1. Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com)
Federal Court avoids deciding on right to religion of choice, 2 February 2012
by Debra Chong
Raus chaired the five-man panel which decided on the issue.
PUTRAJAYA, Feb 2 — The country’s top court today passed on a chance to answer one of the most fundamental constitutional questions plaguing this multiracial and multireligious nation of 28 million people — the right of a person to profess his faith of choice.
An Indian Malaysian father of three, Zaina Abdin Halim @ S. Maniam, who has been declared a Muslim on his identity card, has been seeking to have the National Registration Department (NRD) strike it off since 2002.
Fahri Azzat , lawyer for the litigant, told The Malaysian Insider today: “If a person’s mother and father are Muslims, that provision under section 2 of the Selangor State Enactment restraints the person from professing a faith of choice.”
Born of an ethnic Indian father and a Malay Muslim mother, the Zaina Abdin has said in court documents that he was raised to be a Hindu and has brought up his three children in the religion their whole lives.
In a sworn statement, he has put his real name down as Balachandran son of S. Maniam, taking the cue from his father’s name before the latter embraced Islam to marry.
The government agency, however, has refused to allow Zaina Abdin, also known as Balachandran, to change his religious status, based on a provision of the Selangor State Enactment concerning Islamic affairs.
Under section 2 of the state Islamic law, children of Muslim parents are automatically deemed to be Muslim as well.
As such, Zaina Abdin aka Balachandran would have to apply to the Syariah Court to renounce he is Muslim and become an apostate. He maintains he is not an apostate.
The upset litigant charges that section 2 is against the basic principles of the Federal Constitution, the country’s highest law, specifically Article 1(1), which states: “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.”
Clause 4 states that state law and in the cases of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan, federal law, may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
But a five-man panel of judges in the Federal Court unanimously decided that it was not the proper platform to determine a person’s religious position and returned the case to the High Court for a hearing.
“We are unanimous that this case is not a suitable case to be referred to us under section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act.
“The facts [of the case] are in dispute,” said Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Raus Sharif, who chaired the Bench.
The crucial fact of the case rests on whether Zaina Abdin aka Balachandran is Muslim or Hindu, as he claims.
Both the man’s lawyers and government lawyers have been at odds on this one basic fact, agreeing only that by operation of the law Zaina Abdin aka Balachandran is Muslim, which is the latter’s dispute.
The Federal Court directed the case be heard on its merits in the High Court.
K. Shanmuga, another lawyer for Zaina Abdi aka Balachandran, told reporters his client was disappointed by the Federal Court decision after a 10-year wait which would have granted him finality in the matter.
The lawyer added that the three children, who were minors when the case was first filed in 2002, were now adults of marriageable age.
He said the Federal Court decision would also affect the trio, who like their father, had sued the federal government, the Selangor government and the Selangor Islamic Council, to seek the same basic rights.
“Now, we can only go back to the High Court and ask for an early hearing date,” Shanmuga said.
2. Malaysiakini(http://www.malaysiakini.com)
(1) Another missed opportunity to resolve religious issue, 2 February 2012
by Hafiz Yatim
A lawyer who was the solicitor for Lina Joy and was present in the Zaina Abdin Hamid and his three children’s case today, said it was another missed opportunity by the Federal Court in not trying to answer the five constitutional questions posed over a religious dispute.
Benjamin Dawson, who was present representing the Bar Council which was holding a watching brief in the Zaina case, said as a pluralistic society with many races and religion, it is becoming impossible for a Muslim to renounce the religion and marry a non-Muslim.
Bringing a humanistic aspect to the whole saga, Benjamin said what is even more sad in this case is that Zaina’s children may face problems as they are now of marriagable age.
Zaina’s children, Surindran, 24, Mohanasubash, 21, and Chandrika, 19, who are also applicants, bear their father’s name and are also practising Hindus.
“What if the children want to marry and their religious status is in question as their father has a Muslim name despite Zaina being a practising Hindu from birth,” he said.
