MM Online - Child conversion clause against constitution, Nazri says (extracts):
![]()
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 — The legal clause that prevents unilateral child conversion was dropped from the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2017 (LRA) because it would have contravened the federal constitution, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said tonight.
The Star Online quoted the Tourism and Culture Minister as saying that in order for Section 88A to be included in the Bill, the constitution would have to be amended.
“The reason why we dropped the clause is because we would be forced to amend the definition of ‘parent’, which is clearly stated in the Constitution as ‘either one’.
“There have been four precedent cases whereby the court’s decision was based on the Constitution’s definition of ‘parent’,” he was quoted saying.
The former law minister said that a two-thirds majority approval in Parliament would be needed before the government could amend the constitution.
“But the nine clauses in the Bill are good for non-Muslim family matters,” he added.
Wanita MCA chair Datuk Heng Seai Kie pointed out that up till 2002, Article 12(4) clearly spelled out that the faith of a minor below 18 was to be determined by ‘ibubapa’ [parents].
“It is important to investigate how ‘ibubapa’ was mysteriously switched to ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father] without going through Parliamentary proceedings, and whether this subterfuge alteration is legal and binding."
“As this mysterious printing modification in the Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Federal Constitution) was not debated in Parliament, much less officially gazetted, can its interpretation by the judiciary to mean singular be thus construed as correct and not-flawed?” she questioned."
The Star Online quoted the Tourism and Culture Minister as saying that in order for Section 88A to be included in the Bill, the constitution would have to be amended.
“The reason why we dropped the clause is because we would be forced to amend the definition of ‘parent’, which is clearly stated in the Constitution as ‘either one’.
“There have been four precedent cases whereby the court’s decision was based on the Constitution’s definition of ‘parent’,” he was quoted saying.
The former law minister said that a two-thirds majority approval in Parliament would be needed before the government could amend the constitution.
“But the nine clauses in the Bill are good for non-Muslim family matters,” he added.
Let's leave the 'other' benefits of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2017 (LRA) aside to discuss the issue of omitting one of its clauses, namely, Section 88A which pertains to the unilateral (one parent only) religious conversion of a child to embrace the Islamic faith and would have made that unilateral conversion illegal if Section 88A were to be approved by parliament.
That clause has been strenuously opposed by people who love conversion of a child into being a Muslim by only one of the parent who naturally would be Muslim, and to f**ks with the non-Muslim spouse.
However, Minister Nazri, unofficially the PM's Chief Head-Kicker wakakaka, has been right in that the proposed Section 88A is against the Constitution (as it currently reads - I'll come back to this shortly, wakakaka) because .....
..... Article 12(4) clearly spelled out that the faith of a minor below 18 was to be determined by ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father], thus requiring only one of the parents to unilaterally convert the child to become a Muslim, no doubt to the immense relief and delight of the 'cradle snatchers'.
If the Constitution says ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father], then Section 88A in saying ‘ibu dan bapa’ [mother and father] is against the words of the Constitution.
One avenue towards solving the unconstitutionality of the case would to amend ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father] into ‘ibu dan bapa’ [mother and father].
But alas, any amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3-majority of the Dewan Rakyat to take place, and in today's parliamentary composition and political climate, that's quite unlikely as even Muslim MPs would be intimidated by the ultra-conservative faction on both sides of the political fence into not supporting such an amendment. Who the f**ks wants to go to Jahanam?
 |
Thai hell but adopted by an Islamic teacher to show young Muslims what hell or Jahanam was for more, see my Oct 2016 post Muslims for Buddhist Hell? |
You thought that was that then, but Wanita MCA has come up with a de Bono, demanding to know ..... wait I am getting ahead of myself. Let me quote MM Online's Wanita MCA wants MPs to amend Federal Constitution on child’s religion (extracts):
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 9 — Wanita MCA urged today the Attorney-General’s Chambers and government and Opposition lawmakers to table a Bill to amend Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution to clearly state that a minor’s faith should be decided by both parents.
Wanita MCA chair Datuk Heng Seai Kie pointed out that up till 2002, Article 12(4) clearly spelled out that the faith of a minor below 18 was to be determined by ‘ibubapa’ [parents].
“It is important to investigate how ‘ibubapa’ was mysteriously switched to ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father] without going through Parliamentary proceedings, and whether this subterfuge alteration is legal and binding."
“As this mysterious printing modification in the Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Federal Constitution) was not debated in Parliament, much less officially gazetted, can its interpretation by the judiciary to mean singular be thus construed as correct and not-flawed?” she questioned."
What? How dare the Constitution was amended quietly?
Who was that stealthy desecrator, the obscene mutilator?
What year was it done?
After 2002?
Well, the PM was/is Mahathir (up to 2003), AAB (2003 to 2009) and now Najib (2009 onward).
 |
Pakatan supporters will blame Najib BN supporters will blame Mahathir and poor AAB will be marginalised, even from criticisms, wakakaka |