HOW can a well-respected leader such as Hannah Yeoh be hauled up for questioning by police simply for raising a legitimate concern regarding underage marriage?

Worse, some quarters even twisted her words to paint her as anti-Islam when all she was doing was being a proponent for children’s rights.

It was also revealed that Yeoh is being investigated for a seditious statement that she didn’t even say. Since when is someone liable for made-up quotes associated with them and not the anonymous entities which crafted the slander?

What on earth is going on in our beloved country?

It is the right and in fact the duty of every Malaysian, let alone a former minister, to quiz the government on fundamental issues such as underage marriage. Equally, it is the duty of the ones in power to provide the rakyat with answers, not abuse it to reprimand those who speak up.

Have the flames of xenophobia been stoked too brightly that even underage marriage needs to be made into a racial and religious issue? For those who are blindly enraged by Yeoh’s statement, let us look at her statement as objectively as possible.

A total of 1,845 children denied the joy of childhood in 2017

First, let us address the fallacy that non-Muslim Malaysians have no business to even speak about the marriages of minor among Muslims within our country. The argument given was that they are more minors getting married within the Malaysian non-Muslim community hence they are standing in a lower moral ground.

Indeed, a 2017 statistics showed that a total of 1,845 minors have entered into a marriage with an adult, of which 968 were non-Muslims and 877 of them were Muslims.

While there is no denying that minors among non-Muslims have been higher, reading said statistics with a division between Muslim and non-Muslim in this respect is completely missing the point. The sole statistic that we need to focus on is that a staggering 1,845 Malaysian children in 2017 have been robbed of the joy of childhood and more importantly, proper education.

This is not a racial or religious issue, but it is an issue that needs to be rectified as a nation.

A global issue that transcends race and religion

Underage marriage is a dire global issue that seriously need to be addressed. According to the United Nations, more than 140 million girls have become unwilling brides between 2011 and 2020; a whopping 39,000 every day. That is why almost all countries in the world have pushed for a review of existing laws that allowed for marriage of minors.

One country that recently banned underage marriages altogether may surprise you. In a historic move by its Justice Ministry, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia put into law the prohibition of any marriages for those below the age of 18. Previously a widespread practice within the kingdom, this was part of a series of efforts to improve the rights Saudi women and children. The civil rights progress of what the global world sees as an ultra-conservative country is remarkable to say the least.

So the question arises then, how can an ultra-conservative country that didn’t even allow women to drive up until two years ago could beat us into banning child marriages? Surely if Saudi Arabia could prohibit child marriages, we could also emulate it?

The roadblock facing Malaysia’s roadmap

Of course, it is not as easy as it sounds. The world is not black and white and the laws governing marriages in Malaysia definitely falls under grey. For those not in the know, Muslims and non-Muslims are governed by two separate entities when it comes to marriages. Regulating a consistent minimum age at a national level is complicated as several state’s enactments and ordinances pertaining to Muslim marriages need to be amended.

This was definitely apparent when the national roadmap in handling the causes of child marriage was carried out by the Pakatan Harapan government. A total of seven states disagreed with the legal amendment – Sarawak, Pahang, Terengganu, Perlis, Negri Sembilan, Kedah and Kelantan. The right of these respective states’ Islamic authorities to reject the amendment is absolute and undeniable.

However, it is the responsibility of the federal government, should they want to regulate the minimum age of marriage, to persuade them into agreeing to the amendment. Differing opinions in Islamic jurisprudence is nothing new and is something that should be celebrated instead of being the cause of division. In this instance, to say that setting a minimum age for marriage is against the teachings of Islam as being the sole valid view in Islamic jurisprudence is untrue. If it was, then why did Saudi Arabia prohibit underage marriage?

Therefore, the statement by the former Federal Territories mufti and current de facto Islamic Affairs Minister Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri regarding the matter is most relevant here. In his justification for agreeing with the amendment for the Federal Territories Islamic authority, he said that underage marriage is not “al-tsawabit” (fixed and permanent) in Islamic jurisprudence but “al-mutaghayyirat” (changeable) in accordance with the situation, time and locality.

Zulkifli said the Islamic ruling on underage marriage should follow the law set by the country; if the law prohibits child marriage, the law must be followed by Muslims.

Siti Zailah’s personal view or the government’s official stance?

In order for Putrajaya to convince state Islamic authorities to adhere to the amendment in accordance with the national roadmap in handling the causes of child marriage, it must be headed with someone who believes in such amendments in the first place. Hence, the appointment of Rantau Panjang MP Siti Zailah Mohd Yusoff as Deputy Women, Family and Community Development Minister will arguably put a dent on these efforts.

Given Siti Zailah’s track record of having a dissenting voice on the matter, surely Yeoh’s concerns have its merits. Previously, Siti Zailah disagreed with the tabling of the Sexual Offences Against Children Bill 2017, saying there is a difference between sexual offences against children, which is an act of violence, and underage marriage, which she described as being a blessing.

As controversial as Siti Zailah’s statement was, she has her own reasons to say so.

Similar to Kelantan’s roundtable decision in rejecting the amendment of the minimum age for marriage, Siti Zailah views underage marriage as still relevant in certain states in order to deter social ills. This definitely rings true in the study conducted by the national roadmap where it was found that poverty, deterring social ills, limited education and social pressure to marry in order to solve problems were reasons why underage marriages were still happening in Malaysia.

Regardless of whether you agree with Siti Zailah’s view or not, one can easily see a conflict of interest when a national roadmap is headed by someone who had disputed a similar enforcement in the past.

Back in March, the deputy minister said policies by Pakatan Harapan that don’t clash with Islam will still go on. The question is then, who will decide on whether a policy constitutes a clash with Islam or not? Is it based on Siti Zailah’s personal views, or will there be an authority set up to do so?

Most importantly, what is the Perikatan Nasional government’s stance on the matter?

After a series of controversial statements that saw Siti Zailah deactivated her Twitter account, Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin came to her defence and urged the nation to give her a chance. In one of the rare question and answer sessions with the press held by Muhyiddin on March 16, he said “what is important is not her personal view is but what the government thinks about it”.

So what is the government’s official view on underage marriage? Is it Siti Zailah’s stance or the one taken by the de facto Islamic affairs minister? If having a differing view with Siti Zailah constitutes an offence, should Zulkifli also be investigated?

The move to reprimand Yeoh for voicing out a legitimate concern is alarming and the recent wild accusations by certain parties associating her with insulting Malay rulers is downright ludicrous.

Suspicious coincidences

Speaking of which, the timing in which the Segambut MP was hauled up by police is rather suspect. The tweet was from March, so why is Yeoh being investigated a whole three months later?

More suspiciously, she is the fourth opposition MP to be questioned by police under in just 100 days of PN rule. Just yesterday, Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman was questioned by Bukit Aman for an interview he did with Al-Jazeera. Previously, PH MPs Sivarasa Rasiah and Xavier Jayakumar were also hauled up for different reasons.

Surely, this is more than just a coincidence.

Perhaps the question we should not be focused on right now is what will happen to our national roadmap to fight child marriage. With the way things are going, perhaps we should be more concerned about what is looking more and more likely to be a national roadmap back to being a kleptocracy. – June 20, 2020.

* Saiful Ridzaimi reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.