COMMENT | Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Azalina Othman Said, the architect of the recent amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) cannot convince non-Muslims in the country that she has done the right thing.

Actually, there is no need for these new amendments simply because they cannot resolve the long-standing problem of unilateral conversions.

Following the passage of the amendments to the LRA in Parliament two days ago, Azalina asked men who are intending to convert to dissolve their civil marriages first. She urged those intending to convert to be "man enough" and not to hide behind the syariah judge in escaping their family responsibilities.

She urged the men that "to be gentlemen" and if "anak jantan", should seek the avenue of the civil court before converting to Islam. She was forced to admit the recent amendment would not be able to stop men from converting to Islam and then seeking the remedy of the syariah Court.

So, once they have converted, then the civil proceedings would not make any difference.

It is too late for Azalina to justify the recent amendments to the LRA. The whole thing is a complete farce in that it would not make any difference to those families, wives and others who have been gravely affected by conversions and unilateral conversion of children.

The hopes and dreams of M Indira Gandhi and S Deepa who have been waiting for a positive outcome from the Parliament, have been dashed beyond imagination.

Azalina is not that naive to say that those who are intending to convert should first seek the avenue of the civil court to divorce their spouse before proceeding to convert.

But she fails to understand or pretends that cases involving unilateral conversions are those, where men convert to Islam to escape family responsibilities.

If unilateral conversions were done in a clandestine manner to escape family responsibilities and to take custody of their children through the avenue of the syariah court, why would these men in the first place divorce their marriages in the civil court? 

They know perfectly well that if they annul their marriages in the civil court, the custody of their children, if they are below the age of 18, and the division of property and assets, would be in favour of their wives.

This the precisely the reason why these men escape their responsibilities by converting first and then converting their children without the consent of their wives. Unfortunately in the country where religious matters are seen as zero sum game, once they are converted to Islam, then it would be impossible for the civil courts to adjudicate on these matters.

There is no point asking men to "man up" if the real intention of those converting to Islam is a clandestine one to seek the support of the syariah court. 

Thus, once they are converted to Islam, the way is paved for them to convert their children. If this happens, the wives are left in a lurch and in the cases of Indira Gandhi and Deepa, they have to face the full force of state-backed Islam.

Meanwhile, even if the matter goes to the civil courts, these courts are powerless to order civil servants to act because of the judgment of the syariah court that would invariably be favourable to the converts.

Even until today, the inspector-general of police has failed to take into custody, the former husband of Indira Gandhi who took their daughter, before the civil court. Thus, when it comes to conversions to Islam, the civil courts are powerless to act, because the syariah courts are all too powerful.

So, the question of asking men to dissolve their marriages in civil courts before they convert are mere empty slogans engaged by Azalina to please the non-Muslims in the country who are aggrieved by the withdrawal of section 88A from the revised amendments to the LRA.

Precisely because men intending to convert are not "man enough" or "anak jantan", they seek the clandestine way of converting first and then go for unilateral conversions of their children.

Azalina and many other ministers in the BN should just shut up and admit the fact that they have grossly erred in removing section 88A from the revised amendments. If this had been inserted, then unilateral conversions could have been stopped in its tracks.

As I have argued earlier, getting the consent of both parents when comes to conversion of their children if they are above 18 is the right thing to do. Who said that seeking the consent of both parents is ultra vires the Federal Constitution? If such an argument was used to remove section 88A, then I could only suspect a larger political motive in rendering the new LRA as totally ineffective.

Since the general elections are around the corner, the performance of the leaders of the MCA, MIC and Gerakan are pathetic in not being able to stop the recent amendments to the LRA.

What more, these leaders have been justifying the revised law as something useful and could act as a deterrent to parents who are seeking to convert before going for unilateral conversion of their children.

Nothing could be further from the truth! It would be better if these leaders resigned from their ministerial posts to indicate that have duped non-Muslims for a long time.

P RAMASAMY is Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang and the state assemblyperson for Perai.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.