Judicial Capitulation
Herein lies the absurdity of our judiciary. These and other such cases revolving around disputes about individuals’ religious status is precisely how our secular courts have capitulated on their constitutional responsibility and mandate.
By G. Krishnan
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah recently hurled a potent yet distressing contention that we have become “a sick country” as a result of being fractured and divided along communal lines.
Merely days later, we get another unambiguous and ominous illustration of precisely how desperately the country’s health is deteriorating. Judicial Commissioner Yaakob Sam declared that Banggarma, a 28-year-old ‘Hindu’ mother, is officially a ‘Muslim’ – and not as she herself insists, a Hindu.
According to Yaakob Sam, the document verifying Banggarma’s status, who was a Hindu, that she was converted to Islam – at the age of eight, and while in an orphanage – is indeed valid to substantiate the fact that she is a Muslim.
This, of course, despite her adamant insistence – and what any reasonable person ought to be able to infer – that as an abandoned eight-year old in an orphanage, she could not and should not be deemed as having been competent to have made such a decision voluntarily.
To add salt to the wound, Yaakob Sam’s so-called civil judgment also asserts that Banggarma’s dispute about her forced conversion ought to be taken up by the Syariah court.
Herein lies the absurdity of our judiciary. These and other such cases revolving around disputes about individuals’ religious status is precisely how our secular courts have capitulated on their constitutional responsibility and mandate.
If indeed Banggarma insists that she is not a Muslim – and never has been a practicing one – despite what the conversion papers claim, where and what is the legal basis for transferring jurisdiction of the case to the Syariah court?
