Tag: AMLA

AMLA: New Rules To Be Implemented For Muslim Couples On Marriage And Divorce

Muslim couples who are minors will have to attend a compulsory marriage preparation programme, while couples seeking a divorce also have to attend a marriage counselling programme, as part of a string of changes to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) passed in Parliament on Tuesday (Aug 1).

Muslims who are younger than 18 and want to get married must attend and complete a marriage preparation programme approved by the Ministry of Social and Family Development. These sessions are aimed at helping couples better understand, clarify and address any concerns that they and their families may have about marriage.

They will also learn essential skills like how to build a stable marriage and family at marriage education workshops for the minor couples to learn essential skills and knowledge to build a stable marriage and family.

Parents of these couples, who will now also be required to give consent to the marriage, are also encouraged to be involved in such sessions. Previously, only the consent of the wali, the lawful guardian for the marriage of a Muslim woman, is required.

Muslim marriage numbers are on the rise, while minor marriages – where at least one party was below 21 years at the time of marriage – have been in “steady decline.” Divorce rates have also remained stable.

Nevertheless, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr Yaacob Ibrahim pointed out that minor marriages are more “vulnerable”. Citing the trend of Muslim marriages involving younger grooms, the recent marriage cohorts have seen one and a half times the divorce rate compared to older grooms, he said.

“This move thus reinforces the importance of parents’ or guardians’ support in a minor marriage as their guidance, especially in the crucial initial years of the marriage, is critical to help younger couples build strong marriage foundations for a lifetime,” said Dr Yaacob.

To provide greater support for divorcing Muslim couples, they will be required to first attend the Syariah Court’s Marriage Counselling Programme, before seeking a divorce, so as to see if the marriage can be saved.

About 64 per cent of divorce cases in the last five years involved at least one child of the marriage under 21 years old, with more than 85 per cent of these involving at least one child under 14 years.

Since the Syariah Court introduced the programme in 2004, over 33,000 couples have been counselled, and almost half of these marriages have been saved, said Dr Yaacob.

If the couples decide to go ahead with the divorce, this programme will provide the platform to discuss care and living arrangements for their children, while counsellors on hand can refer them to other services like financial assistance or education support for school-going children.

The Syariah Court will also have the power to refer parties for further counselling or a family support programme at any stage of their divorce proceedings.

For instance, it can order a registered medical practitioner, psychologist, counsellor, social worker, or mental health professional to examine and assess the child.

The AMLA covers the three public agencies – the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) and the Syariah Court – dedicated to implement and administer the provisions of the Act.

The AMLA was last amended in 2008 to strengthen these key institutions, as well as to improve the quality of life for the Muslim community in Singapore.

Several amendments were also made to enhance the management of Muslim assets, most notably the wakafs (Muslim endowments) and the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF).

In 2017, MUIS disbursed $3.1 million of the revenue generated from wakafs to various beneficiaries such as mosques, madrasahs, and Muslim organisations. This amount is nearly 3 per cent more, or about $90,000, compared to the previous year.

Of the total disbursement, more than $1.52 million was channelled to 27 mosques to help fund upgrading projects and to support mosque programmes.

“All these are a result of MUIS’ management of the wakafs, which include careful planning to ensure maximisation of wakaf returns, and attracting good tenants for wakaf properties…We must continue to ensure that the wakafs are well managed so as to maximise their potential,” said Dr Yaacob.

To enable MUIS to better safeguard against the mismanagement of wakafs, there will be expanded grounds under the AMLA to which a trustee or mutawalli (those appointed to manage the wakaf) can be removed. For instance, when a mutawalli fails to furnish information or particulars as required by MUIS, or fails to allow MUIS’ inspection of wakaf properties, accounts, and records. This is to ensure greater transparency and clarity, and to allow for more timely intervention.

Current provisions enable MUIS to do so when it appears that the wakaf has been mismanaged, or if there have been no trustees appointed. However, for these conditions to be met, the wakaf “might already be in jeopardy”, explained Dr Yaacob.

Additionally, the appointment of a new trustee to a wakaf will be void unless there is MUIS’ prior approval in writing, so that MUIS can ensure that the individuals appointed as trustees are qualified to manage the wakaf.

