by Yong Ling Loong

Yet again, a substantive issue of law is being dismissed on technical grounds as the report shows. This is the chance for the Court of Appeal to settle the issue of whether a Muslim convert can renounce Islam and revert to her original religion. Yet, instead of coming up with a precedent, the court has dismissed the case in a 2-1 majority decision on technical grounds. The grounds being that that there are 2 names stated in the appeal - one a Chinese name and the other one, a Muslim name. Based on the report of The Malaysian Insider, it is quite clear that the 2 judges are harping on this most minor of issue - it’s become almost a travesty of justice. Laughable, in fact.

As counsel for the appellant said, what does it matter whether the names are different as “the Chinese name and Muslim name were the same person in the appeal.” Common sense should prevail here. Substantive issues should prevail over objections based only on form. Yes, Edmund Bon did not stick to just one name in the documents, as desired. This is something that is easily rectified and in the interest of justice, should have been allowed, so that the more substantive matter, the subject matter of the appeal can be fully argued and disposed off.

But instead, all resorting to flimsy excuses to deny this claim. We have Selangor legal advisor Datin Paduka Zauyah Be Loth Khan, representing the state, citing the same incompetency reason, to reject the appeal. So what if the appellant had used her Muslim name in her SD but signed it with her Chinese name?

If I had been using my Chinese name all my life to sign off all my documents and letters, am I going to change my signature just because I changed my religion? If I do that, won’t all all my documents be invalid because the signature is different. Is there a rule in Islam that makes it mandatory for all Muslim converts to change their signatures in all official documents? Is there a rule that I can’t be a Muslim and at the same time practise my Chinese culture like reading, writing and signing off documents in Chinese? If that is the case, then the Chinese Muslims in China are not quite the proper Muslims that they should be, going by the standards imposed here.

Say, my passport has my Chinese signature. When I convert to Islam, do I need to go to the Immigration Department to change my signature on my passport, or worse, be told to renew my passport based on my new name and new signature? In the process, I am charged another RM300 for the 32-page forced renewal. Will the Immigration Department pro-rate the amount or give me a rebate, if I still have another 4 years to go before its expiry?

Even more ludicrous is her second argument that even if the appellant used her Muslim name in the appeal, the appeal was also incompetent because in her SD and deed poll, she stated that she was not going to use her Muslim name anymore. What sort of argument is this? So, is she saying that because of the SD and deed poll, she is to use only her Chinese name for the court case? But then, earlier, she implied it’s not okay to sign off in Chinese when she blah, blah, blah. Why complicate a simple matter?

Joining her to make a simple matter even more complicated is Senior federal counsel Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari, for the NRD and the government.

Saying that “The right authority to determine her legal entity is the NRD based on her IC. Therefore, the appellant must get approval from the NRD to change the Muslim name to her Chinese name, which was rejected by the NRD,” he said.

The appellant had earlier applied to the NRD to change the name in her identity card (IC) to her original name (Chinese name). However, the NRD on Sept 18, 2003, informed her that it had no jurisdiction to approve her application unless an order of renunciation of Islam was obtained from the Syariah court.

It’s a chicken and egg situation, isn’t it? At the end of the day, no authority wants to deal with the matter. At each stage, the correct authority abdicated their authority and the poor woman was told to seek redress at another authority - until she has to go all the way to the Court of Appeal. After more than 5 years, the poor woman still finds herself a reluctant Muslim. A Muslim in name only as she has declared that she is living like a non-Muslim.

We have here a woman who was forced to convert to Islam for love or marriage. People do the darndest things for love. If the marriage breaks down later, why shouldn’t she be allowed to leave the religion? Of course, there are wider implications in forcing her to stay on as a Muslim. A comment at the bottom of the article below indicated that Christianity also did not allow its members to leave the religion. Obviously, the person who commented on this does not have the slightest idea of what being a Christian means. There is no prohibition against leaving Christianity at all. No punishment from any earthly authority. It’s just you and God, whichever one you choose. Leave at your own peril because God will deal with you, but God is a forgiving God.

I do not have the benefit of reading Vincent Ng J’s dissenting views and so, my views above is merely to draw attention to how easily the Court of Appeal sidesteps the substantive issue, resulting in an instance of injustice against a woman.