POLITICAL will to end disputes arising from the conversion of one spouse to Islam will be put to the test in the second Dewan Rakyat sitting of the year starting tomorrow, as amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act are scheduled to be tabled for the second reading.  

The amendments will tackle controversial issues, including the unilateral (single parent) conversion of minors and dissolution of marriage when one spouse converts to Islam.

Among the amendments that are set to generate headlines is the introduction of Section 88A, which states both parents must agree to the conversion of a minor to Islam.

Section 88A also states that the child will remain in the religion practiced by the parents at the time the civil marriage was registered and may choose his or her own religion upon reaching the age of 18.

The amendment bill also includes a section dealing with property distribution of a converted spouse in the event of death.

Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar said while the tabling of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) bill was much awaited, there was a need for continuous engagement with lawmakers and other stakeholders via a parliamentary select committee.

“Pragmatism demands that bills that have bearing on actual challenges faced on a daily basis be prioritised compared with others. 

“It bears reminding that (Muslim pressure group) Abim came out strongly in support of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, and sought further amendments to related laws, to ensure a more holistic solution to the problems affecting families in Malaysia,” the PKR vice-president told The Malaysian Insight.

The government had initially proposed to table the 2016 amendment during the last sitting, from March 6 to April 6, but withdrew the bill on April 5, a day before Dewan Rakyat adjourned sine die.

At the time it was withdrawn, Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi told reporters that the government wanted to get more feedback to ensure the amendments would not contravene any existing fatwas and the Federal Constitution.

The amendments had irked Muslim conservatives, such as PAS president Hadi Awang, who called for a special committee to review the bill, while Perak mufti Harussani Zakaria called the amendments unconstitutional and against Islamic laws.

The amendments came on the back of several high-profile cases involving civil marriages, where one spouse had converted to Islam and claimed that the marriage no longer fell under the ambit of civil law — the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act.

Among them were hairdresser S. Deepa, whose family was torn apart last year when Federal Court granted her custody of her 11-year-old daughter Sharmila, while her husband N. Viran, now known as Izwan Abdullah, got custody of their 8-year-old son Mithran, now named Nabil.

Another case involved kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi, whose three children were converted to Islam without her consent by her former Hindu husband K. Pathmanathan, now known as Muhammad Riduan Abdullah.

Twelve years ago, the nation was stunned when one of Malaysia’s first Mount Everest climbers, M. Moorthy, was declared a Muslim after he died.

In the Shariah Court hearing, where his widow Kaliammal Sinnasamy was not allowed to testify as she was not a Muslim, it was decided that Moorthy was a Muslim and would be buried according to Islamic rites, based on the testimony of his former colleagues. 

His estate was granted to his brother, as Kaliammal was not a Muslim and hence not entitled to his estate. Moorthy’s brother, however, transferred the rights to the estate to the widow along with Moorthy’s pension.

Return of RUU355

The last sitting was the longest in the Dewan Rakyat’s history, with the session ending at 5.05am after 20 hours of debate. It will also be remembered as the first time a private member’s bill was proposed but not debated in Parliament. That bill was the controversial ammendments to the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (RUU355).

After telling the public that the government would not table RUU355, Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia allowed Marang MP and PAS President Hadi to table his motion to amend RUU355, on the last day of the seating.

The motion, however, was short lived as Pandikar did not allow any debate on the motion and adjourned the session sine die after PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan seconded Hadi’s motion.

Hadi’s motion was aimed at expanding the Shariah Court jurisdiction to be able to mete out 30-year jail terms instead of three, higher fines of RM100,000 instead of RM5,000 and increase the number of caning strokes from six to 100.

In this session, which will end on August 10, Hadi’s motion is again slotted as item 10 after government business. Hadi, though is unlikely to attend the session as he is still recovering from his heart operation last month.

Legislating e-hailing services

Meanwhile, the government has proposed four other bills for second reading and one new law.

The four other amendment bills are the Domestic Violence Act, Land Transport Act, Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board Act and Private Employment Agencies Act.

The new bill is the Malaysian Border Security Agency Bill.

Two other bills that are expected to see spirited debate are the amendments to the Land Transport Act and the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board Act.

The amendments first reading were rushed through during the last Dewan Rakyat session. They seek to legislate e-hailing services such as Grab and Uber and reclassify e-hailing vehicles as public service vehicles.

Owners of the vehicles will be required to obtain a business licence from the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) and drivers who operate the service without licences can be fined up to RM500,000 or face a maximum jail term of up to three years.

While legalising e-hailing services was a step in the right direction, Serdang MP Dr Ong Kian Ming said more needed to be done.

“The amendments should have included a tribunal to hear the appeals of e-hailing drivers who feel they have been unfairly treated by the e-hailing companies.

“There have been many cases of unfair banning of drivers, and this has led to a restriction of employment opportunities for some of them who have just bought new cars.”

Ong said the government also needed to ensure a level playing field between existing taxi drivers and the newer e-hailing drivers in terms of fares, commissions and regulations.

“As far as we know, SPAD is not planning to regulate the fares set by the e-hailing companies and this is unfair to regular taxi services, as the e-hailing companies tends to undercut them.”

Kluang MP Liew Chin Tong said the amendments would likely create a duopoly of Grab and Uber, while ending the taxi industry.

“I would like to see the amendments deal with the welfare of the drivers, too.” – July 23, 2017.