A court must also not entertain or proceed with any proceedings relating to the appointment or removal of wakaf trustees and mutawallis, as it will fall on parties to work with MUIS to such matters.

MUIS will also be able direct a portion of the income of the wakaf towards a sinking fund, primarily for the upkeep and development ofthe wakaf , such as repairs or installation works.

Citing how many of the trust deeds of older wakafs do not specifically address long-term upkeep of the wakaf, including that of the creation of a sinking fund to maintain it for the long run, Dr Yaacob said that such properties often fall into disrepair given the lack of sufficient savings or reserves.

Lastly, he reiterated that the MBMF can be tapped for the purchase of new or additional land or property for existing and future mosques, as well as for the building or maintenance works of any religious education premises or facilities.

Wrapping up his speech, Dr Yaacob said: “The amendments we are proposing today seek to better protect Muslim families because they are the very building blocks of a strong and resilient community.We want to reinforce our institutions so that they are effective in serving the community.”

He added: “We want to enhance the management of our assets so that the community continues to benefit from them and prosper.”

Source: http://www.todayonline.com

August 1, 2017
Osman Sulaiman: Objective Review Of Policies Implemented By Allahyarham Othman Wok Will Benefit Malay Muslim Community

Othman Wok has passed away. In my community, many believe that we cannot talk about the dead. I disagree. Strongly.

The belief that we cannot talk about a dead man past has its roots from Islamic teachings that forbid anyone to air out a dead man’s shameful/disgraceful past. This, I agree.

But what many would do the moment we tried to discuss about a man’s past, his beliefs, his stand, his deeds, his contributions, his ideology and his political leaning, we are swiftly reminded not to talk about it even if it has nothing to do with exposing of the dead man past.

As with Othman Wok, many would know about the infamous words he uttered on the burning of the corpses. Many also would know of his loyalty to LKY.

When speaking about this, I dont think this is shaming the man for bringing back what he said before because Othman Wok still stands by it and has never apologized nor is he ever contrite for his words.

Othman Wok was the de facto leader of the Malay community by virtue of being appointed a minister in the 60s and 70s. As a leader back then, we should be allowed to study and discuss his actions and contributions as it has bearings on how our community socio-cultural environment developed.

We can see the mainstream media pouring praises on Othman Wok. Are we then not allowed to counter with facts on his actions? If we take on the line not to discuss a dead man past, we would never have known how evil Hitler and Saddam was.

No, we are not shaming or airing out his personal details and discretion, but rather to visit history and discuss the impact he, Othman Wok has contributed based on his actions and words.

Othman Wok was never a leader to me. In fact, it was during his time as a minister, policies that were detrimental to my community went unchallenged, passed without much fun fare that ultimately, led to a whole generation of my community to be weakened economically.

It shaped the political environment my community faced today. Because whatever we fight today, we fight for our future generation. He, Othman Wok never fought for us. He acquiesced and was complicit with the gov questionable act.

As a Muslim, I pray for his well-being in the afterlife. May god bless his soul.

But In this life, I cannot put him on a pedestal.

Source: Osman Sulaiman

April 20, 2017
Have An Opinion On Proposed Amendments To The Administration Of Muslim Law Act, Send Your Views To MCCY
Public consultation on the draft Administration of Muslim Law Act (Amendment) Bill

The Ministry of Culture, Community, and Youth (MCCY) invites the public to give feedback on the draft Administration of Muslim Law Act (Amendment) Bill.

The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) provides for the establishment of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), the Syariah Court (SYC), and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM), and the administration of mosques and wakafs (Muslim endowments).

The Government, in consultation with community partners and stakeholders, regularly reviews the Act to ensure that this unique piece of legislation is robust and relevant, stays up-to-date with new programmes and processes, and serves the needs of our Muslim community. The proposed amendments this year seek to reinforce Muslim institutions, enhance the management of Muslim assets, and strengthen Muslim families.

