PRIME Minister Najib Razak made a curious statement over amending the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill last night, saying he needed maturity and a two-thirds majority to amend the Federal Constitution to allow a child to keep his or her original faith despite parental divorce.

“We need maturity and two-thirds majority to change the constitution but I do not have this,” Najib said when addressing the issue during a National Transformation 2050 (TN50) dialogue with women in conjunction with National Women’s Day.

A curious remark because Najib would have got that majority based on the outcry from the opposition when the government withdrew the LRA amendments on August 7, when it was scheduled for its second reading after being tabled for the first time in November last year.

Disingenuous because the prime minister’s remarks imply that the opposition is not mature and will not support any amendments to the constitution to allow the child’s faith to be kept.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said reportedly withdrew the bill to avoid contradictions with the constitution. She later tabled the same bill without Clause 88A, which states the religion of the child should remain in the religion he or she was raised in before one parent converted to Islam and can choose his or her own religion at the age of 18.

She said the fresh amendments would also be in line with the courts’ decisions on the interpretation of the Article 12(4) of the federal constitution, which states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 shall be decided by his parent or a guardian.

The bill was then passed on August 10 minus Clause 88A, which drew criticism among opposition leaders.

If anything, the only opposition party that was opposed to Clause 88A would be PAS, which only has 14 Members of Parliament and would in no way be able to block a constitutional amendment if Najib’s Barisan Nasional (BN) so wished to propose.

The reality is the Najib government’s move to ditch the clause without proposing a constitutional amendment reflects a lack of political will in the matter.

His government could have delayed the bill and informed all parties about what was needed to make it happen. Instead, a government minister cited the constitution to drop the clause.

To call it an anti-climax is an understatement. To call it a cop out would also be an understatement.

There have been enough cases of children under 18 being unilaterally converted by one parent to another religion without due regard of an estranged or divorced spouse to warrant Clause 88A in the Bill.

Instead, the government that proposed it after clearing all legal issues decided to ditch it. It cannot be because there is no majority available. It can only because there is no maturity in the matter.

And that lack of maturity is not in the opposition benches but in the government bench. The government and its leaders should do well to remember that before casting aspersions on their foes over the issue. – September 5, 2017.