Malaysiakini.com(http://www.malaysiakini.com)
1．Moments of chaos during forum, 9 August 2008
by K Pragalath
Chaos erupted in the Bar Council auditorium today when several demonstrators entered the venue to disrupt a forum on religious conversion.
One of the demonstrators (pic right), wearing a green and white Malay Student Front (GPMS) shirt, started the verbal melee when he grabbed hold of a microphone and lashed out at the crowd of about 100 participants.
“I represent Umno. Stop this forum” declared the unidentified individual who also uttered “Don’t insult Islam” and “You! Chinese, Indians, go to hell!”.
The individual’s tirade however earned him a loud reprimand from renowned International Islamic University law lecturer Dr Mehrun Siraj (pic below) who took to another microphone.
“Open discussion is the way to discuss the issues between Muslims and non-Muslims. Don’t insult Islam,” she said amidst the shouts of the protesters.
‘Protest welcomed’
The GPMS representative were among several leaders of a protest against the forum, that was held outside the Bar Council headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.
Another protest leader who entered the auditorium to disrupt the forum were PKR’s Kulim Bandar Baharu MP Zulkifli Noordin.
Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan was compelled to cur short the half-day forum at 10am following advice from the police.
“I’m closing this forum officially... we have no issues with anyone who has a different point of view. We respect everyone’s views in this building. That is what the Bar Council is about,” she said to rousing applause from the participants.
Earlier, in officiating the forum, Ambiga had told participants that the protesters had a right to voice their views provided that the forum is allowed to continue.
“Demonstrators are exercising their freedom of expression. We will certainly not lodge police reports against them,” she said, adding that they were open to share their views within the forum as well.
Testimonies
Prior to the disruptions, the forum went ahead when three women brought on stage to share their experience with legal wrangling resulting from religious conversions.
One woman brought on stage, an ethnic Chinese, narrated how her father had met an Iranian woman before embracing Islam and marrying the woman without the family’s knowledge.
“Mother was devastated. She did not know what she did wrong... He was married to mum for 30 years. During the divorce process, he agreed to give mother our house.”
“One day, the hospital called and informed of his passing. It was during the divorce process... The authorities did not recognize my mother as his wife and me as his daughter. Our property was gone. Home didn’t belong to us.
“It is not fair. It is not justice,” said the woman in between sobs.
A German woman, known only as Anita, who shared her story later said that she had a civil marriage with a Malay Muslim man in England, who claimed to be an atheist at the time.
When the couple returned to Malaysia, Anita said she was ‘converted’ during a Muslim marriage, which eventually ended in divorce and she would have to remain a Muslim.
“Why does the family take it upon themselves to convert Western girls who come here? People should be able to choose. Why is it so rigid? Relationship is supposed to be free,” she said.
Another woman who shared her story to the participants was Marie Rayappan whose family was caught in a tussle over her deceased father - Anthony Rayappan’s - remains with the religious authorities.
Subashini’s case
The second session of the forum involved a panel discussion on the custody battle between R Subashini and her former husband T Saravanan@Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah.
In 2006, Saravanan had converted to Islam, taking the name Muhammad Shafi, sought a divorce and applied for custody of the couple’s two children through the Syariah courts.
Subsequently, Subashini filed for an injunction against Muhammad Shafi’s action at the Syariah Court but was rejected at all levels up to the Federal Court.
The forum panel consisted of lawyers Haniff Khatri Abdulla, K Shanmuga and Ravi Nekoo and moderated by activist Zarizanana Abdul Aziz.
Two other panelists - Federal Territories Islamic Department (Jawi) Syariah prosecutor Dr Mohd Naim Mukhtar and Institute of Islamic Understanding (Ikim) representative Dr Wan Azha Wan Ahmad - pulled out of the event at the last minute.
Shanmuga argued that Muhammad Shafi should have sought a divorce at the civil court as their marriage was a civil marriage.
“In this case, because of the conversions, jumping spouses say that the new rule rules,” said Shanmuga, who is Subashini's lawyer.
