Press Statement

by Lim Guan Eng

(Petaling Jaya, Friday): Non-Malay component parties from MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP can not remain silent but must act immediately over the denial of access to justice for non-Muslims following the Court of Appeal's latest ruling that they are subject to the jurisdicton of the Syariah Courts. Despite the calls by Muftis and Islamic experts to accept he Court of Appeal ruling and accept the jurisdiction of syariah courts, this will never be agreed to by most non-Muslims as well as Muslims who respect the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

On March 13, the Court of Appeal had dismissed non-Muslim R. Subashini's appeal to stop her Muslim-convert husband - Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah - from going to the syariah court to dissolve their civil marriage and convert their children to Islam without her permission, directing her to seek recourse through the Syariah Appeal Court. However like other non-Muslims, Subashini refused because she is not a Muslim, Malaysia is not an Islamic state and the Federal Constitution clearly spells out that syariah laws applies and covers Muslims not non-Muslims.

That Malaysia is a secular state and not an Islamic state was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Che Omar Che Soh case in 1988 when it declared that the Malaysian Constitution is secular and does not make Malaysia an Islamic state. In that judgment, Chief Justice Tun Salleh Abas ruled that the syariah law was not the basic law of the land and that the constitution was the supreme law. Unless there is a constitutional amendment Malaysia is and never was an Islamic state.

Why should non-Muslims subject themselves to syariah courts and Islamic rules when this is not their faith? This right and choice not to submit to a syariah court is granted under our secular constitution and is part of the social contract. Those who fought for rule of law that gave us Merdeka was based on all Malaysians having a right of seek justice through civil laws. Compelling non-Muslims to seek legal recourse through the syariah courts violates this social contract and dilutes the status of the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of Malaysia.

The non-Malay component BN parties must act immediately to restore the secular nature in our Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land instead of an Islamic state; the rights of non-Muslim not to be subject to syariah laws; and equality of the law as provided under Article 8. There should be no dominance in the rights of a Muslim parent over another non-Muslim parent. Why should one parent have all the rights over their children or can be discharged of all responsibilities as required under civil laws just because one is a Muslim?

The Bar Council cited the Tan Sung Mooi case in the Supreme Court in 1994, which clearly decided that conversion to Islam does not allow a person to avoid his legal obligations under his non-Muslim marriage. Clearly such dominant rights enjoyed by a Muslim parent over a non-Muslim parent has led to an unhealthy imbalance where a non-Muslim parent has lost her rights as a biological parent just because she refuses to convert to be a Muslim. By allowing one parent to convert to Islam and use that as a device to win custodial rights over their children would leave a negative impression of Islamic justice amongst non-Muslims.

Ong Ka Ting, Samy Vellu and Lim Keng Yaik must raise in Cabinet the need to restore the civil rights of non-Muslim parents as well as respect the secular nature of the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Forcing Subashini to seek justice through syariah courts against her will would only inflame feelings and undermine the image of tolerance and justice to women and non-Muslims in Malaysia.