JUNE 13 — The IGP’s stand that children be placed in welfare homes pending resolution of disputes between parents in conversion cases (in Malaysia the dispute in conversion always arises when one party converts to Islam) is not tenable, borne out of ignorance of the law, is an abdication from responsibility and dereliction of statutory duties as the highest ranking police officer.
By making a stand such as this, the IGP has shown scant disregard of the welfare of children which is of paramount importance in custody cases.
It now looks like we need to educate our IGP on the law (no insult meant). I state below on how our IGP has gone wrong. Only the court can decide on any disputes whether to place the child in custody with a third party. In deciding custody the court will have to consider the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration s. 88 law Reform and Divorce Act 1976.
So the IGP’s stand is flawed. In fact he has got no business to suggest that children be placed in welfare homes. That is that purview of the High Courts.
The IGP said he will not act because there are two legal systems. He is clearly again wrong on this. There are no two legal systems in this country. There is only one legal system. The Syariah court only deals with certain aspects of Islamic law. It cannot be construed to mean that the Syariah court is a parallel legal system to the civil legal system or laws. In other words the syariah jurisdiction is subsidiary to the secular civil system, not equal, as syariah law caters for only certain aspects of Muslim issues.
It is also important to note that in all non muslim marriages they are registered under civil law and any divorce or ancilliary relief like custody and so on must be decided by the civil High court and not syariah courts.
Federal constitution and the Police Act 1967
Under the Federal Constitution, the Police force is a public service department subject to disciplinary proceedings against errant members — Article 132 and 140.
Under s.74 of the Police Act 1967 police officers are subject to disciplinary action including the IGP. It is a direliction of statutory duties if the police do not do their statutory duties and that includes executing warrants of the courts.
Part vii of the Police Act states about duties of the police in particular s.20 (3) (f) “executing summonses, subpoenas, warrants, commitments and other processes lawfully issued by any competent authority”. This certainly includes warrants for arrest which the police force is duty bound statutorily to execute. This the IGP has failed. And this failure has drastic implications on the police force as its number one officer is setting a very bad example in that he has failed to do his statutory duty. The IGP cannot give opinions, he just carries out the duties as required under the Police Act. The IGP must now resign to safeguard the good name of the force as the force comes under the Yang Dipertuan Agong run by the Police Commission. So far by the action of the IGP it is clear that when it comes to Islam there is a compromise on duties, responsibilities and calling.
* M Manogaran is the Chairman of Malaysia Tamil Sanggam, an ex-MP and lawyer.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.
