Catholic Lawyers' Society

	*The Committee members of the Catholic Lawyers' Society hard at work during the monthly meetings*

Ahmadinejad wants meeting with Pope Benedict

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58684

Rome, May. 27, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hopes to meet Pope Benedict XVI during a visit to Rome next week, according to the Italian daily La Repubblica.

The Vatican has not disclosed any plan for a meeting between the Pontiff and the controversial Iranian leader.

Citing an unidentified diplomatic source, La Repubblica said that Ahmadinejad wanted to brief the Pope on his government's position in current international disputes. The Iranian regime has made several efforts to enlist the help of the Holy See in its conflicts with the US and other Western powers.

The Italian paper said that Iran's ambassador to the Holy See has put in a request "repeatedly" for a papal meeting with Ahmadinejad. The Iranian leader will be in Rome to attend a meeting of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization.

We are of one bangsa, Bangsa Malaysia

DEPUTY Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak made an interesting statement on Sunday. He said that Bangsa Malaysia will become a reality when all the people in this country regard each other as Malaysian rather than members of the various ethnic groups with their own separate culture, language and religion.

For one thing the statement affirms that Bangsa Malaysia is a national aspiration as well as an objective. For another it is in the interest of all Malaysians to work hard to make Bangsa Malaysia a reality.

Even though Bangsa Malaysia was talked about by the government nearly two decades ago, there was little real effort made to make the concept acceptable to everyone. It almost faded away from national memory after strong opposition to the idea caused the government to falter and caused it to be removed from the priority list of things that need to be done.

Fifty years of experience of living together should have made us more broadminded, tolerant, mature and even wiser so as to be able to discuss this common aspiration openly and with respect and decorum.What is needed now is a constant reminder through all kinds of campaigns that Bangsa Malaysia is a national objective. It should be the central theme of every National Unity Month.

Just as coordinated campaigns were conducted by the government to promote Bahasa Malaysia several years ago, the same type of campaigns should be undertaken to make Bangsa Malaysia part of the national consciousness.

If we truly want a Bangsa Malaysia, we have no choice but to work hard and put in all our effort to achieve it. There is no point in all of us saying Bangsa Malaysia is the national objective but doing very little to make it a reality. An important element of this effort is to regard each other as fellow Malaysians. If it is a process, as stated by Najib, then it is a process that had already begun, albeit informally, long ago even though not everyone was involved. All that is required now is to build on it and widen it to include everyone.

Also, it has been acknowledged that the strength of Malaysia is its diversity – people of various races, cultures and religions living and working together. Once everyone accepts this diversity, the people would be able to live and work together more harmoniously. There is much that we must do, but from now on let the effort be more concerted and properly coordinated.We must be able to say by the time we celebrate our 100th national day that we are truly one bangsa, Bangsa Malaysia. Our future depends on it.

Conversion issues and legal rights

Contributed by Zarizana binti Abdul Aziz
Thursday, 05 June 2008
©The Sun (Used by permission)
Human Rights and the Law column by Zarizana Abdul Aziz

SHAMALA, Subashini, Nyonya Tahir, Lina Joy, Moorthy, Revathi. These are names recognisable to Malaysians.

The issues which emerge upon the conversion of a family member are multi-fold and have great implications on our most fundamental human rights. They are the subject of reform proposals today. We cannot afford to be left out of this debate. Some of these issues are discussed below.

As a starting point, it is clear that we all have the right to choose our own religion. Freedom of religion is recognised in international human rights conventions and the Federal Constitution. It is the personal choice of a person and founded on a person’s faith and conviction.

The question being debated now in Malaysia, however, is should such right be unfettered? Is placing a requirement either on the convert or the authorities to inform family members of a person’s conversion to Islam a fetter on such right? Is the inability of a Muslim to convert to another religion a fetter on such right? Is compelling such a person to undergo rehabilitation for months a fetter on such right?

Following from that, how does one balance this personal right to freedom of religion with the rights of the (non-converting) family members, particularly in light of “secret” conversions, attempts at renunciation of the responsibility to pay maintenance to dependants, inability of the non-converting family members (including aged parents and children) to inherit from a Muslim convert’s estate, and proposals to limit a non-converting former wife’s right to maintenance to only three months (no matter how long the marriage).

The object of law is to provide justice. And the object of justice is not to protect only the strong and the powerful but also the weak and the marginalised. In fact, the measure of society is its ability to do right by and for the weak and the marginalised.

Even if some consider it fair to apply Islamic law principles on a non-Muslim spouse (which is arguable), extracting bits and pieces of Muslim laws and applying them in a piecemeal fashion to situations cannot resolve the social and moral issues surrounding conversions.

