MUSLIMS BILL (Report from Select Committee)

10.39 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name,

That the Report from the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 5 of 1957, be adopted.

Sir, this Bill has been a long time in Committee. It is a measure that has been debated, I believe, not only in this session but in the previous session of the Assembly, for more than a year now and the Committee has gone into the matter very thoroughly and examined many witnesses in great detail. Most of the time of the Committee was spent on that controversial clause 47 of the old Bill renumbered clause 41 in the present tabled Bill. The clause dealt with the question of whether the validity of Muslim wills should be restricted only to wills or portions thereof that are in accordance with the Law of Islam.

Now, Members will recall that the Select Committee was given a special directive to consider the desirability of including such a provision in the Bill. Detailed examination of the witnesses revealed that the overwhelming majority of Muslims were strongly of the view that such a provision should be included. The same arguments that have been brought out in this House previously against such a provision were put up by a group of two witnesses but a host of other witnesses rebutted these arguments again on lines similar to those brought out by me in answering criticisms at the Second Reading stage of this Bill in November last year. On balance, Sir, the Committee felt that, since there was a strong desire amongst Muslims for incorporating this provision and since there was genuine concern for those rightful heirs who might otherwise be left unprovided for, provision should be entered in the Bill as set out in clause 41.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I second the motion.

Question proposed.

10.42 a.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on this platform before that I never take part in religious controversies. Being a layman, I leave this job to the experts. Personally, I consider that religion is between man and his Creator. No man is perfect except the prophets and one has to answer to his Creator for omissions and commissions whether he follows or does not follow his religion.

Sir, I have been placed on the Select Committee and I belong to the Muslim faith. If anyone born of any faith says that his faith is so and so, he must be true and steadfast to his religion when it comes to legislation. There can be no two opinions of any religionist going against one's own religion.

Now, Sir, the first object of this Bill is to protect Muslim women against unscrupulous men who abuse the right to marry four women and chuck them off as chattel if they so desire but, strictly following the religion, it is not so. It is enjoined in the religion that when marrying again, the husband has got to give his second, third and fourth wives equal love, it means that it is not possible for anyone to marry more than one wife, excepting when there is no issue, and so on. Now, the whole thing has been abused in this country and it is very necessary to give protection to Muslim women. This Bill should have come into force long ago and should not have taken a year. This is something good in order to protect the women from being exploited by unscrupulous men. However, the discussion went from this to other issues of inheritance and that is how the controversy arose and time has been taken. It is very unfortunate that it took such a long time to get in the main object which is to protect the women.

Now, Sir, there is no objection at all to that portion of the Bill as far as marriages and divorces are concerned. There is no objection whatsoever to the suggested clause 47 which is now the present clause 41 as far as any Muslim is concerned. When a Muslim is asked to vote, he has got to follow the Islamic law. Now here, I may say, Sir, that the Koran has stood the test for 1,400 years. Nobody has been able to change it, even a comma.

The controversy comes to clause 42 as it is now in the present Bill. Now, Sir, Singapore has got no State religion. The argument has been put forward that if the Government or the Assemblymen are willing to allow the Muslims to enact some of the laws of Islam into a Bill, why not take advantage of it? I certainly agree that we should. At the same time, if there is any defect or if there is any law in existence against the Koranic laws, that should be amended too. As a matter of fact, any other person or a group of persons of different religions could come before this Assembly to present a Bill that they should be governed by their own religions. Of course, the Muslims would have no objection to that as the non-Muslims are allowing us to do so.

Now, I draw the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Select Committee meeting held on 26th February, 1957. Sir, clause 42 of the Bill, as it stands now, has got a proviso reading:

"Provided that any of the next of kin who is not a Muslim shall be entitled to share in the distribution as though he were a Muslim."

Sir, my contention is this. Are we allowing the enactment of laws according to Islamic law? Are the Muslims in this Assembly going to vote according to Koranic law? If they are Muslims, are they not bound to follow the Koran, if they believe in it? Now, there are persons who may do certain things for worldly gain but here they will not only be judged by their God but they also will be judged by their Muslim voters if they go against the Koran. Sir, there was evidence taken on this. The majority view agreed that there should be nothing put in which is against the Koran and that that proviso should be taken off. However, there was a minor difference of opinion. Now, Sir, it is not a matter of opinion. The Koran lays down certain laws which must be followed by every Muslim. There is no question of opinion. In that Committee, Sir, I asked those who differed whether we could have expert advice. As a matter of fact, expert advice was given but, from 26th February, 1957 up till now, they have had enough time that if at all they had wanted to follow their religion, they should have by this time sought expert advice. There is no excuse for them.

