Judges must uphold justice regardless of faith

Personal religious sentiments are colouring decisions made in the civil court said a concerned A Vaithilingam.

He is the past president of the Malaysian Consultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism & Taoism (MCCBCHST).

Vaithilingam ( left ) added there was a tendency for judges who are Muslim, to feel that they have a duty to protect their faith.

"There appears to be a pattern in this direction. As I understand Islam, after all my years in religious organisations, judges must be unbiased. This is similar to all other religious teachings.

"When Muslim judges and non-Muslim judges give different judgments in matters involving Islamic tenets, it is confusing for lay people," said Vaithilingam who was also the advisor to the Malaysian Hindu Sangam.

"For example, when the civil High Court judge, in giving joint custody of the two children to husband Dr M Jeyagandesh and wife, Shamala Sathiaseelan but ordered her not to expose her two children to her own religion of Hinduism, the judge did not cite any civil law authority for such a decision."

Conversion without consent

He explained that when the government Islamic religious authority had converted her infant children to Islam without her consent, and the High Court refused to intervene telling her instead to submit to that religious department for assistance, it was the last straw for her.

"If she committed contempt of court by leaving the country with her children, the above can be considered strong mitigating factors."

He said he believed the husband who deserted her was being given special consideration because he was a Muslim. "Both the High Court and the government religious authorities did not give recognition to her equal rights as a mother and a woman."

Shamala had appealed to the Court of Appeal who referred the matter to the Federal Court.

"She hoped she would get justice. But the Federal Court has shut her out completely. If she was in contempt of court, that offence must be considered separately. It did not mean that she should be denied relief in the substantive matters she complained about," added Vaithilingam.

Conversion issues not addressed

The MCA was also dismayed on the unanimous decision by the apex court in allowing Jeyagandesh's application for a preliminary objection, that Shamala does not have the right to be heard in court because a contempt proceeding was initiated against her.

This was because she had fled to Australia with the two children, after the court had earlier granted Shamala and Jeyagandesh joint custody.

While the party's deputy publicity chief Loh Seng Kok ( left ) understood the court's constraints considering that Shamala had fled the country, it was still a shame that the court did not address basic conversion issues.

The five-member panel was led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi.

.