The position taken by the lawyers holding a watching brief for the Bar Council in the Lina Joy case is in full conformity with the council's stand on apostasy, said its president Yeo Yang Poh.

That position, said Yeo, did not emerge at any specific point in time following discussions on the particular case of Joy but had developed over the years as is the case of many other issues related to fundamental rights.

Such 'positions', Yeo added, need not be re-deliberated whenever a case arises but is formed and made known over the years in statements and responses to the media.

"For example, in the issue of freedom of assembly, a couple of people may have gotten arrested for holding an assembly - we don't take a position on it just because several people have been arrested," said Yeo when contacted.

Yeo was commenting on a spat in the Federal Court yesterday between two council members when one, exco member Zulkifli Nordin, denied the council had ever met, discussed, or arrived at a decision on the question of apostasy that was truly representative.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, holding a watching brief for the Bar Council, had said earlier that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution allowed Joy to declare the religion of her choice without being certified to do so by the Islamic religious authorities.

In presenting his submission on behalf of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, Zulkifli contested that Malik's submission last Thursday was not representative of the council's 4,000 Muslim members.

Majority rules

Yeo confirmed that Malik had the Bar's "full authority to have made the submission," but added that the council accommodates all views and disagreements and is open to requests to review any stand deemed contentious.
Ultimately, said Yeo, the position of the council is based on the position of the majority of its members.

"If there are some council members who say we should re-look this issue, then okay. If we can come to a consensus, that's fine.

"But if we cannot, then we take a position based on the majority. There's no other way to work," he said.

Joy - whose Muslim name was Azlina Jailani - converted to Christianity in 1998 and is married to a Christian man. She had successfully applied in 1998 to change her name but failed to have the entry 'Islam' deleted from her identity card.

The questions posed before the Federal Court are:

  • If the NRD is legally entitled to impose as a requirement a certificate or a declaration or an order from the Syariah Court before deleting the entry of 'Islam' from the applicant's (Joy's) identity card;

  • If the NRD has correctly construed its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990 to impose the above requirement when it is not expressly provided for in the regulations and;

  • Whether the landmark case of Soon Singh vs Perkim Kedah - which declared that the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction unless an express jurisdiction is conferred to Syariah Court - was rightly decided.