Sir, I am sorry to take a little more time. I know that the majority of the Members of this House are not Muslims and they may not be very much interested in this question. The law of inheritance according to the Koran is this. If a girl who is not a Christian or a Jewess marries a Muslim, she and her children are not entitled to any inheritance. Also by religion, he is not allowed to marry such a girl. A Muslim is not allowed to get married to any other non-Muslim girl except to a girl belonging to the faith of Christianity or Judaism. There is no bar against such a marriage but the expert opinion and the Koran says that she or her children will not get any share of the inheritance.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I would like to continue. If it is not on a point of order, I do not like to be interrupted.

Now, this is the position. According to the Koran, this proviso is un-Islamic and it should be taken off the Bill. Sir Sayed Ibrahim Alsagoff, the Chairman of the Muslim Advisory Board, who is an Arab by race, born in Mecca and well versed in his religion, has written a letter - as I said previously, this will not interest the non-Muslim - Members of this House but I pray their indulgence - dated 21st October, 1956, to the Hon. the Chief Secretary and a copy has been forwarded to me. This has been mentioned in the Select Committee meeting held on 26th February, 1957, in which he asked for the deletion of the proviso to the old clause 41 which is, of course, now clause 42. Well, that is also the opinion of the Chairman of the Muslim Advisory Board. Now, whatever the advice or opinion may be, what does the Koran say? Are we going to enact a law for the Muslims? If it is to be a law for the Muslims, it should be according to the Koran and nothing else.

Sir, I would like to move an amendment to the motion, namely,

At the end of the motion, to add the words "subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 42 to a Committee of the whole Assembly".

Mr Speaker: Can I have that in writing?

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: It is in order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I propose to move an amendment to clause 42, to leave out the proviso reading:

"Provided that any of the next of kin who is not a Muslim shall be entitled to share in the distribution as though he were a Muslim."

That will be my amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, personally, my request will be that those Muslims in this House who accept the Muslim faith should by right vote-

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been considering this point very carefully and I do consider that any remark of that nature must, of necessity, be taken as an attempt to influence Members of this Assembly to vote in such a way that if they do not vote in the way indicated by the Member, they might open themselves to either spiritual or temporal injury. That is wrong.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I accept your ruling, Sir. Now, this is my amendment, Sir, and I expect I can say that Muslims should abide by their religion.

I beg to move, Sir.

11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker: No seconder? The motion fails. The original Question is still before the House.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill introduced before the House in its present form. The principles as laid down in the Bill meet with the wishes and desires of the Muslims in general. A Bill of this nature has, in fact, been long overdue. As a firm follower of the Islamic faith, I fully support that the Bill now be adopted by this Assembly.

11.02 a.m.

The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid) (Southern Islands): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill, which has been tabled in the House, as a Member of the Muslim Advisory Board and also as a Member of this House. This Bill has been put up for a long time, since 1954. The majority of Muslims in Singapore have requested the Government to introduce this Muslims Bill in order to satisfy the Muslim population in Singapore with regard to inheritance. I, Sir, as a Malay and a believer in the Muslim faith, do fully support this Bill, and request that this House should give it fair consideration.

11.03 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a matter properly for the Muslim community of Singapore. In so far as it concerns the life and the pattern of conduct and devolution of property of Muslims, it is a matter which they should properly decide for themselves. We support the Report in its present form because we understand that the majority of the Muslim Members on the Committee, and the majority of the Muslim community representatives who have appeared before the Committee, support the Bill in its present form.

11.04 a.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opening speech on moving the motion, I purposely did not touch upon clause 42, and this proviso to the clause, as I thought that it had been sufficiently debated in Committee, where the majority of the Members of the Committee being Muslims had rejected the deletion of this proviso, and as I thought that the Member for Telok Ayer had been satisfied. Had I been aware, Sir, that he was going to move an amendment, I would have touched upon it, and he might then have seen fit not to move his amendment; he might probably have been convinced by my arguments. However, I think it is now my duty - even at this late stage - to say something on this clause in order to clear up certain misunderstandings which the Member's speech has created, probably through no fault of his own - perhaps he himself is not clear in his mind as to what the intentions are.

Much mention has been made that "according to the Koran this proviso is un-Islamic", and "according to Koranic law this is so on and so forth". However, although the Koran was often mentioned, it was not quoted. That, Sir, is the point - the part of the Koran which purports to forbid Muslims from giving a share of their property to non-Muslim heirs was not quoted. Sir, it is easy to say "according to this, according to that" without quoting anything definite.

