The Malaysian Bar - Disrupted forum — a wasted opportunity?

Home

Committees

Family Law

Disrupted forum — a wasted opportunity?

Saturday, 09 August 2008 04:41pm

©The Malaysian Insider (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 9 — The Bar Council public forum today, headlined "Conversion to Islam: Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini & Shamala Revisited", turned out to be a misnomer.

The 80-minute long discussion, which was conducted in two parts, was more (a) a sharing session by real people who have who have had their lives turned topsy turvy due to a decision by a loved one and have had to pay a very heavy price as a result; and (b) a social evaluation of how the law can be applied in a more humane manner to alleviate those who are caught up in the ensuing conflict as collateral damage.

The forum started at 8.45am with three very personal stories from three women whose lives were impacted by the conversion of a much-loved family member to the religion of Islam.

The first eyewitness account came from a young Chinese woman who saw her parents' marriage crumble after her father embraced Islam to marry an Iranian Muslim.

The second came from an older Indian woman whose father too embraced Islam and married a Malay Muslim. Her family, devout Christians, underwent tremendous conflict with religious authorities when her sickly father passed away.

The third was a spontaneous sharing from a German woman who married a Malaysian Malay Muslim in England and was unwittingly converted to Islam by his family when they moved here, only to be divorced and abandoned after 10 years of marriage.

It was a very emotional 15 minutes. The eyewitnesses broke down in tears while recounting their personal histories and many in the audience were caught in an awkward situation, between sympathy and misery.

"It is something sad but happens in all divorce matters...What I saw, it's not an issue of religion but how the people handled the matter. The law is there. The execution of the law is how it's done. Per se, it's not an issue of conversion," said one of the three panellists,

Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, who represented Muhammad Shafi Abdullah (T. Saravanan before conversion to Islam) in the 2006 R. Subashini court case.

His honourable peer and opposing lawyer in the same case, K. Shanmuga, who acted on behalf of Subashini, argued: "But there is a twist. In other court cases, the pain and suffering is heard on both sides. In this case, because of the legal system where there are two jurisdictions, the non-converting spouse is confused and terrified...That's why the heartbreak is exponentially increased in this situation."

Moderator, Zarizana Abdul Aziz, who was pressured to move the discussion along quickly, considering the four-and-a-half-hour forum had been abruptly shortened following disturbances from angry street protesters outside, had this to say:

"There is a problem, and we're trying to reconcile the differences; trying to see what's the best way to move forward. The problem will not go away unless we deal with it. It's a very human issue. And as Malaysians, it is our responsibility to find ways to deal with it."

"Apart from the legal issues, we must focus on the humanitarian issues. I think it is important to realise that Saravanan, Subashini and Shamala are not just names but real people," Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan observed in her opening address.

It was just too bad that too little of that fact had been disseminated to too few people who were too caught up in emotional dross to appreciate it.

If the forum had followed its natural conclusion, who knows, mutual respect and sympathy for people could have bridged that yawning gap between our country's two jurisdictions.