Ministers statement lacking in substance
Health Minister Dato Subramaniam has now come out again to state the cabinet reiterated in principle that an interfaith custodial dispute should be referred to the civilcourt if the couple married under civil law”. If this is the stand of the Government why is there a necessity forlaws which were ambiguous and unclear beamended? In 2009 when the matter was first raised in Parliament the then committee where Subramaniam was a member had assured Malaysians those necessary legislations would be tabled. But this was not done, as apparently the rulers had objected to it.
Lack of consultation
Parliamentarians were never told or consulted what laws are being considered to be amended. We MPs have been kept in the dark all this while although we have been consistently reminding the Government to table theamendments. The public concern and rational is, if the rulers had objected to any amendments earlier what if it happens again? The Government must spell out the details of the amendments to the law and issues which were objected to by the rulers for us to assist in the process.
Adversary role of the Attorney General
Is Subramaniam stating the truth on the interfaith matters?This is because if it is the Government position and policy is to support Civil Court to adjudicate on interfaith matters why has the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) disputingthe jurisdiction of the civil court on conversion issues? In 2009 the 3 children of Indira Gandhi were converted by their father Pathmanathan in the children’s absence although all 3 children were minors. It was just with their birth certificates the conversion was done. Thecustody of the children was granted to the father (theconvert) in the Syariah court. When we challenged the above issues in the civil court the Attorney Generalsupported the convert husband all the way from the High Court to the federal Court. From 2009 when Indira Gandhi case began in the Ipoh High Court the AGC has and to date consistently oppose all of Indira cases. If going by Minister Subramaniam statement why then AGC has not supported Indira Gandhi in her court fights? In fact AGC has taken an opposite stand from what Subra has said and have taken strenuous objection to all of Indira’s action.
Minister should confront double-faced stand of the cabinet
The Public is much aware of our government’s inconsistent and double-faced stand. Is Subramaniamaware of the AGC stand or is he helpless to do anything about this? Is Minister Subramaniam willing to confront and raise this dubious stand of the AGC at the next meeting of the Cabinet? Or will he or try to find a way out to riggle his way out!! .
Cabinet should prove it is not toothless
As a first step I would like to advice Minister Subramaniamto get the Attorney General to support the leave application of Indira Gandhi which will come up soon in the Federal Court. If this is not possible the Cabinet will be regarded as toothless to act against the AGC. As AGC is the principle adviser on law to the Government, why are they not consistent in advocating and defending the policies of the Government and Cabinet? Something is wrong some where. Who are in control and directing Government policies? Are the “little napoleons” in command and remote controlling the entire cabinet?