YOURSAY 'It is sad when lawyers don’t understand the constitution.'
'Tribunal better than court in custody tussles'
Malaccan: Muslims are already subject to the civil court and shouldn't fear it because it is for everyone, while the Syariah Court is for Muslims only (to judge on matters relating to religion). This three-member tribunal mooted by Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association president Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar is ill-advised.
What executive power does Zainul propose to give the rulers? The constitution clearly states the correct path for adjudication is through the judiciary. Indeed, resolve the issue of jurisdiction instead, rather than creating more mechanisms that don't work.
Apart from personal law affecting Muslims, the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction elsewhere. It is restricted in scope much like the Native's Court albeit with greater stature.
Whereas the civil court stands guard over the constitution. However, I admit mediation and consultation is better, but do it before grabbing children from spouses and unilaterally converting them.
Calls for negotiations and mediation ring hollow and false after the dirty deeds are done, and after the civil courts have already delivered the ruling.
Odin: Zainul, deep in your heart of hearts, do you seriously think that a ruler or a governor, seeing they all are Muslims, will nominate a non-Muslim to be the third member of your tribunal?
What you are suggesting virtually calls for a Muslim-majority panel (two Muslims and one non-Muslim). I will tell you that the best and only way to ensure a hearing that will be acceptable to all is to get either honest judges who are atheists and are followers of no religion, or get god to preside.
And in stating god to be the other option, I am being serious and not being frivolous or trying to be funny.
Chris Wong: Syarie Lawyers Association Malaysia president Musa Awang is thinking that I don't know how to read.
Article 121(1A) does not say the civil and syariah court are on equal footing. It says that the civil court has no jurisdiction over matters that syariah court has jurisdiction on.
Determine the jurisdiction and you will know which court to go to. Musa is another political idealogue pretending to be a lawyer.
Mr KJ John: Sorry Musa, but your argument is flawed as you assume that the civil court and syariah are of the same level. Under the federal constitution, the syariah is a subsidiary court created under a schedule of the main document.
Anonymous #32557251: Since when are the syariah and civil courts on equal footing? Can the Bar Council throw us some light on Article 121(1A) so that the general public understand the judicial world of Malaysia better?
If Syariah Court equals the High Court, can I say that our current police force equals the religious police as in Saudi Arabia?
Is this a case of ‘one country, two systems’, where some special people have the right to choose which one to follow? And we call our country a democratic country?
Foodforthought: Stating the obvious to validate itself. Common law is applicable to all Malaysians; syariah law is not. Do the simple maths.
RR: The crux of the matter is the difference between the two courts. The syariah court is only for Muslim family matters. The civil court embraces all the rest. There is no question which is higher or lower.
Now these converted husbands are subjected to the Syariah Court as they are Muslims but they have no business to forcefully convert their innocent children without the consent of the mother, a non-Muslim.
In fact, common sense dictates that no parents can convert their children who are under 18. These children are individuals and they will decide what religion or none to follow on reaching 18. The imam or ustaz should not convert children as a matter of good religious principle.
The final question is not whether one is a Muslim first and then the profession, but whether one is a rational human being. Therefore the civil court should decide on the custody of the illegally converted children.
Baiyuensheng In this country, civil court is higher than syariah court, so accept it and get over it.
Sabahan: It is a sad day for Malaysia when lawyers are not properly trained to understand the Malaysian constitution.
Very soon, someone will claim that the Syariah Court is higher than the Federal Court. The rot in Malaysia has gone from top to bottom.
Kangkung: Why must a marriage made in a civil court seeks a decision from a syariah court or whatever tribunal?
You can never trust whatever tribunal is set up in Bolehland, as you know which way the ruling will go.
Anonymous_1402207329: Indeed, whatever disputes arise from marriages conducted under civil law should be settled in the civil court. In these cases, a tribunal is not needed.
Negarawan: This "tribunal" proposal is ill-conceived and irrelevant. The crux of the problem now is the illegal and unilateral conversion of children without consent of non-Muslim spouse.
Singapore has no such problem because they have competent law ministers and a competent government.
Turvy: We don't need another tribunal as much as we need clear principles and procedures for those who wish to convert. The first principle should be one of disclosure before conversion. A spouse wishing to convert must inform the other of his/her desire to convert.
The consequences of the conversion of the spouse should have no effect on the religious status of any children in the marriage. The marriage should then be dissolved (or terminated) and the rights of the parties determined in line with the civil law of marriage.
If the converting spouse wishes to convert any children of the marriage, written consent registered with the High Court must be obtained. What I am suggesting is an orderly and public separation in which all parties involved are fully informed.
Conversions by night as are happening now must be banned. Setting up a tribunal merely creates the opportunity to prolong the agony of aggrieved individuals.
Lokaikai: Zainul said the "converted spouse may not want to go to the civil High Court allegedly for fear they would not get a fair judgment."
Zainul, are you insulting the civil court? And what happens in case of rape, can the rapist turn to Syariah Court if he is a Muslim, which needs four witnesses to prove guilt? One country cannot have two sets of laws. It creates conflict.
Jg: Zainul, are you saying that judges in the civil court do not and cannot act impartially?
Cry, My Beloved Country: Is there not the constitution, the courts, the rule of law and due process? Unless all these are deemed to be inadequate, what is the need for another mechanism to enable you to bypass existing provisions?
Surely a lack of political will and courage to take the bull by the horns is not a justification for another appointed panel.
Chris Wong: Adding more nonsense will not solve the problem. The civil court decides, civil law applies. The police follow civil law.
The problem is not as complicated as the Muslim lawyers want to put it. It becomes complicated by wishful thinking of political idealogues and bigots.
Unmasked: More and more people are now coming up with "solutions" whereas the court orders are being ignored. What is wrong with Malaysians?
Carry out the court orders first and immediately seek a permanent solution to the root cause of these man-made irregularities to avoid future recurrences.
Anonymous_3ee4: The issue is, the police are there to enforce the law not to interpret it to suit their whims and fancies. Period.
Penang Mari-loh : We have leadership crisis in this country. Everybody in authority unilaterally decides and does what they like, even though it is wrong.
I thought former PM Abdullah Badawi was bad as he was always sleeping. But PM Najib Razak is worse. He is always missing.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