Haniff Khatri however argued that by virtue of embracing Islam, Muhammad Shafi had a right to seek recourse at the Syariah Court.
“He had the urge to convert at the age of 19. Syariah principles must be advanced as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of the non Muslim. There are principle guidances in Islam,” said Haniff Khatri, who is Muhammad Shafi's lawyer.
The last speaker Ravi concurred with Shanmuga and advised that all converts who embrace Islam finish their obligations at the civil courts before moving to the Syariah Courts.
“There cannot be two conflicting orders in one case,” he said.
2. Rival groups unified in protest, 9 August 2008
by Andrew Ong
In a rare display of solidarity, rival Muslim groups today put aside their political differences and joined forces in protest of a controversial forum on the Federal Constitution.
Although they appeared to have a uniform objective, the crowd appeared to have split into two entities - Umno-linked and opposition-linked - as the protest drew on.
Some 100 protesters led by Muslim Students Front (GPMS) - an Umno-linked organisation - were the first to arrive at the Bar Council headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, the venue of the forum, at about 8.30am.
According to a spokesperson, a total of 19 Muslim NGOs, including Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma), Muslim Consumer Association and Muslim welfare group Pekida, were part of this group.
At about 8.45am, another group of about 100 protesters led by PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub marched to the venue unexpectedly.
Jarring chants ensued as both groups yelled two different series of slogans.
Choice of banner and poster mediums were also starkly contrasting. The GPMS-led group used full colour canvas banners, while the PAS-led group used small posters on photocopied paper.
‘Rempuh!’
Despite their differences, leaders from both groups took turns to address the crowd on a common loudhailer.
From the speeches, glaring differences in the two groups' approach again came to the fore.
A GPMS leader who spoke repeatedly stoked the crowd into storming the Bar Council building if the forum does not end by 10am - the time given by the protesters to the forum organisers.
This was echoed by repeated calls of “rempuh (charge)” by the angry crowd.
Sensing the rise in tension however, PAS leaders who took over the loudhailer and repeatedly reminded the crowd to remain calm and sit on the road until the forum is cancelled.
Even the normally firebrand cleric Dr Badrul Amin Baharom tried to keep the crowd under control by setting a more relaxed tone for the demonstration
“If no one disturb the religions of others, we would leave peacefully. We don’t disturb the Christians, the Hindus and the Buddhists. We urge that they do not incite (unrest) among the rakyat with religious issues.
“I’m sure even the non-Muslims are not happy with religious issues being played up,” said Badrul Amin, who is also a PKR supreme council member.
Left through back door
PKR Kulim-Bandar Baharu MP Zulkifli Noordin however broke ranks with his opposition colleagues when he called on the crowd to storm the building should the forum continue.
“If you don’t hear from us at 10am, you should all storm the building,” he said, before he led a four-member delegation representing the protesters to state their position to the forum organisers.
Zulkifli had participated in the demonstration as a representative from the conservative Lawyers in Defence of Islam (Pembela) organisation.
At about 10am, a section of the crowd tried to break past the police barricade but were held back by riot police and PAS maroon-clad volunteer corps better known as Unit Amal.
Other than this, there was no untoward incidents reported. However, forum participants who later left the building were subjected to verbal abuses and obscenities from the crowd.
Forum organisers were then forced to release participants from the back entrance of the building.
At about 10.24am, Zulkifli emerged from the Bar Council building and declared that the objective of the protest had been met as the forum has been cancelled.
The crowd eventually dispersed at about 10.30am.
3. Religion forums vital for enhancing understanding, 13 August 2008
by Arunasalam P
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Protesters stop Bar's 'conversion' forum.
It is shocking and regretful to note that the Bar Council forum on ‘conversion to Islam’ was sabotaged by a fanatical mob. People have fought battles for centuries over race, religion and land.
Even in these modern days, such battles are raging in many parts of our beautiful planet. We ought to learn from what we witness.
Malaysia is a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation. We often feel that we enjoy unity, harmony and peace in diversity.