Consultation documents
1. Draft AMLA (Amendment) Bill
2. Public Consultation paper explaining the policy intent behind the proposed amendments
All interested members of the public are requested to submit their comments on the proposed amendments no later than 6.00pm on 13 April 2017, via the following channels:
- Email to: [email protected]
- Post to:
  Ministry of Culture, Community, and Youth
  Community Relations and Engagement Division
  Level 2, Old Hill Street Police Station
  Singapore 179369
Source: www.mccy.gov.sg
March 22, 2017
High Court: Courts Have No Jurisdiction Over Muslim Matters, MUIS Appropriate Authority To Seek Judicial Assistance

The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) is the only body that oversees all Muslim matters, including the administration of Muslim charitable trusts, and the courts are in no position to interfere unless MUIS deems it appropriate to seek judicial assistance, the High Court has found.

In striking out an application by trustees of the Valibhoy Charitable Trust to replace a fellow trustee who had allegedly “deliberately refused to discharge his duty”, Judicial Commissioner (JC) Kannan Ramesh found that the courts have no jurisdiction over such trusts, also known as “wakafs”, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).

LEGAL AUTHORITY OF MUIS COMES FROM ‘SPECIAL POSITION OF MALAYS’

First enacted in November 1960 and most recently amended in April 1999, the AMLA is meant to protect the Islamic religion by establishing a Muslim body to deal with the administration of Muslim law and the regulation of Muslim religious affairs in Singapore. MUIS was established as a statutory board in 1968.

The legislative intent, said JC Kannan in a written judgment dated Jan 29, corresponds with the Republic’s Constitution, which sets out that the Government is to “recognise the special position of the Malays” and protect, support and promote their religious, political, economic and cultural interests, among others.

Under the AMLA, MUIS is charged with the responsibility of dealing with the affairs of all Muslim religious trusts, including wakafs.

In particular, the Act gives MUIS the authority to appoint and remove trustees. Should MUIS decide to remove a trustee, it must simultaneously appoint another one.

According to the wakaf.sg website managed by MUIS, the religious body has regulatory oversight of wakafs, while other trustees play managerial roles, but will still have to seek approval for decisions such as the selling and buying of assets.

The AMLA confers the courts’ power in relation to wakafs only when MUIS invokes the courts’ assistance. Even then, the courts can only deliberate on the meaning and effect of the declaration creating the wakaf.

“Importantly, matters concerning the administration of the wakaf have been carefully removed from the equation,” said JC Kannan, adding that MUIS must be the only forum where trustees of a wakaf can direct their disputes.

GRANTING COURTS POWER COULD CAUSE ‘INCONSISTENT DECISIONS’

With the enactment of the AMLA, Parliament could not have intended for trustees of the wakaf, apart from MUIS, to have recourse to the courts, said JC Kannan, as that might lead to inconsistent decisions and different standards applied by MUIS and the courts.

Giving the latter similar power would make “the recipe for an ideal cocktail for inconsistent decisions”, he said.

“(MUIS’) power to remove trustees could effectively be bypassed, making the process a mockery of what Parliament clearly (intended) by enacting the provision,” he said, adding that it would also allow trustees to launch “backdoor challenges” to either MUIS’ or the courts’ decisions.

“These situations would lead to a very uncomfortable paradigm where (MUIS) and the courts could render two conflicting decisions on the same issue, applying different statutory standards … It is amply clear to me that Parliament could not have intended such a paradigm,” he said.

While the plaintiffs in the Valibhoy Charitable Trust’s case subsequently alleged that MUIS’ administration of the trust was unsatisfactory and that it had “stayed silent” when legal action was launched, JC Kannan noted that the plaintiffs had not raised these arguments in their initial affidavits.

Instead, JC Kannan found that the plaintiffs had avoided going to MUIS, possibly with the view that they might obtain “a more favourable outcome” from the court.

“As an aside, I must highlight that the court’s processes are not to be used to deliberately undermine the statutory authority afforded by Parliament to MUIS. That would be an abuse of process,” he said.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

February 3, 2016
Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

Talking about intolerance, we Singaporeans have been a very tolerant society.

When a Muslim goes to a non-halal eatery and ask for halal food but none could be served by the eatery, we don’t see Muslims in Singapore suing the owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. In fact, there’s no distress whatsoever.

