Letter to the Editor
Clarification of Statement on Decision Under 'Duress' -
Context of Pressure Around Religion, Law & Family
8 May 2007

I write to clarify the statement I made in reaction to the news that Raimah Bibi Noordin consented to give up custody of her seven children and to live apart from her husband, effectively ending her Hindu marriage of 21 years.  

In stating that I hoped her decision was not made under duress, it was not my intention to question the actions of any individuals (including Judge Datuk Su Geok Yiam, Selangor legal adviser Datuk Zauyeh B. Loth Khan or DAP chairperson Karpal Singh) or undermine the integrity of the negotiation or the judicial system. The word duress was used in the non-legal sense – as it was clear that Raimah Bibi was under tremendous pressure from all the personal, religious and legal issues she was facing. 

In fact, I applaud the efforts to try to act in the best interests of the children within the significant social and legal constraints that exist in the current system.  

My intention was to highlight the broader social context of religious issues breaking up happy, stable marriages and families. Although Raimah technically chose to remain a Muslim and give up custody of her children, it appears that in reality she had no choice. Had she insisted she is Hindu, she and her children would remain in the hands of the Islamic authorities, in rehabilitation centres or in welfare homes. As a Muslim, she is not allowed to live with her husband unless her husband converts or she is able to renounce the faith, an extremely difficult process. In this way, Raimah’s hands were tied; she had no true choice, which is the concern I expressed about the settlement. 

This case exposes the complexities in inter-religious relations within both social and legal contexts and the need to find resolutions that go beyond a narrow interpretation of protecting a religion. Rather, we need to seek solutions that protect the constitutional and human rights of women, men and children to freely practise and profess a religion, marry the person of their choice, and live securely within a family.  

My immediate reaction and concern were for the family that has been torn apart. As I stated, “at a human level, a woman should have the right to be with her husband of choice and a mother to her children at all times”. Raimah and Marimuthu were obviously distraught at the forced dissolution of their family – forced not by the representatives negotiating their futures, but by the social and legal constraints that they face. While the agreement may be the best solution for the children given these constraints, I still dream of a society and legal system that prizes the children’s and their parents’ actual best interests: to live together as a happy and united family.  

Ivy Josiah
Executive Director

Related News:

• Marimuthu gets his 'snatched' children back (New Straits Times, 15 May 2007)
• Karpal wants apology from WAO director (Malaysiakini, 5 May 2007)
• Karpal wants Ivy Josiah to apologise to all (The Sun, 4 May 2007)
• Hindu man gets custody of children by Muslim ‘wife’ (New Straits Times, 4 May 2007)
• Relief for most quarters (New Straits Times, 4 May 2007)

Related Resources:

• Press Statement: Article 11 Video Series Launch
• Press Statement : Protect the Rights of Wives and Children Upon Conversion of Husbands to Islam
• Memorandum: Safeguard the Rights of Wives and Children Upon Husband's Conversion to Islam