For example, although a divorced Muslim spouse is entitled to only three months maintenance, under Muslim laws she is also entitled to muta’ah (compensation) which is calculated on the length of the marriage and her contributions to the family. Muta’ah can be ordered to be paid in instalments, thus fulfi lling the function of maintenance. Applying the Muslim provision on maintenance (three months) without the accompanying muta’ah provision results in unfairness and injustice.

A spouse who contracts under civil laws cannot be expected to know the Muslim administration of laws. Neither can he or she be expected to subject himself or herself to unfamiliar concepts administered in the name of a religion he or she does not subscribe to.

Aged parents who spend a lifetime bringing up their children would surely object to the denial of inheritance rights to their deceased child’s estate or being told that they can only inherit one third of such estate (if at all), with two thirds (or all in the absence of a will) going to the Baitulmal or the religious authorities.

Aged spouses should not fear their life investments disappearing or be expected to appeal to religious authorities to waive the latter’s entitlement to the convert’s estate so that the widow/widower can inherit the property which the convert and his/her partner acquired and invested during their lives.

In Malaysia, where religion is not merely a personal choice, but is essentially also a legal choice, we must differentiate between an individual’s right to freedom of religion and its legal implications on others.

‘Conversion shouldn’t be kept secret’

It is one thing to say that a Muslim must abide by procedures under Muslim laws to convert out of Islam. However, such statements ring empty when in most cases there is no such procedure, and in some cases attempts to convert out are subject to criminal punishment or results in a grown woman being placed in the custody of her father.

The right to marry and form a family is a basic human right. Yet because the change of status is so important and affects many facets of our lives, we impose duties for couples to announce their marriage to the community. Likewise a change of status following conversion cannot and should not be shrouded in secrecy and mystery.

For full news, click here

Archbishop Murphy Pakiam was bestowed the Panglima Setia Mahkota (PSM), which carries the Tan Sri title, in conjunction with the birthday of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin on June 7. Archbishop Pakiam was among 30 persons bestowed with this honour.

Malaysia Hindu Sangam's Press Statement - Majlis Agama Islam Perak should respect the Federal Constitution and the Federal Court

We refer to the report in the Malaysia Nanban on Tuesday, 24th June 2008 (page 3) regarding the turmoil faced by the family of the late Elangesvaran.

We understand that the late Elangesvaran allegedly converted to Islam at some point. He has now committed suicide, and his body is at the hospital. The Islamic authorities say he died a Muslim, but his family members and friends say that Elangesvaran continued to profess and practise Hinduism all the way through until his untimely death.

The Malaysia Hindu Sangam extends our deepest condolences to his family in their time of grief on the untimely and early demise of Elangesvaran.. We are also saddened that yet again a grieving family is being put through torment because Islamic religious authorities are threatening to snatch away the body of their loved one away.

We have today written to the Menteri Besar of Perak urging him to ensure that the civil courts are allowed to determine the religious status of the late Elangesvaran. Therefore, we urge the Islamic authorities not to prosecute claims in the Syariah court for the bodies of the dead who are in the custody of non Muslim next of kin. If a non-Muslim is a party to the dispute, the Syariah courts should not deal with the matter.

We also urge the Perak State Government to recognise the constitutional right of a non Muslim who may have converted to Islam for some reason to revert to his original religion, or to some other religion. A person’s right to profess and practice the religion of his choice should not be unnecessarily interfered with by the State.

It is our view that the issue of whether the late Elangesvaran was a ”person professing the religion of Islam” (quoting the words used by the Federal Constitution) must be determined by the civil courts.

We point out in our letter that it is clear from the unanimous decision of the Federal Court in the case of Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101, FC that the Syariah courts do not have jurisdiction at all to determine any dispute where a party to the dispute does not profess Islam. The comments of the learned Federal Court judges in latest case of Subashini a/p Rajasingam v Saravanan a/l Thangathoray (2007) also reinforce this proposition already entrenched in Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule to the Federal Constitution.

In our letter, we state our expectation that as a statutory body responsible to advise His Royal Highness the Ruler of Perak on Islamic affairs, MAIP has a responsibility to respect the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of this country and these decisions of our highest court.

The non Muslim family members of the Elangesvaran must have an opportunity for proper access to justice. The crucial question is whether at the time of his death, Elangesvaran professed (or acknowledged) himself to be a Muslim. This must be determined based on the civil law, and the Hindu family members of Elangevaran must be given full access to justice in order to determine this question.