The High Court ruling today on S Deepa and her children of Seremban has given rise to mixed feelings to many like me, when it did not decide on the unjust and improper conversion by the father. I remember the the case of S Shamala’s two children in Alor Star, Kedah. In my opinion the judges in both cases have abdicated their rights to hear or consider the unethical method of conversion.

Shamala was victim of one sided law based on Article 121(1A) of the federal constitution. I can still remember the author of the ‘draconian’ law Abu Talib Othman, the then-attorney-general (AG), had stated that the Civil Court Judges should not abdicate their powers and conduct their hearings based on the laws which protect all communities. The question of unethical one-sided conversion must be addressed by both Civil Court judges in a fair and just manner.

The Civil Court has the right to listen to both parties, ie the Muslims and non-Muslims, whereas the Syariah Court is out of bounds to non-Muslims.

In a Syariah Court the non-Muslim is deprived of the counsel of his or her own choice even when the non-Muslim counsel has the same Syariah diploma qualification. What justice is that when the plaintiff or accused cannot be defended in a fair and just manner?

I can still remember when the leaders assured us in 1988 and 1989 that we non-Muslims should not fear Section 121(1A) because it was only to protect Muslims involved with Muslims! The PM then explained to MIC leaders that it was to prevent Muslim men going to Civil Court after losing to the wife on properties in the Syariah Court. That sounded sensible!

Even then the entire script of the amendments was not handed to the Parliament members until very late, giving them insufficient time to study the proposed amendments. Non-Muslim BN MPs trusted their leaders' words of assurance.

In early 1990s this same assurance was given to each non-Muslim state assemblyperson by the respective state MBs and CMs when the State Islamic Enactments were amended with great haste. These assemblypersons were only given about two to four hours notice and hurriedly passed, with BN non-Muslim assemblypersons voting in favour based on the assurance given. Were they taken for a ride?

Conversion case involves both Muslims and non-Muslims and, therefore, it should only be heard in Civil Courts. It is then that the assurance by leaders make sense. Only the Civil Courts which allow both Muslims and non-Muslims should hear such cases. There is no necessity for any other different court.

The cases in question are very few as compared to the thousands who have converted voluntarily to Islam and have no disputes, living amicably with all concerned.

I sincerely hope and pray that the AG, the Chief Justice and the prime minister will give due consideration to the disputed cases. Similar consideration must be given by the Syariah Courts and the states.

A VAITHILINGAM is former president of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST).