The statement by Minister for Tourism, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, that the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013 on unilateral conversion of minors to Islam is unfair is welcome, especially as the 1993 Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act provided for both parental consent when the bill was debated in Dewan Rakyat in May 1993.
What was passed by Parliament in May 1993 on Section 95 in “Part IX – Conversion to Islam” states (English and Bahasa Malaysia):
“ 95. For the purpose of this Part, a person who is not a Muslim may convert to Islam if he is of sound mind and –
(a) has attained the age of eighteen years; or
(b) if he has not attained the age of eighteen years, his parent or guardian consents to his conversion.”
“95. Bagi maksud Bahagian ini, seseorang yang tidak beragama Islam boleh masuk Islam jika ia sempurna akal dan –
(a) Mencapai umur lapan belas tahun; atau
(b) Jika ia belum mencapai lapan belas tahun, ibu bapa atau penjaga mengizinkan kemasukannya.”
However, when it was gazetted, there was a minor but far-reaching variation in its Bahasa Malaysia version for Section 95(b) permitting unilateral conversion of minors to Islam when Parliament had always intended dual parental consent, as the gazetted Bahasa Malaysia version reads:
“(b) jika dia belum mencapai umur lapan belas tahun, ibu atau bapa atau penjaganya mengizinkan kemasukannya.”
There should be a full inquiry as to how such a minor but far-reaching discrepancy could occur between the passage of the bill by Parliament and the gazetting of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.
Be that as it may, the primary considerations for all concerned in considering sensitive legislative proposals like the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013 are to ensure they uphold the entrenched constitutional freedoms and human rights as well as to promote national harmony, family integrity and the principles of justice and fair play.
#1 by Winston on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 - 3:58 pm
Well, well, well.
What a waste of time complimenting such a fella.
Wasn’t he part of the decision making process that passed the bill?
Hasn’t UMNO/BN been emphasising many times before that all its decisions are joint decisions?
So, he is a devil who now wanted to be seen as an angel?
Just remember that none of them are praise worthy!
If they are, this country won’t be in such a blooming mess!!!
#2 by Bigjoe on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 - 6:23 pm
Translation error? How come a litany of UMNO MPs including the DPM insist its the law already? They don’t understand what they read or or they don’t read at all?
#3 by Loh on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 - 6:57 pm
///“ 95. For the purpose of this Part, a person who is not a Muslim may convert to Islam if he is of sound mind and –
(a) has attained the age of eighteen years; or
(b) if he has not attained the age of eighteen years, his parent or guardian consents to his conversion.”///–the author
The law allows person to decide on his own as soon as he reaches 18 years old. For persons who did not attain that age of 18, the conversion would only be valid until the convert reaches 18 years, whence the converted Muslim should be able to decide whether he agrees to continue to be Muslim or return to be non-Muslim. Otherwise the child is deprived of his right, as he was made to convert without his right being respected. Indeed a person born to a certain religion should have a right to choose whether he wants to remain a member of the religion by birth. The law allows him to choose, and since Malaysia allows her citizens to practice religion of his choice, the conversion into or out of any religion should observe the same law. Consequently, a mirror-law for the conversion of Muslim to non-Muslim should also be enacted.
#4 by negarawan on Thursday, 4 July 2013 - 7:50 am
The international society has to know and be aware that in Malaysia, racial and religious minorities are being literally bullied and forced by UMNO to submit themselves to unjust and inhumane laws and policies. UMNO must be taken to task at international level for breaking up the religious and racial harmony in Malaysia. A clear message must be given to Najip by the British government and EU community in London.
#5 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 4 July 2013 - 8:56 am
These people who plot and scheme to co-op innocent and the weak into their no-exit society and ways do not believe in plurality.
Islamist extremist is against plurality and there is a group in this country, likely small that has spoken up against it. By tradition and most Malay still are not against plurality. The truth its high time this country speaks up without a question that plurality in the reality of the world and the future that Malaysia must embrace. Without a question Muslim face difficulties to fully embrace a plural world but eventually, for nations like Malaysia, integrated to the world it can’t turn back, must embrace it as much as we can even if we must deal with the difficulties.
#6 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 4 July 2013 - 11:03 am
What is gazetted must be 100% the same as what was approved by Parliament. Who then, on his / her own dastardly initiative, made the sneaky change?
Has other laws been ‘amended’ by sneaky persons to mean something different against Parliament’s intention and wishes ? What version then is the legal one to be followed?
#7 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 4 July 2013 - 11:21 am
Consider this:
A person under legal age (18 or 21 years) needs only ONE (NOT TWO) parent to sign his form to apply for say a passport or other official documents. And only ONE parent to sign his school report card or to go for a school trip. Or have things changed?
#8 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 4 July 2013 - 11:21 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Consider this:
A person under legal age (18 or 21 years) needs only ONE (NOT TWO) parent to sign his form to apply for say a pa$sport or other official documents. And only ONE parent to sign his school report card or to go for a school trip. Or have things changed?
#9 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 4 July 2013 - 4:20 pm
After I thought about it, I realized that I don’t know anyone with legal training worth its salt that would write a legal statement that says just “parent” if it meant both parent consent is needed and if it meant only one parent it should read read ‘anyone of his parent’.
So its not a case of translation error but either purpose idocy and therefore malice or real idiocy?
#10 by good coolie on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 - 11:40 pm
What happens if the child has only one parent (alive). Then, parent or guardian can consent. That is the reason, I believe, that parent and guardian are in the singular. In the case of a hospital-form or a school-required permission from parents, as objection of the other parent is not contemplated, one parent’s signature is given IMPLIEDLY on behalf of both parents. This cannot be the case in the particular species of religious conversion in issue.
Anyway, I am a lay person. My view must be taken with the required pinch of salt.