©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.