Islam is the official religion of Malaysia and Malay rights are concretely enshrined in the federal constitution and in all the state constitutions and this is accepted by all and sundry.
By the same token, minority rights are also enshrined in these documents and no one has the right to deny or deprive anyone of these rights. The minority populations makes up about 45% of the total Malaysian population and they are not really minority per se.
The rakyat need such a forum of such a nature to debate, discuss and reach some common understanding on conversion to Islam so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts between people of different faiths that make up beautiful Malaysia.
Without open and frank discussion, how on earth could we reach an understanding on such issues be they contentious or otherwise? It is common sense to say that only through positive, open and frank interaction between the rakyat can we explain each other’s views and reach a suitable understanding.
By holding mob demonstrations outside the Bar Council’s office to intercept the forum only demonstrates how intolerable and uncivilised certain segments of our society have become.
I am certain that the Bar Council is not silly to question Islamic and Malay rights, because as custodians of law they would not even ponder to do so.
If the Bar Council or any other organisation cannot hold such dialogs, then it is only appropriate that the government set the stage for such interactions so as to avoid any untoward socio-cultural conflict between the people.
Unfortunately, some politicians are playing to the gallery for their own selfish ends. If at all we are serious about integrating the rakyat, we should send all elected representatives and politicians back to school to learn about racial and religious harmony.
It is pointless to ask schoolchildren and university students to integrate whilst politicians engineer divisions and promote the polarisation of our society.
We would be doing a great service to our beautiful nation if politicians are taught values of racial and religious tolerance for a better, peaceful and harmonious Malaysia.
4. Enhance civilisational dialogue for better results, 13 August 2008
by Yap Hwa
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Protesters stop Bar's 'conversion' forum.
The disruption of the conversion to Islam forum by a mob is very disappointing. Religious elements such as tolerance and peace disappeared into thin air and violent and racist language were used by the mob participants.
At the end of the event, the plight of the families of Subashini, Shamala, Lina Joy, Rayappan and Moorthy remained unresolved.
The protesters should look seriously at this issue as there are increasing number of families which suffer from an identity crisis due to conversion to Islam. This group of people who were not born Muslim, cannot seek redress because there is a gray area in jurisdiction between the civil courts and the syariah courts.
Those NGOs which oppose open discussions, either Pembela or Abim, should propose countermeasures instead of storming the Bar Council building. Such a move would be in line with the Islamic principle, justice for all.
I applaud the successful religious dialogue sessions held by the National Unity and Integration Department as they provided a channel for other religious communities to voice their concerns and submit recommendations.
Below are a few recommendations for settling disputes which arise from socio-religion circumstances:
a. Enhance civilisational dialogue. The Centre for Civilisational Dialogue in UM should be tasked with conducting religious dialogue and act as a platform for reaching a consensus.
The intervention of political powers and government machinery will only make such disputes more acrimonious and derail their agendas.
Religious groups and civil society members should hold their dialogue in an academic environment and we must give up the concept that governments or political parties could safeguard religion.
We must believe in the people’s and civil society's intellect to discuss issues rationally, reach a consensus and then propose a civil society solution to the government.
b. Respect the contract of marriage. I support the view of Bernard Dompok last year that in a divorce case involving one converted party, ‘it should be settled where it started’.
The public must respect that marriage is a private contract made by the two of them, hence it can only be dismantled by them and a party that acts as a witness.
It is akin to a couple creating a joint bank account. Even if one party had registered for another account in another bank, any changes to the first joint account must be done in that account’s bank, not another bank.
c. Review the requirement for conversion. Islamic scholars should study the necessity of conversion in the case of inter-faith marriages. Will there be any conflict if the husband and wife profess different religions?
Shouldn't the non-Muslim partner have the right to remain with his/her religion without change? I believe by reviewing this requirement, it will encourage more inter-ethnic marriages, promote better national unity and reduce a lot of bickering.
It could be a good suggestion for a multi-racial society like Malaysia.
Minister in Prime Minister’s Office Ahmad Zahid has announced such conversion disputes will be managed by a joint consultative committee comprising both civil and syariah court lawyers. This is a positive move from the government.
