News

  • Nation
  • World Updates
  • Courts
  • Parliament
  • Columnists
  • Opinion
  • Honours List

Tuesday July 4, 2006

The Lina Joy case: Right not infringed on

By CHELSEA L.Y. NG

chelsea@thestar.com.my

PUTRAJAYA: Compelling a Muslim to get an apostasy order from the Syariah Court to renounce his or her religion does not infringe on a person’s Constitutional right to profess another religion, the Federal Court heard.

Sulaiman Abdullah said the Federal Territories Administration of Islamic Law Act 1994, which conferred on the religious council the power to govern Muslims, was consistent with the Constitution.

“The Act was created to smoothen the administration of Islam among Muslims so that the harmony and well-being of the community are protected,” he said yesterday.

“The provisions strike the correct balance between individual rights and the interest of public order,” added Sulaiman.

Lina Joy is appealing against the Court of Appeal’s majority decision on Sept 19, last year, which ruled that the National Registration Department director-general was right in not allowing her application to delete the word “Islam” from her identity card.

The ruling was on the grounds that the Syariah Court and other Islamic religious authorities did not confirm her renunciation of Islam.

In his submission, Sulaiman said the constitutional issue must be viewed historically.

“We have to take into account that Islam was here from the 13th century. The Malay Sultanate became Muslim and, later, its people,” he said, adding that the system was interrupted with the intrusion of colonial powers.

“The law that was applied then was Islamic law and several centuries later, Malaysia became a fully Islamic country.”

He said everything about the Malays then was governed by Islam and Malay customs. On the other hand, British law was limited and based on Christianity.

“Unfortunately, the British were the stronger party and had their way on what should be Malay customs and Muslim law,” he said, questioning the need to conform to the British legal system after the country’s independence.

Sulaiman said the Malaysian Constitution was unique in that it had a special place for Islam.

He added, however, that Muslims could not declare their renunciation of Islam without the involvement of religious authorities because there would be Constitutional repercussions.

“For instance, one may declare himself a Muslim in the morning and by the evening he is not a Muslim. Or, he is a Muslim when it’s time for zakat and not a Muslim during the fasting month,” he said.

This prompted Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim to ask: “Are you saying that a Buddhist can be a Buddhist in the morning and a Christian in the evening?”

Sulaiman answered there was nothing to stop anyone from doing so.

He said several legal representatives of non-governmental organisations had, in their submissions last week, made attacks on the position of Islam.

“That is a total reversal of what the Government had set out to achieve,” he said.

The NGOs had supported the view of Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who gave his dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal, that the NRD’s refusal to make the amendment in Lina’s identity card without an order or certificate from the Syariah Court was null and void.

On April 23, 2001, the High Court refused to decide on Lina’s application to renounce Islam on the ground that the Syariah Court should decide the issue.

The appeal continues today.

Related Story:
Islam has higher status in Malaysia

  • E-mail this story
  • Print this story

News Poll