religious freedom?

So much for equality in the eyes of the law.

A Distant Dream (Malaysiakini)

The country's laws are of no help in easing the tensions faced by people of different faiths. The imbroglio arising from the case of the late S Rayappan, S Shamala and M Moorthy has only gone to show that racial disparity and biasness has taken firm root in this country once standing tall on its composition of multi-racial.

The most recent case of involved R Subashini, a Hindu who was asked by the Court of Appeal to seek recourse through the Syariah Appeal Court. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Subashini's appeal to stop her Muslim-convert husband Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah from going to the syariah court to dissolve their civil marriage and to convert their young children to Islam.

The message that Syariah law is the supreme law of the nation has left the non-Muslims fuming with anger. So much so that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Bernard Dompok made a statement that it was unreasonable for non-Muslims who married under non-Islamic laws to submit themselves to Syariah Court jurisdiction.

Dompok admitted it was a worrying trend that the civil courts were unwilling to take up disputable cases like that of R Subashini's. The cabinet minister was firm when he said that it was not logical to expect Subashini to seek recourse in the Syariah Court.

Dompok was one of the 10 ministers who submitted a memorandum to the prime minister early last year, asking for a review of laws and the Constitution so they would not infringe on the rights of minorities.

Except for Dompok, the others later withdrew the memorandum. This action in itself tells the public that apart from individuals like Dompok, the rest of the ministers who pulled back could not care less in fighting for the rights of the people. Malaysia Boleh? For the wrong reasons, always!

Karpal said he was perplexed with the Court of Appeal's move to ask the plaintiff S.Subashini, a Hindu, to seek recourse in the syariah court.

Karpal had also called on the Chief Justice to look seriously into the case of Lina Joy who converted from Islam to Christianity and is now seeking to restate her religious status in her identity card.

Bukit Mertajam MP Chong Eng and 11 other DAP MPs planned to send a letter to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to look into the case of Siti Fatimah, 29, who had been separated from her 15-month-old baby.

Siti was an Indian Muslim who was brought up as a Hindu by her grandmother and had never practised the teachings of Islam. After she married a Hindu man and gave birth to a baby girl, the Malacca Islamic Department ordered Siti to surrender her baby to the department. The baby was with the department while Siti had been sent to the Religious Rehabilitation Centre in Ulu Yam, Selangor by the Syariah Court for 100 days until April 18.

Then there was another case of 81-year-old Tang Siew Ying in Johor, which was highlighted by Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang. Tang died on April 2, 2007 but her family was not allowed to take her body from the Segamat Hospital in Johor as the hospital claimed Tang's identity card showed that she had a Muslim name which was Tang Siew Ying@Azizah Abdullah.

However, it seems that all efforts are in place to slowly but surely alienate non-Muslims from efforts to seek fairness from the civil courts on matters relating to Islam. The remarks by the Terengganu and Perlis muftis that non-Muslims should not be prejudiced against the Syariah Court because it is capable of justice serve as no consolation.

Likewise the insensitive comment made by the Syariah Lawyers Association that non-Muslims must learn to accept syariah law as the civil court had already given its verdict on the Subashini case.

Just as callous was the remark made by Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil that the civil court's decision in the Subashini case must stand. She said it did not matter which court such cases were heard in so long as justice was served.

Hopefully Shahrizat and the two muftis concerned will take the trouble to ponder over the statement made by Women's Aid Organisation.

"Irrespective of the syariah court's capability to dispense justice, the Federal Constitution explicitly stipulates that syariah courts can only exercise jurisdiction over persons who profess Islam and the judiciary must continue to uphold this guarantee," WAO had said.

It added that within Malaysia's constitutional framework, there was no option for non-Muslims to seek legal remedy in the syariah court, even if they wished to do so.

This is indeed worrying. There have been too many cases whereby Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, is ignored for the sake of propagating the power of the majority. Another recent case involves a Hindu woman who was forcibly removed from her husband and has been detained for at least 100 days on the charge of apostasy. The Islamic authorities and the woman's parents claim that she is a Muslim named Siti Fatimah. However, her husband Suresh Veerapan said she is not a practising Muslim, but a Hindu born to Muslim parents and that her name is Revathi Masoosai.

What has happened to the Federal Constitution? It is supposed to be the supreme law of the nation, governing every other rule. Islam may be the official religion in Malaysia, but that does not mean that Malaysia is an Islamic state. It is a secular state. Yet, it appears as if the government is turning more and more Islamic, ignoring the fundamental rights of all Malaysian citizens, as enshrined in the Constitution.

A special inter-religious commission may be set up to investigate such matters. However, unless it is given the power clarify the vague boundaries between the syariah court and the civil court, it will be useless. This is an arduous task which will inevitably raise the ire of religious fundamentalists. Ultimately, it really boils down to one's freedom to choose one's own religion, including Islam. The curtailing of this freedom has resulted in a lot of anger and heartache for everyone involved, as seen in the cases above. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that such freedom will be granted. Men have always used religion to gain power. Why should it stop now?