Liberty Sentinel (http://libertysentinel.wordpress.com)
New Law Will Take Away Your Children in the Name of Religion, 28 June 2013
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
First they took away our economic equal rights. We meekly agreed. Then they insidiously chipped away our religious rights. We weakly complained. Now they want to take away our children by unconstitutional legislation. NOW WE MUST PROTEST VEHEMENTLY!
MCCBCHST Media Statement
The Malaysian Consultative Council Of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) vehemently objects to some provisions found in the RANG UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN AGAMA ISLAM (WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN) 2013 tabled in
Parliament for its first reading on 26 June 2013 as they affect the Non-Muslims. The Bill under disguise of lslamic Laws is unilaterally trying to alter the Federal Constitution by translating the word “parent” in the Federal Constitution to mean “lbu atau Bapa” as opposed to “lbubapa”.
Any conversion of a minor by a single parent will cause serious injustice to the non-converting parent and the children of the marriage – Section 107 (b) “jika dia belum mencapai umur lapan belas tahun, ibu atau bapa atau penjaganya mengizinkan pemelukan agama lslam olehnya.” This provision would further creates social injustice and is contrary to the constitutional scheme of things
We hold the Federal Cabinet accountable for this transgression, that is, inspite of the Cabinet decision of 2314/2013 whereby it was decided that a single parent cannot convert a minor child of the marriage. Despite that public statement, the Cabinet deem it fit to introduce the above provision
The MCCBCHST wishes to reiterate that any unilateral conversion of their children by one parent encroaches into the lives of Non-Muslims. Such conversions are not only unconstitutional but are morally and ethically wrong. We ask Cabinet members how they will feel if their children are unilaterally converted. Do not do things to others, which you do not want to be done to you.
We must warn that if “Parent” in Article 12(a) is to be interpreted to mean “single” parent”, it will go against the spirit and letter of Article 4 of the Federal Constitution - the Supreme Law of the land. lf this lnterpretation is advanced, then there is nothing to stop the other single parent to convert back the child to the Original religion. No religious law can over-ride the constitution. This would produce an absurd result and therefore this could not be meaning intended.
Reliance on the case of SUBASHINI (2008), may not be in order as the case appears to be wrongly decided due to the following:-
i) The Court did not apply the Statutory Interpretation clause. Art. 160(1) (Eleventh Schedule) under which “words importing the masculine gender lnclude female” and “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.
ii) The guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 which provides for equality of parental rights.
iii) lf single “parent” can convert, then it would lead to an absurd result, as the non-converting spouse can similarly by virtue of being a single parent convert back her child to the original faith.
We understand that the Bill also provides for Syariah High Court to decide whether a person is a Muslim or not. See Section 51(3Xb) (x) and (xi). This power has always been with the Civil High Court and not the Syariah Court. The amendment thus proposed is unconstitutional.
The MCCBCHST, therefore calls upon the Cabinet to withdraw the above Bill, until its provisions have been thoroughly debated by all the stake holders. Any bull dozing through of the Bill will not be accepted and would also be unconstitutional, giving no choice to the affected persons to look for remedy peacefully through other legal channels locally and internationally.
————————
MCCBCHST Media Statement- 28.06.2013
MBPJ Introduces Strict Dress Code…Visiting Council HQ
Citizens of Petaling Jaya are alarmed and dismayed that MBPJ wants to enforce strict dress code for visitors at the MBPJ HQ. Let’s cut the pretence. This ruling has nothing to do with Asian mores or modesty. It is the case of insidious (or blatant) Islamization by local Napoleans out to ensure that public policies are Shariah-compliant.
If non-Muslims meekly submit to this ruling, they will eventually face new rulings requiring non-Muslim women to cover their heads when they visit MBPJ and other public institutions. Any restriction of our fundamental and civic liberties is unacceptable, whether it is imposed by decree or enforced gradually, especially when it is the case of imposition of the mores of one religion (Islam) upon believers of other religions.
What hypocrisy! Highlighting strict dress codes supposedly suggests our public officials are people of high morals. But this gimmick has credibility only if MBPJ is seen as an institution based on good and clean governance. What misplaced priorities! MBPJ should be reminded that its basic responsibility is to provide adequate social services to all people of PJ regardless of race and religion and not “to prevent vice and to promote virtue.”
Mind you, this is happening at Petaling Jaya, Selangor and not Kelantan or Kedah. We did not elect Pakatan Rakyat to run Selangor only to find its appointed town councillors imposing their personal religious mores and values upon wider society. We expect our Wakil Rakyat to take immediate action to redress this blatant violation of civic liberties.
————————————-
The Star Online
MBPJ introduces strict dress code for men and women visiting council HQ,28 June 2013
by Edward R. Henry
THE public visiting Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) headquarters in Jalan Yong Shook Lin will now have to observe guidelines on dress code set by the council.
Women wearing strapless or sleeveless tops, short skirts (above the knee) and flip-flops will not be allowed into the premises.
Men are also not spared as those wearing singlets, short pants and flip-flops will be barred from entering the council building.
Last week, ahead of the seventh City Day celebrations, the council issued the guidelines, with graphics. Titled Tatacara Berpakaian or Dress Code, it illustrates the unacceptable attire.
The public who visited the MBPJ headquarters yesterday were taken by surprise upon seeing the notices put up in the lobby area.
A guard was also on duty to ensure visitors were dressed appropriately and even reporters were not spared.
A Star Metro reporter, who was wearing a skirt that stopped above the knees, was advised to dress appropriately the next time she came to MBPJ.
MBPJ councillor Mohd Ghazali Daud, who was present, said he supported the move.
“People must be properly dressed as we are Asians, it is our culture.”
Public relations officer Zainun Zakaria confirmed the council’s directive on the dress code.
“We want visitors to be properly dressed. For the next few months, our security officers stationed in the lobby will offer friendly advice to those found not observing the dress code.
“We will not prohibit anyone from entering the building until a certain time,” she said.
Women’s Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah said the move was unwarranted and disturbing.
“MBPJ should not dictate what women should wear when running errands.
“They are not attending formal meetings. Imposing a dress code is not a small matter as it infringes on a person’s freedom.
“In fact, MBPJ headquarters is not a religious site for such a move to be taken,” she said.
“MBPJ should rethink the move and hold consultations with women’s groups,” she added.
—————————————————-
The Star Online
Enforcement on strict dress code at MBPJ to be carried out gradually, 28 June 2013
by Kathleen A. Michael
Perplexed: Kathleen seeking clarification from Saravanan on the new dress code.
IT was my first time entering the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) premises on Friday as I had to visit the Planning Depart-ment and I had an unpleasant surprise.
As it is a government office, I chose to wear a purple dress that falls just above my knees.
I felt that it was appropriate as it did not expose too much skin.
As I stepped into the building, I was warmly welcomed by the receptionist, who then gave me directions to the Planning Department.
However, before I could take another step, I was stopped by security personnel, S. Saravanan, who gave me some friendly advice regarding my attire.
Saravanan showed me the notice on dress code put up on the wall behind the reception desk.
He then told me that the length of my dress, which was an inch above my knee, did not comply with the dress code.
I was shocked when told that what I was wearing was not appropriate for a government office.
I was allowed to visit the Planning Department but was reminded to comply with the dress code on my next visit.
At the moment, the council has not enforced the restriction but will gradually do so.
(End)
