YOURSAY | ‘Subra, you are repeating what the lawyers have argued for seven years.’

Cabinet reiterates 'civil court for civil marriage disputes' decision

RCZ: Health Minister Dr S Subramaniam, isn't that what was exactly done in M Indira Gandhi’s case?

She referred her claim to the civil court under the law, as she said her matter was a constitutional and administrative issue - i.e. changing a 11-month baby’s religion without her consent and issuing a conversion certificate - and not a religious issue.

Didn't Ipoh High Court Justice Lee Swee Seng give a brilliant and rational judgment ? Why then did the Court of Appeal reverse it with no basis, taking the simplistic approach by saying that the certificate is final?

You are repeating what the lawyers have argued for seven years. So you either need to have the political will to pass an act in Parliament to stop this abuse, or otherwise shut up and let Indira - and many like her - suffer.

Aries46: Subra, are you saying only now after all the heartache, the cabinet realises that a civil law marriage must be dealt with under civil law?

Isn’t that the law as it stands and what the non-Muslims have been crying out every time these blatant injustices were inflicted on innocent non-Muslim families in the name of backdoor/unilateral conversion to Islam?

Remember you came out with similar rhetoric in 2009 to placate the public outcry following the commencement of Indira’s tribulations? What has been the outcome?

Despite the assurances then she has been sent on a wild goose chase for six years to redeem her shattered life while Umno and MIC, the architects of her misery, have feint ignorance of her misery.

And as for what you claim, if the cabinet is sincere this time around, why is Najib riding piggy-back on you so much so people are wondering if he even has the clout anymore to put through whatever you are mouthing.

Anonymous_1371479577: Yes, can we hear from the PM himself? The rakyat expects to hear from their PM on important issues, and not via his proxy.

Appum: We are all made to understand that the constitution is supreme and that all laws are interpreted in accordance to the constitution. We are made to understand that the civil courts are superior to the syariah courts or any religious courts.

Refer to what former law minister Zaid Ibrahim has written about our judges and court decisions lately.

Question is: Why, why, why? We all know the answers, there’s no need for a rocket scientist to give you one.

There is no need to repeat the causes of such a predicament for this once wonderful country is going through now. Malaysia Tak Boleh.

Iiiizzzziiii: A religion is just a religion, given life and recognition by human beings who have professed and embraced it.

A religion does not belong to anybody and no one should claim ownership to it. When this happens, the religion has been hijacked.

When a religion becomes exclusive to a particular race, then the inherent problem becomes exacerbated. Slowly, it comes to a point where a few begin to control and influence the masses.

And the most amazing thing that happens is that the masses allow themselves to be led or misled. The question is why? It has nothing to do with the religion, but the people who have embraced and practised it.

A religion should always be judged by those who have chosen to embrace it, and by their conduct, not just by itself.

Perhaps the heart of the problem is what a person wants and his interpretation and understanding of what God wants. If there are differing opinions, what happens then?

Single Malt: Malaysia is a secular country as per the federal constitution. Islam is recognised as the official religion.

Yet we see many politicians, and even judges, misinterpreting the constitution and calling Malaysia an Islamic country. Is it because they don't understand the constitution or do they want to change Malaysia from being a secular nation to an Islamic state?

Why was a court decision not made in accordance with the constitution in the Indira Gandhi case? I suggest that we hold a referendum across the country to determine once and for all where we stand: secular or Islamic.

Let the people decide and change the constitution accordingly.

Mosquitobrain: Hello Subra, were you born only yesterday? Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is a special breed with good acting skills.

He will talk like an Indian come Deepavali or Thaipusam, say ‘Merry Christmas’ when December comes, and wish ‘Gong Xi Fa Cai’ when it is Chinese New Year.

After that, it is all back to square one. Only MIC nincompoops like you, will believe in him.

It is pathetic to see that no soul in MIC even dares to voice out in this Indira Gandhi case.

Anonymous #13571680: Gone are the days when politicians got into politics to speak up for the people. You can say and do what you want now, but remember that you reap only what you sow.

Also, remember that your sins can be passed down seven generations.

Out of Time: What the cabinet says, the Muslim judges will just ignore. After all, Muslims apparently do not need to treat non-Muslims fairly.

LifesBlessing : The amendments should have tabled in 2009 when the cabinet came up with its decision then.

Nevertheless, let’s see whether the amendments are considered this time. No need for further discussion. Do or get lost.

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 .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.