However, without amending the existing law and clearing the confusion of the jurisdiction of both the courts, the framework does not solve the problem. Moreover, there is the lack of transparency.
Lastly, while managing their religious affairs carefully and rationally, Malaysians must focus on the democratisation process instead of creating more racial and religious conflicts.
When the GPMS representative shouted at the recent Bar Council forum that he represented Umno, we need to be extra cautious.
It could be a plot to split the reformasi force for the coming Permatang Pauh by-election.
5. Forum was only held because the system had failed, 13 August 2008
by P Dev Anand Pillai
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Bar Council's forum: More shelling for police, protestors.
Firstly, I must say that I am very proud of the president of the Malaysian Bar. She is what a leader should be like. She has steadfastly been very vocal and firm in her convictions to see that Malaysian public concerns are addressed by the Bar when the government couldn't seem to care less.
After 51 years of independence and a system which the current establishment is very proud to boast of, all we have achieved is that the ‘Chinese and Indian Malaysians must go to hell’ as said by the representative from Umno who barged into the forum entitled ‘Conversion to Islam’ which was held at the Bar's premises.
Here we are trying to find a solution and remedy to the legal wrangles that a family or an individual has to go through when a family member or a loved one converts without their knowledge. But when we sit to discuss, we have ‘concerned groups’ who claim that this discussions are meant to ‘bash Islam’.
These litigants have been failed by a system of dual jurisdictions which don't seem to have the courage to state which jurisdiction should be the ultimate jurisdiction which should apply to all. When they fail in their recourse to the courts, they turn to the Bar and like-minded NGOs to seek advice as to how best they can lobby for some amendments to be made to the law so that they have a remedy which they can seek.
Instead of helping find a solution, all we get from the authorities and the same pressure groups is nothing but abuse and warnings. This is the state of race relations in Malaysia after 50 years.
If an individual and members of parliament from the many different political parties now say that the Bar and its leadership should be detained without trial under the ISA, then what should we do with the people who tell the ‘Chinese and Indians to go to hell’ or with teachers who berate and verbally abuse ethnic Indians by calling them keling pariah?
Do we also put them under the ISA? Or is it a different rule for them and another for the ‘Chinese, Indians and others’? This is what we should seek to remedy and which can only be done if discussions and debate are open for all to contribute. We need remedies which will be fair to all instead of just piecemeal solutions.
If the conversion is going to be used as a means of escapism, then the law needs to address the situations which the family members who are left behind have to endure. The constant runaround and the inability of any government department to provide just solutions when a convert dies, is the agony which most of those who are seeking some form of recourse have to endure.
If freedom of religion is a fundamental right enshrined under the Constitution, then so must be the rights of those who have been left in the lurch by those who choose to exercise this right.
One sees it as a means to escape from liabilities which would land heavily on them should they remain and face the challenges mounted by the members of the family which they have deserted. This inequity is the main reason why so many aggrieved parties cry out for justice which seems beyond reach in our present system.
What we are seeing today is religion being used as a political tool to garner political support and by doing so they gain in numbers. We now have leaders who are declaring jihad on others. So is this what we have been working towards all these years?
Unless and until we settle issues which one has with his/her non-Muslim family before converting, it will still be looked upon as a escape route by those who wish to take advantage of the situation.
The reason why some are taking our plea overseas is that there is no room for discussion, reasoning and justice in Malaysia anymore. The more intense the situation becomes, the more we will distance ourselves from the world. Increasingly we see a number of foreign NGOs which are very interested in what goes on in Malaysia because our racial demarcation warrants such a concern. If our local leaders are not bothered, why shouldn't Malaysians take their cause to the world at large?
If some serious change does not take place soon after 51 years of independence, which one believes had brought us to a crossroads, then the next 50 years will see a mass exodus of Malaysians of all ethnicity for other countries that can promise at least some hope of fair play and equality.
For those who can't, it will be a slow process of seeing our society become a homogeneous one, where all will belong to the same religion through different ancestries.
（End）