Now, there are two points I would like to make. First the Koran is the fountain of Islamic law; there is no doubt about that. But Islamic law has been evolved by Muslim jurists over many years since the birth of the Islamic religion; no doubt, they have based Islamic law on the Koran, but they filled in gaps here and there from Hadith. Now, Hadith are the sayings of the Prophet and there is a difference of opinion between the various sects of Muslims on Hadith. Some sects accept certain parts of Hadith, some do not. The second point is that you find among believers in Islam there are so many sects, or firkas, as they are called. The major one are the Sunnis, and in Malaya they form the predominant majority. The Shias are only a handful here. Now, it is true to say that, according to Islamic law, this proviso should be removed; but it is not true to say that according to Koranic law, for there is no specific mention in the Koran that non-Muslims may not or should not share in the property of a deceased parent.

Now, Sir, touching on this proviso - prior to 1924, the law applicable here on the distribution of an intestate deceased Muslim was not Muslim law but English law. That English law was changed by the Mohammedan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1923, which came into effect on 1st January, 1924. From that date, the law states that an estate, in a case of intestacy, shall be administered according to Mohammedan law except in so far as such law is opposed to any local custom which, prior to January 1924, has the force of law, provided that any of the next of kin who is not a Mohammedan shall be entitled to share in the distribution as though he were a Mohammedan. From 1924 to the present time, this provision is part of the law of the Colony; yet no good Muslim has taken any objection to it. Probably all Muslims have not abided by their religion, according to the Member for Telok Ayer.

The Muslim Advisory Board, Sir, as far back as 1955, made representations on the inclusion of the testacy clause that wills should be executed according to Islamic law, but it did not take any objection to this particular proviso. It was only in October 1956, when some elements began an agitation that the proviso was un-Islamic in nature, that the Board was probably forced to make objection. Even then, they did not press it with as much vigour as they have done in the other one.

At the moment, there is in force in this Colony a Civil Marriage Ordinance according to which any marriage made under it is valid. If a Muslim contracts a civil marriage with a non-Muslim woman, that marriage is therefore valid and she is his wife according to the law of the Colony, even though the Islamic law says she is not his wife, if she does not belong to followers of the Book, that is, if she is not a Jew or a Christian. According to the law of the Colony, she is a legal wife and her children are legal heirs. It would be inequitable, therefore, to cut off that wife (or her children) from sharing in any property left by her Muslim husband.

Sir, I have here a book written by a prominent Muslim jurist, Mohameddan Law, by Syed Ameer Ali, who is often quoted in the courts in India. On the proviso that non-Muslim heirs should not inherit from a Muslim parent, he says:

"These provisos do not owe their origins to religious exclusiveness but to the political necessities of the early Commonwealth, when an unbeliever was an inveterate enemy and an appostate a traitor."

There is another big argument against deleting the proviso, and that is that according to Islamic law, not only is a non-Muslim not allowed to share in the property of a Muslim, but a Muslim is not allowed to share in the property of a non-Muslim. This again is stated by Ameer Ali, who writes:

"Under the Sunni law, a Muslim does not inherit from a non-Muslim, nor does a non-Muslim inherit from a Muslim"; so that when you have parents who are of another religion and their children are converted into Islam, those children cannot inherit their parents' property. If you are going to be equitable, to see both sides of the argument, and prevent non-Muslim heirs from participating, you have, according to Sunni law, similarly to prevent Muslim heirs - and Sunnis predominate in Malaya. What will happen in countries like India, where many converts to Islam have been made from Hindus and others? -all their children, if they are Sunnis, will not be able to inherit. (I do not know about Shias or other sects).

Sir, my contention, therefore, is that it is not correct to stipulate that we must go "according to the Koran" and say that we are not following it by refusing to accept the request of the Member for Telok Ayer - we are sticking to common sense: and, in a multi-racial society like ours in Singapore, where there is close affinity between the races, I do not think it is fair that Muslims should deprive their wives, who may be non-Muslims but who are legally married to them under civil law, and their legitimate children from sharing in their property; and it is also not fair that the children of legally wedded non-Muslim parents, if such children are converted to Islam, are prevented from sharing in their parents' estate.

Sir, I beg to move my motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I second it.

Question proposed.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I beg to move an amendment under Standing Order No. 56 (2) . The amendment would be the substitution of the figure "1957" for the figure "1956" in the Short Title of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: I take it that it is an oversight. Permission is granted.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move,

In clause 1, line 5, to delete the figure "1956" and insert the figure "1957".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

11.15 a.m.