Likewise, when a non-Muslim goes to a halal eatery and ask for pork or liquor to be served, we don’t see non-Muslims in Singapore suing the Muslim owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. And really there’s no distress at all.

Why?

Because we respect each other’s beliefs and value systems.

Alcohol drinkers don’t go around suing Muslims just because the latter believe and say that drinking alcohol is wrong based on their religious belief.

Likewise, we don’t find Muslims in Singapore suing others who say that polygamy is wrong. We don’t. We simply don’t find that in Singapore.

Why?

Because this is Singapore, and we are Singaporeans who are very tolerant to different beliefs so long as they do not tear down our basic familial and social fabric. But the moment anyone or any activism is going all out to undermine that familial and social fabric, we Singaporeans will stand up and unite together to defend it at all costs. Defending that familial and social fabric that have been the bedrock of Singapore’s development and progress all these years cannot be deemed as intolerance, cannot be defined as bigotry and cannot be accused of propagating hate speech.

Instead, those labels should be directed at those who undermine that familial and social fabric that we Singaporeans cherish and protect.

Why?

Because they are the ones that are intolerant. Any form of disagreement will be immediately labelled as bigotry and accused of propagating hate. And that is happening now even with the 377A still around. It is not hard to imagine the kind of absolute intolerance we can face if 377A is abolished from the Penal Code.

How come?

Well, just look at what is happening right now in the US. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage results in a legal suit. Refusing to solemnise gay marriages is now a crime. And yet lgbt activists here claim that legalising same-sex marriages will not affect anyone at all. It is instead absolutely clear from that legalising same-sex marriage will result in the absolute intolerance on the part of the lgbt activists. The slightest disagreement with them will result in lawsuits or even being charged in court for alleged crimes.

So, to those lgbt activists and sympathisers, don’t go round saying that we are intolerant as a society in Singapore. Singaporeans have been and will continue to be tolerant so long as the familial and social fabric are not threatened. Once threatened, we will defend it. PERIOD.

And Singaporeans are neither stupid nor illiterate. We know what the lgbt activism has done to other parts of the world once same-sex marriage is legalised.

Same-sex marriage has become the demon that is out to destroy the institution of marriage and family in those countries. If ever 377A is abolished and same-sex marriage is legalised in Singapore, the same level of intolerance or more will also set foot. SSM will then be used to knock out anyone, any organisation, any religion and any law (including AMLA – Administration of Muslim Law Act) that is against same-sex marriage.

So, don’t ever say that pinkdot is an innocent movement just for a group of lgbts and their supporters to celebrate diversity and the freedom to love. Pinkdot is a political movement that is intolerant of the familial and social values so dearly upheld by Singaporeans all these while. These are the very familial and social values that have seen us through the ups and downs of Singapore’s development and progress. Pinkdot wants us to abolish Section 377A and legalise same-sex marriage. And should that be allowed to happen, the pinkdot will transform itself into a demon that will be so intolerant to any form of disagreement to same-sex marriages and to its lifestyle choice of freedom to love anyone and anything at all.

And by the way, Singaporeans have long been tolerant of lgbts living in our midst. They live, work and play together with all of us for as long as we can remember. The Government also acknowledges that they are in almost every sector of the economy, including the public sector and public service. And for the record too, no lgbts have been persecuted in Singapore by the Courts just because of them being lgbts. But the lgbt activism at the level we are seeing right now, especially in the form of pinkdot, is a recent phenomenon fuelled by external parties, and has now become brazen and emboldened with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. We Singaporeans have been a tolerant society all these while. The very existence of pinkdot now in our midst is testimony to that. But that does not negate our right to say that it is wrong and that we are against pinkdot in Singapore.

And why are we against pinkdot in Singapore?

Because pinkdot is pushing for the repeal of Section 377A and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. These two pinkdot agendas will undermine the very familial and social fabric that Singapore has been based on in its years of development and progress. And if we can sum up what PM Lee Hsien Loong has said in recent weeks, it would be this: The society in Singapore is deeply religious. The social sphere has developed taking into account the religious and ethnic beliefs of the multireligious and multiracial societies found in Singapore. So don’t push it.

Mohd Khair

Source: We Are Against Pink Dot

July 11, 2015