Kuala Lumpur, September 27, 2023 – The ongoing legal battle involving the unilateral conversion of three Hindu children to Islam has taken a new turn. High Court Judge Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz has decided to personally interview the children, a move that underscores the sensitivity and importance of the case in Malaysia’s multicultural society.
Key Highlights:
- Personal Interview: High Court Judge Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz will interview the three children converted to Islam without their mother’s consent.
- Custody Battle: The Perlis Islamic Religious and Malay Customs Council (MAIPs) seeks to modify the custody order to impart Islamic teachings to the children.
- Legal Stances: While MAIPs argues the children’s official Muslim status, the mother, Loh Siew Hong, contends their conversion was invalid.
- Upcoming Appeal: Loh’s challenge to the children’s conversion will be heard by the Court of Appeal on October 19.
- Historical Context: The children were taken by their father in 2019 and converted in 2020 without Loh’s consent. Loh was granted full custody in 2021.
The case has been a focal point of discussions on religious freedom and child rights in Malaysia. Today, the court heard MAIPs’ plea to amend the custody order, which currently grants Loh full custody. MAIPs aims to provide the children with Islamic education and expose them to Islamic celebrations.
Judge Hayatul, emphasizing the children’s welfare, stated, “It’s crucial for me to converse with the children directly, given the case revolves around their future.” She added that her previous tenure as a family court judge influenced this decision.
Both parties’ lawyers, Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla (representing MAIPs) and J. Gunamalar (representing Loh), expressed no objections to the judge’s intent to interview the children.
Also Read: Policybazaar Advocates for Women’s Financial Independence in New Campaign
The crux of the legal arguments revolves around the children’s religious status. MAIPs, citing the Perlis’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006, believes they have a duty to provide Islamic guidance to the children. Loh, on the other hand, maintains that the children’s conversion was never valid.
Haniff emphasized MAIPs’ responsibility, stating, “As long as they are Muslims, it’s our duty to provide guidance every second.” Gunamalar countered, highlighting the potential psychological impact on the children, “Switching teachings could traumatize them.”
The broader implications of this case resonate in a country grappling with interfaith relations. The final verdict could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
