PUTRAJAYA – The Perlis Islamic Religion and Malay Customs Council (MAIPs) has failed to obtain leave to appeal against the decision by the appellate court, which dismissed the unilateral conversion of Loh Siew Hong’s three children to Islam.
It was a unanimous decision by the bench, led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat. Sitting in were Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais.
Joining MAIPs’ bid were the Perlis government, the Registrar of Converts, and the state mufti.
In their application, MAIPs and the other authorities posed three questions of law where they argued the Bahasa Melayu’s translated version of the Federal Constitution takes precedence as the authoritative text, instead of the English version.
They referred to Article 16(O)(a) of the constitution, which deals with the reprinting of the constitution with the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, including all amendments that are in effect on the date of that authorisation and deemed to be a true and correct copy of the Federal Constitution, in backing their questions.
Their second question of law pointed to the word “parent” and “parents” which were used interchangeably in the Federal Court, where the Bahasa Melayu version of the Federal Constitution which says “ibu dan bapa” under Article 12(4) takes precedent, instead of the English version of the constitution that says “parent”.
MAIPs and the other parties also argued that the case of Indira Gandhi was not applicable to Loh’s case, as Indira’s case, which was decided by the Federal Court, is only binding to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya.
To these questions, Tengku Maimun first recognised that MAIPs and the other applicants essentially attempted to revisit the case of Indira.
“In respect of (this matter), Article 16(O)(a) of the constitution is not the relevant provision. The relevant provision is in fact (of) Article 16(O)(b) which specifies when the Bahasa Malaysia text may become authoritative text.
“Counsels did not address us on Article 16(O)(b). The courts’ below have made concurrent findings on this issue. We see no issue why this has to be ventilated further in the Federal Court.
“(Meanwhile), on the matter involving the word ‘parent’ and ‘parents’ used interchangeably, this has been covered by Indira Gandhi and there is no need to revisit this issue.
“On the third (question), we are unable to accept that the decision in Indira Gandhi is confined to the Federal Territories, as the Federal Court judgement in Indira Gandhi is binding throughout the nation.
“Therefore, we disagree with the applicants that the judgement in Indira Gandhi was made per incuriam (through lack of due regard to the law or the facts). This application is dismissed with no order to costs,” she said.
The case of Indira Gandhi was referred to by the applicant in this application, as the Court of Appeal’s decision that reinstate Loh’s children Hindus were bound and referred to Indira’s verdict in 2018.
In 2018, the Federal Court ruled that Indira’s unilateral conversion to Islam was nullified and void, as the word “parent” in the constitution carries the meaning ‘father’ and ‘mother’.
On January 10, the Court of Appeal ruled that the issue of the children’s unilateral conversion was bound by the decision of Indira’s case, which held that the consent of both parents must be obtained before minor children can be converted to another religion.
The legal battle involving Loh’s kids began in 2022 when she filed a suit naming MAIPs, the Perlis government, the Registrar of Converts and the state’s mufti as defendants.
The suit was filed at the high court following Loh’s three kids’ unilateral conversion to Islam in 2019 by her Muslim convert former husband Muhammad Nagahswaran Muniandy.
In the suit, she also sought for the court to declare the children’s conversion as void and unconstitutional, as her former husband did not have the legal capacity to convert their kids without her consent. – May 14, 2024
