The High Court’s dismissal on 11 May of a single mother’s application for a judicial review to nullify her children’s unilateral conversion was not only disappointing but alarming as well.
Without going into the merits of the case as reported, my main concern is that the High Court was not guided by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. In cases involving minors, the consent of both parents is mandatory. This is explicitly clear in the Federal Constitution.
In Loh Siew Hong’s case, the single mother had contended she did not give consent for her children to be converted to Islam. This is the core issue in this matter. This is the underlying contentious issue. This is the fundamental requirement under the Federal Constitution.
Any other supporting evidence to show that the children were observing the rituals of Islam doesn’t carry any weight to validate their conversion.
Even if her children were practising Islam in their daily lives 15 months ago while under Loh’s custody – as claimed in an affidavit by the Perlis Islamic Religious and Malay Customs Council (MAIP) – it absolutely does not nullify the provision of the Federal Constitution. Moreover, this is a 15-month-old reference. What is the present status 15 months later? We are not told what the present situation is. Are they still practising Muslims?
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Loh’s affidavit had denied this assertion. But this fact did not make any difference. According to the judge, Loh’s denial only amounted to a bare denial and nothing more, and she did not deny the affirmative assertion that the children continued to profess Islam while under her custody – which was 15 months ago!
Why was more weight given to the claim by the religious authorities regarding the status of the children which was 15 months old compared to Loh’s disagreement of that claim? Loh’s assertion was simply dismissed as a “bare denial”.
Among others, Loh is seeking declarations that her children are Hindu and that the children are legally unfit to embrace Islam without her approval. She is also seeking a declaration that Perlis state’s legal provision that allows for one parent to unilaterally convert a child is unconstitutional.
But the court felt that the force of evidence supported the dismissal of Loh’s application:
- The children had recited the Shahadah (the declaration of faith) to convert to Islam on 7 July 2020
- There was no evidence that the children had ‘reverted’ to the Hindu religion
- The children were practising Islamic religious rituals
- The court was satisfied that the legal requirements under the state’s legal provision allowed for one parent to convert a child unilaterally
Based on the above, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Loh’s application.
As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, these are non-issues and have no bearing on the requirement for both parents’ consent. It is mandatory and must be adhered to, overriding the so-called “force of evidence” cited by the honourable judge.
By now it must be beyond question – after the Federal Court had ruled in the case of Indira Gandhi – the consent of both the parents is essential before minors can convert to Islam. This is an absolute necessity for a conversion to be legally binding. Without this consent from both parties, the so-called conversion is not legally valid.
In Loh’s case, her husband abducted her children in 2019 without her knowledge and ran away to Kedah and unilaterally converted his children in 2020.
It was only when she came to be aware of her children’s whereabouts that Loh successfully initiated court proceedings to obtain custody of her children in 2021. But the children were not released to her. Loh was only reunited with them in early 2022 through a court order.
It is bewildering that the High Court has completely shut its eye to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. It is a wonder how a state religious enactment can override the Federal Constitution!
It is a betrayal of fundamental rights when the judiciary fails as the guardian of rights.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
