4. by the High Court was the minor

4. CONVERSION OF MINOR IN
MALAYSIA

As
currently there are many cases where non-Muslim parents were unaware and not
consent that the other non-Muslim spouse has converted their under 18
children’s religion after converting themselves to Islam1. The Bill tabled by the
Government to amend the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 in 2016.
This is to ensure that both parents must consent to the conversion of the child
under 18 years old2.
A new section, Section 88A will be inserted through the amendment which makes
clear that both parents in a civil marriage must agree to the conversion of a
minor into Islam as the law is silent on this aspect currently. In this
Section, a child after attaining the age of majority has the right to decide on
the issue of his or her religion3.

In Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Islam
Perak and Ors, the Ipoh High Court qua Family Court, the conversion of religion
by their changed over the father, was constrained to between common law and
Islamic law in Malaysia. In the occasion, in a soundly contemplated choice
conveyed on 25 July 20134,
the High Court subdued the minor youngsters’ conversion to Islam by the father without
the knowledge of mother and stated that the conversion is null and void. The issues
in Indira Gandhi as chose by the High Court was the minor youngsters can be
changed over and if the non-changing over parent to be heard before, also, without
the ward to settle on the defensive ability of issues said to be inside its
select domain, Federal Constitution did not take away the forces of the common
High Courts the minute an issue came extremely close to the Syariah Courts, the
last being only an animal of state law. The interest to the Federal Court was
heard in late 2016 yet the peak court still can’t seem to issue its choice5.”Parent”
covers both the father and mother of the youngster6.  The father is the parent as well as the
mother. A father and a mother joined together and become “parent”. For
the disable child, the father cannot decided the child’s religion but the
mother could do so. 7

The genuine reason for the adjustment in the words8″
Article12 (4) might be perused as “chosen by his parents”. Two
guardians can’t be of one personality .The same ought to apply uniformly and
similarly to a wide range of change. The assent of the changed over parent
would do the trick9. Where
they can’t concur on the religion of the minor youngster yet that for
transformation to Islam. This is the problems whether this was affected by or
come about because of the current pattern of the court choices which deciphered
Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.

Just enduring the consent of one parent
understanding that the other parent had dissented would provoke a not as much
as the alluring state, without a doubt, of reiterated changes of one parent of
the child against the difference in the other. Or then again as by virtue of a
difference in the minor child to Islam by the changed over parent, the
non-changing over parent is said to have no locus to challenge the authenticity
of the Certificate of Conversion which is last and legitimate and that once
changed over into Islam no one can change over the minor youth out of Islam10.
(Subashini Rajasingam v. Saravanan Thanga