IN Malaysia, religious conversion is not a zero-sum game as such an act must be based on the law especially when it comes to the rights of both the children and the parents[s].
In the case of single mother and chef Loh Siew Hong, she was beaten up badly by her then-husband Nagahswaran Muniandy and was sent to recover at a domestic abuse centre.
In her absence Nagahswaran had taken their three underaged children – 14-year-old twin daughters and a 10-year-old son – to Perlis to be converted to Islam.
Once Loh came out of the welfare home she divorced her husband and sought a court order for the custody of the children which was granted in March 2021.
Loh’s search for her children was a long and arduous one and she was finally informed that they were in religious home in Perlis.
With the help of Bagan Dalam assemblyman Satees Muniandy and Seberang Prai City Council councillor David Marshel Loh was able to lodge and police report.
She subsequently found out that her three children were in an Islamic centre in Perlis and she finally got to meet them at a police station in Perlis.
Loh has agreed that she would take custody of the three siblings once her application for habeas corpus was heard in the Kuala Lumpur High Court but until then she wanted the children to be placed in a welfare home and not in a religious home.
It was also agreed that Loh – and not the religious authorities – would have sole visiting rights although she was told that she was denied visiting rights due to the rise in COVID-19 cases the following day.
The case of Loh’s children being converted is not a religious matter for some irresponsible parties to raise a hue and cry but the question here whether the three children can be converted to Islam just because they wanted to or were coached to do so.
In the eyes of the law
The siblings might have agreed to be converted but the law looks at the matter differently.
As a matter of fact, the law says that underaged children cannot be converted without the consent of both parents.
In the case of Loh’s children, it was the father who consented but not the mother.
That the mother could not be located at the material time was not an excuse or justification for unilateral or unethical conversion.
The religious authorities should have exercised caution on this matter and not just rush into converting the children on the basis of their recital of some religious verses.
It was not that Loh could not be located – there were no serious attempts to locate her. Rather, it was simply assumed that she would not show up.
Even if she had shown up later, there was no way that she could have reversed the conversion without the backing of the law.
Loh might not have appeared before the conversion, but she is there now.
She wants the chicken back; the mother – and certainly not the religious authorities – have her children’s best interests at heart and her love and longing for her children cannot be underestimated.
I hope that the habeas corpus application would be in her favour as this will reaffirm the earlier court order to grant her custody of her children.
Loh’s case bears similarities to the Indira Gandhi case, although Indira was unable to get her child back as the daughter was abducted by her former husband.
However, Indira’s struggles were not in vain – she might have lost her child but she has given hope for other parents to be reunited with their children.
In fact, the court’s decision that the consent of both parents is required for underaged children to be converted was a landmark one and has given hope to many single parents affected by unilateral conversions.
In Loh’s case the law is clearly on her side and the very fact that her consent was not obtained makes the conversion of her children null and void.
The involvement of third parties had complicated matters to the extent it has become a national issue and more importantly it has allowed some parties to turn the matter into a zero-sum game.
There are no two ways about it – the Federal Court’s decision must be adhered to in the best interest of Loh and her children.
The talks about Perlis state enactment enabling consent of one parent, the father giving his blessings for conversion and the children wanting to remain as Muslims are not only against the Federal Court’s decision but these are also reasons that are ultra vires to the Constitution of the country.
Good sense must prevail on this matter of conversion, and the authorities should not simply come up with reasons that are aimed at justifying that a terrible wrong that had taken place.
It makes no sense to talk about Malaysia as multiracial and multi-religious country if religious conversions are allowed, even though they are blatantly against the law and natural justice. – Feb 18, 2022
