear + precise. If judges whom are muslim + can’t judge on a clear cut case. Just resign. Let someone else who is decent enough to say 1 + 1 = 2, to take over.

2020? How on earth can we ever reach there?