2007年国际妇女节

3月8日是国际妇女节，很多妇女社会运动组织都纷纷拥有很多不同的活动。
在全世界各地，很多团体都在此时此刻，趁这个机会提出本身对于妇女权益的诉求。
虽然，我们已经来到了21世纪，可是在很多课题上，女性仍然属于弱势的群体，依然在父权制度下被压迫。
有时候，和朋友聊天的时候，会有种感慨，我们到底要等到什么时候才可以真正的摆脱性别、种族、国际的差异，我们用“人”的态度来对待“人”，来对待我们之间的关系。？？

今天在我们中心的会议，知道下个星期，在我们国家的上诉庭（Court of Appeal)会有很重要的案子，将被下判。这个案子之所以重要，因为我们有太多相关的例子了，我们都很期待。

R. Subashini and T. Saravanan were married on July 26, 2001 in accordance with civil laws and they now have two sons, aged 1 and 3. The husband, now Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, embraced Islam in May 2006. He has sought to dissolve his civil marriage at the Syariah Court. He has also sought to obtain custody of their 3-year old son whom he converted to Islam without his wife's knowledge or consent.

In August 2006, R. Subashini was granted an interim injunction that prevented her husband from pursuing legal proceedings in the Syariah Court with respect to their marriage and the conversion of their children. In September 2006, that injunction was set aside and Subashini’s appeal is now awaiting judgment at the Court of Appeal. However, the Judicial Commissioner who set aside that injunction granted an Erinford stay order, which prevents Saravanan from continuing with legal proceedings in the Syariah Court until the appeal has been disposed of.

The appeal was heard on 8 and 9 January at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya. The decision will be announced on Tuesday, 13 March.

这个案子，和之前的Sharmala's 案子很雷同，都是丈夫申请进回教，之后将孩子也转进回教。母亲们因此没有办法得到孩子的抚养权，他们的离婚案子也没有办法获得合理的审讯，因为非回教徒无法去回教法庭。因为马来西亚特有的法律制度，让很多同样命运的妇女无法得到她们应有的保障，其中包括公平的审讯机会。

3月12日，我已经在台湾了，3月8日的今天，我衷心的期盼3月12日，我们可以获得好消息。。

以下是一篇，中心曾经发的新闻稿

Letter to the Editor
Uphold a Mother's Rights and
Her Access to Justice
27 September 2006

Women's Aid Organisation (WAO) endorses and advocates for the absolute freedom of thought, conscience, belief and religion for every person. We are alarmed, however, when an individual's change of faith impinges on his or her spouse's rights, such as the right of access to justice and the right of decision-making with respect to their children.

According to recent press reports, R. Subashini and T. Saravanan were married on July 26, 2001 in accordance with civil laws and they now have two sons, aged 1 and 3. The husband, now Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, embraced Islam in May this year. He has sought to dissolve his civil marriage at the Syariah Court, reportedly to obtain custody of their 3 year-old son whom he claims also converted to Islam in May.

In August, R. Subashini was granted a temporary injunction that prevented her husband from pursuing legal proceedings in the Syariah Court with respect to their marriage and the conversion of their children. This past Monday, however, the injunction was set aside and an appeal is now being filed at the Court of Appeal.

WAO believes that when one spouse of a marriage that was solemnised under civil law converts to Islam, all matters pertaining to it (including custody, maintenance and inheritance issues) must be settled under civil law and in the civil courts in order to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. This will ensure that R. Subashini's right of access to justice is preserved, as the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over her since she is not a Muslim. Only the civil courts have jurisdiction over both parties. We are aware of the plights of other individuals, such as Shamala Sathiaseelan, who have been denied legal redress because the civil courts declined to exercise jurisdiction.

We are also gravely concerned that Muhammad Shafi's conversion to Islam will have a negative and discriminatory impact upon R. Subashini's rights as a mother, as has happened to Shamala. While we support Muhammad Shafi's absolute right to profess and practise the faith of his choice, his rights as a father and his new religion should not take precedence over R. Subashini's rights as a mother and her religion.

We urge the judiciary to uphold Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which has been judicially interpreted to necessarily mean that both the father and mother shall jointly decide the religion of a child under 18 years of age. We also call on the court to give meaning to Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, which gives a mother equal guardianship rights over the children. Furthermore, the child custody provisions of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 requires that the court, in its custody decisions, consider the "wishes of the parents of the child" (emphasis added).

Furthermore, we urge the court to take account of Malaysia's accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Each of these treaties contains clear and unequivocal provisions that oblige State parties, such as Malaysia, to ensure the equality of both parents in raising their children.

We call on the judiciary to ensure that R. Subashini's access to justice is preserved. We further urge that she be treated on an equal basis as her husband in terms of the rights of parents to make decisions about their children's upbringing, and that her choice of religion is treated on an equal basis as her husband's.