The stand taken by authorities that consent of only one parent who has converted is needed to convert a minor is tantamount to an “unauthorised alteration” of the federal constitution, the Bar Council says.

“The unilateral conversion of minor children to any religion by a parent, without the knowledge or consent of the non-converting parent, creates social injustice, violates the rights of the non-converting parent, and is contrary to our constitutional scheme,” Bar president Christopher Leong said today.

NONE Leong ( left ) pointed out that the authorities seem to be applying the “new Bahasa Malaysia translation” of the word ‘parent’ in the constitution as “ibu atau bapa” (mother or father)” as opposed to “ibu bapa” (father and mother).

He was referring to Article 12(4) of the federal constitution which states that “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian”.

However, he added in a statement, the word “parent”, although singular, referred to both the child’s parents, as accorded in the Eleventh Schedule of the constitution.

“This is tantamount to an unauthorised amendment or alteration of the federal constitution, and is itself unconstitutional.

“An act of translation of the federal constitution cannot become an act of amendment of the federal constitution.

“The word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) must be read as ‘ibu bapa’, as found in the pre-2002 Bahasa Malaysia translations (of the constitution), and which is consistent with Article 160 and the Eleventh Schedule,” he said.

Leong was responding to a recent reported case in Negri Sembilan, in which two children were converted to Islam by an estranged husband without the knowledge of his Hindu wife.

The Negri Sembilan Islamic Affairs Department took the position that the consent of both parents was not necessary and that any appeal by the mother should be before the Syariah Court.

There have been other similar cases, including that of S Shamala and R Subashini.

Cabinet directive of 2009

The Malaysian Bar also recalled the April 2009 c abinet directive , in which former de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said children of estranged couples should remain in the religion of their parents at the time of their marriage.

“This is the correct constitutional position. The government sought to make clear and reaffirm this position on amendments proposed to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

 

“The Bar Council and various civil society groups recommended that both parents must consent to any change of religion of a minor child.

“However, these proposed amendments were deferred by the government for further consultation, and then apparently quietly forgotten,” Leong said.

 

He said the government must act now to put an end to this sorry state of affairs and not remain in “animated suspension in the face of human sorrow and misery”.