The Bar Council has advised those seeking amendments to the Federal Constitution pertaining to religious disputes to tread carefully.

Its chairperson Yeo Yang Poh said such amendments warrant 'extreme care' and 'extensive consultations' as it affects fundamental rights and liberties.

He was responding to the widespread calls to amend Article 121 (1A) which forbids civil courts from encroaching into the jurisdiction of syariah courts.

The Article came into dispute following the controversy sparked off by the death of Everest hero M Moorthy, which saw his widow and Islamic religious authorities battling over his funeral rites.

Among the changes proposed is to revert the Article to its original version, before it was amended in 1988 to include 121 (1A).

Others have suggested that the constitution stipulate that any dispute involving Muslims and non-Muslims fall under the jurisdiction of the civil court

Yet another suggestion calls for the laws to explicitly provide non-Muslims access to syariah courts.

Fair solution

"Let us not forget that one of the reasons for our present predicament is precisely because the original Article 121 had been tinkered with despite protest from the Bar at the material time," Yeo said in a statement yesterday.

"These possibilities must be carefully studied and considered, and all interested parties must be consulted, bearing in mind the paramount need to provide a solution that will be fair to persons of all faiths and beliefs," he added.

Commenting on the last proposal, Yeo said it was retrogressive and unacceptable for non-Muslims to submit to the 'ambit and jurisdiction' of syariah laws.

"(This is) apart from being a fundamental and unjustifiable departure from the safeguards laid down in the constitution.

"Any amendment to the constitution, if and when necessary, will only prove useful and constructive if it further promotes fundamental rights and liberties, not if it erodes or dilutes them," he added.