DAP and its ‘support’ for Islamization, really?


Cakap tak serupa bikin

By Danial Ariff Shaari

The Federal Court decision on Indira Gandhi’s case has done much to shed light on the liberals who desire to jeopardize the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Indirectly, it also helped to distinguish between allies who are committed to the Islamic agenda and the proponents of liberal secularism.

Applause of the aforementioned apex court verdict on Jan 29 by DAP only proves to us that the party’s lip service to Islamization is just a facade to win over Malay Muslim voters, and nothing more.

⇓  DAP-led government in Penang making a show of its Islamization

What does the DAP really want?  

Let us examine the DAP’s actions.

Last year, Lim Kit Siang urged the BN government to reinsert Section 88A into the proposed amendment to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, saying that his party could guarantee the support in parliament of its 36 MPs.

The clause provides that the religion of children “shall remain as the religion of the parties to the marriage prior to the conversion”. This will deny the parent who has converted to Islam his right to decide the religion of his son(s) and/or daughter(s) below the age of 18.

DAP’s Ipoh Barat parliamentarian M. Kulasegaran represented M. Indira Gandhi in her legal challenge to the unilateral conversion to Islam of her three children who had been born Hindu.

Prior to that, Kulasegaran had suggested that Centhra CEO Azril Mohd Amin needed to take up “law tuition class”. Azril, a lawyer who heads the Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy, had been against Section 88A.

Wanita DAP publicity secretary Kasthuri Patto, who is also Batu Kawan MP, nodded her approval of the Federal Court ruling, and chipped in saying that moving forward the Section 88A safeguard would be like a “priceless birthday present” for Indira.

 DAP’s Kulasegaran and Indira Gandhi

DAP leaders touching on Islam

Meanwhile, Wanita DAP chief Chong Eng said in a statement on Jan 30 that “the Syariah Court is limited to matters pertaining to family law according to Islamic principles” and furthermore that the Syariah Court “has never been empowered to overrule our civil courts and should never be allowed to do so”.

Yet Chong Eng fails to appreciate the express provision of Article 121(1A) that insulates the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court from civil courts.

In fact, are not the issues of custody and the religion of the children, as well as the divorce between the mualaf (convert) husband and his Hindu wife “matters pertaining to family law”? Is so, why is it then not in accordance with “Islamic principles” as claimed by Chong Eng?

Please bear in mind that a fatwa was issued in 2009 at the Muzakarah Jawatankuasa Fatwa Kebangsaan: “Apabila salah seorang pasangan ibu atau bapa memeluk agama Islam, status agama bagi anak bawah umur pasangan itu adalah secara langsung beragama Islam”.

But see what Chong Eng has to say instead about “Islamic law”? She said, “Even Islamic law does not allow the father to claim custody of a baby girl and it is very cruel and unjustified to forcefully separate a baby daughter from her mother”.

These DAP politicians speak as if they know a lot about Islam when they clearly don’t.

Is DAP truly concerned about Muslim rights?

Take Klang MP Charles Santiago, for instance. In his recent attempt at intervention, the DAP Christian rep questioned whether the decision of our Malaysian government to deport 11 Uighur Muslims back to China was due to “pressure” from Beijing.

Santiago made as if he cared that the Uighurs may risk persecution. Really?

Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has already explained that the Malaysian government is bound by a Mutual Legal Assistance treaty, and thus required to comply with the formal extradition request made to Putrajaya by the Chinese government.

After all, hadn’t Zahid also maintained the same principle in relation to the demand for the deportation of Dr Zakir Naik by DAP leaders such as the party deputy secretary-general P. Ramasamy?

In the Zakir Naik case, Zahid clarified that the Indian government had not submitted a formal request to extradite the Indian Muslim preacher.

Towards the end of last year, Interpol cancelled its red-corner notice against Zakir Naik who had already pleaded with the Indian government to clear his name.

Not only has Charles Santiago dismissed the concern of Muslim groups – vis-a-vis the Indira Gandhi court ruling – over the potential of inadvertent apostasy by the converted children (caught in the custody tussles) as beyond ridiculous“, he went further to try and intervene in other Islamic matters.

In a separate statement, Santiago urged the religious authorities including Jakim and Jais to cease “arbitrary arrests” of transgender persons.

He actually wants “the Malaysian government to repeal all laws and regulations that discriminate against transgender people”.

Sigh! The court’s decision is somehow expected ….🤨

Posted by Teresa Kok on 26hb Februari 2018

Will DAP actually back our religious authorities?

With regard to the LGBT issue, liberal lawyer Siti Kasim was charged with obstructing Jawi officers from performing their duties in accordance with the syariah criminal enactment.

Where is DAP when the state religious authorities need to be defended from litigious provocateurs like Siti Kasim who’s suing Jawi? Will DAP beef up its wannabe Islamic credentials by publicly taking a stance in favour of our religious bodies?

Not only is the authority of the religious bodies being undermined, even settled law on the jurisdiction of syariah courts over persons pronouncing or wishing to renounce Islamic faith is compromised.

“The Standard Operating Procedures are urgently needed so that those who want to convert out of Islam are clear on what needs to be done,” said Pakatan Harapan said in a joint statement yesterday.

Fortunately, the Federal Court stood on its ground last Tuesday (Feb 27) and firmly upheld that the Sarawak Syariah Court can hear apostasy cases.

Yet there are now even calls persisting for the removal of Article 121(1A) which grants exclusive jurisdiction to syariah courts over Islamic matters and syariah crimes.

Flashback: In his statement on 12 May 2006, Lim Kit Siang had called on the cabinet to amend Article 121(1A) which had been introduced in 1988 under Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s watch.

Hannah Yeoh and her tudung costume

As we’re all aware, the chameleon DAP is very adroit at wearing the ‘green’ Islamic colour … but only as an outer skin. When it comes to providing real substance in support of Islamization, PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan said it best:

“The DAP can continue with its chauvinistic policy as well as its pretense as being ‘Islamic friendly’ as its approach in facing the GE14”.

Sure, DAP can keep on pretending. But increasingly fewer Malays and Muslims are being taken in by the party’s charm offensive.

Download PDF