Following up on his remarks against the two main peninsular-based Barisan Nasional (BN) component parties, MCA and MIC, yesterday, the former minister today took specific aim at MIC president Dr S Subramaniam for his ignorance on the plight of the families that had been affected in the past.
“Subra, don’t make a big thing about the ability to dissolve civil marriage. You think Indira’s husband cares? Nothing he did could be undone (sic),” Zaid tweeted this morning, referring to the famous case of Indira Gandhi whose three children were converted to Islam by her ex-husband without her consent.
Yesterday, one day after the government had withdrawn the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Amendment 2016, which it had first tabled last November, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said tabled a new amendment bill, with the specific clause on unilateral conversion removed in its entirety.
In response, Subramaniam said the attorney-general felt the clause was in conflict with the Federal Constitution and might not be put into force even if it were passed.
“However, there are other elements in the amendments that will help us resolve many problems.
“As a first step, we thought we will go forward with those. For this clause, we will see how to pass it in ways that will be acceptable to all,” the health minister was quoted as saying by The Star.
The clause was meant to be a resolution, first promised by former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, that disallowed a child below the age of 18 from being converted to another religion with the consent of just one parent.
The new bill included provisions for a newly-converted Muslim spouse to file for divorce in a civil court to dissolve the marriage to his or her non-Muslim spouse.
On the issue of unilateral conversion, Zaid brought up the case which had been previously cited by the government.
“6 years since Subashini, and this government suddenly say it’s the Constitution. And MIC believes the story,” Zaid said in another Twitter message.
He was referring to the Federal Court ruling in 2007 that stated a single parent could convert the children. This was in the case of Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray.
In Subashini’s case, the majority in the three-man Federal Court bench interpreted Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and held that one parent could convert their children.
The judges held the view that the word “parent” meant “a single parent” and it followed that either spouse had the right to convert a child of marriage to Islam.
However, Zaid, who joined DAP earlier this year, suggested that the new bill only strengthened the position of the newly-converted Muslim spouse further, in addition to the right to convert the children unilaterally.
“The truth is non-Muslim mothers will not get the same treatment as the recently converted fathers, that’s the hard truth,” he said in another tweet.
In the case of Indira, her former husband, K Pathmanathan, converted to Islam on March 11, 2009, taking the name of Muhammad Riduan Abdullah.
He left the house three weeks later with their youngest child.
On April 2, 2009, he converted all three of their children to Islam without their knowledge and presence, and without Indira’s consent. He went to the Shariah Court several days later to obtain custody over them.
Indira’s eldest daughter, Tevi Darsiny, is now an adult at 20 while her brother, Karan Dinish, turns 19 in October. They are old enough to decide on their own faiths.
However, the location of nine-year-old Prasana Diksa remains unknown.
Zaid targets MCA, MIC over unilateral conversion bill withdrawal