The Bar Council is not and has never 'anti' any religion

The Bar Council believes in the right of every person to profess and practise the religion of their choice.

The Bar is a multi-racial organisation comprising members of various backgrounds and faiths. The history of the Bar will show that the Bar Council has championed many diverse and sometimes unpopular causes, without fear or favour and regardless of racial or religious origin, with its sole motivation being that of upholding the rule of law. This is evidenced by, among other things, the numerous legal aid cases that we undertake yearly for the needy regardless of race, colour or creed, including for all those held under the ISA.

The Bar has never been, is not and will never be “anti” any religion as this runs counter to our core values.

The Bar Council believes in the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and international human rights norms. None of these values run counter to any religious tenets. In fact, they accord fully with them.

In April this year, the Prime Minister was reported in the press to have said at the National Islamic Council meeting that there ought to be rulings making it mandatory for individuals wishing to convert to Islam, to inform their family members of their intention to do so. The same suggestion as well as others were made today by SUHAKAM in a public statement. There are also views reported to have been expressed by IKIM that the syariah courts should not have jurisdiction over the civil marriage or its dissolution. These views are in the public domain. To date, no provisions have been enacted to resolve these matters.

Meanwhile, some of the court’s decisions have shown inconsistency in their approach to this question of the jurisdictional conflict.

Affected families therefore continue to be caught between the jurisdictional divide and their pleas for a remedy or solution remain unanswered.

The Bar Council forum planned on 9 August 2008 was meant to address precisely these issues which are in the public domain. It was meant to discuss the issues of conflict of laws facing these families and to consider what means were available to resolve the conflict. It was meant as a forum to hear the voices that are unheard.

The programme initially included an ex-Syariah Court Judge (currently a Syarie prosecutor from Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan) and a speaker from IKIM, both of whom withdrew shortly before the date of the forum. If one had only looked at the programme and the speakers invited and had heeded our various explanations and statements issued prior to the forum, it would have been apparent that those labelling the forum anti-Islam were plainly wrong.

Regrettably, the disproportionate responses to the Bar Council’s forum may now discourage those who have genuine grievances from speaking up. We have little to be proud of if the voices of those who cry for help are drowned out by those who speak more loudly.

There are those who would have us believe that the Malaysian public is not ready for such dialogue. We believe otherwise. We believe that the Malaysian public is ready, simply because Malaysians will not sit by and tolerate the suffering of others without trying to find a solution.

Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar
19 August 2008