“Like in the Lina Joy case, she had converted and wanted to get married to an Indian Christian man and have a family. Her hopes were dashed following the civil court being not willing to decide on the status of her religion in a dispute. There will be more hopes dashed as people who may fall in love but come from opposing religions wanting to set up or have families,” he pointed out.
Lina Joy, whose real name is Azlina Jelani, was a Malay and a Muslim who had however converted to Christianity. She wanted her religious status on her identity card, which states her religion as Islam, to be removed. She was not willing to go to the Syariah Court, as she had already converted.
However, the Federal Court in a majority decision ruled they cannot determine her religious status and her identity card status remains.
Following Lina’s case, there have been other religious disputes case brought to the Federal Court including the case of S Shamala vs her former husband Dr M Jeyaganesh, who converted their two sons to Islam after he became a Muslim.
‘Facts in Zaina’s case are peculiar’
Benjamin said the facts of Zaina’s case are rather peculiar, and putting aside the definition of Muslim in the Selangor enactment, and going by the constitution alone, the appellants are clearly not Muslims.
“This is insofar as the definition of a Muslim in the state enactment goes beyond Article 11 (1) of the federal constitution, where everyone has the right to profess and practice his or her religion,” he said.
In their affidavit, Zaina, who despite having a Muslim name, professed that he has been a practising Hindu from birth, and that the children are also practising Hindus.
Zaina, who is now 61, is married and had it registered with the National Registration Department under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 and they had raised their children as Hindus all their life.
Benjamin said based on these facts alone it would be a gross injustice to hold that these four persons are not of the Hindu faith when all through their lives they had lived as such.
“A fact remains a fact. No amount of legislation can alter that,” he said.
In Zaina’s affidavit, he also related a sad fact where he had made many application to change his name including by a deed poll since 1973 but to no avail. He is worried that with his Muslim name people would think he is a Muslim but in fact he is a practising Hindu and wants his body cremated.
He also saw the Muslim authorities seize his father’s body after the family had finished their Hindu prayers at his Hindu funeral, and was brought to the Sungai Besi Muslim cemetery where Islamic prayers and rites were performed.
“I was present at the burial with my brothers but we do not take part in the Islamic rites and were treated by the men at the burial as non-Muslims. I felt very very sad that we were not able to cremate our father in the Hindu way,” he said in his affidavit.
Suhakam response
Lawyer Andrew Khoo, who is holding a watching brief for the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), said they are obviously disappointed that the Federal Court had declined to hear the case.
“It was filed 10 years ago in the High Court, and then it went to the Court of Appeal. When it finally reaches the Federal Court, the apex court orders it to be heard again in the High Court.
“After 10 years, the appellants are back to square one. Questions of constitutional law, especially regarding human rights, must be quickly resolved as they affect the lives of many people. Last year, the Federal Court refused to decide on the Bato Bagi native land rights case. Today it is the Zaina Abdin conversion of religion case. What will it be tomorrow?”
“One cannot help but get the feeling that the Federal Court is sidestepping critically important cases dealing with constitutional law and fundamental liberties,” he said.
(2) Jakim: No misspelling of 'Malaysia' in 'halal' logo, 2 February 2012
The Islamic Development Department (Jakim) has clarified that there is no misspelling of ‘Malaysia’ in its new halal logo.
Commenting on a report in Utusan Malaysia yesterday that Malaysia had been misspelled in jawi in the logo, Jakim said in a statement today that the spelling of ‘Malaysia’ in the logo was in Arabic and not in jawi as implied by the report.
Jakim said it registered the logo as a certification mark with the Malaysian Intellectual Property Corporation under the Trade Marks Act 1976.
The existing Malaysian ‘halal’ logo was registered in 2001 with a feature of pointed stars in the middle of a circle and two small five-pointed stars to distinguish the Roman script from the Arabic word.
（Bernama）
（End）
