LETTERS: I wish to relate the case of the Malaysian Mar Thoma Church whose application for registration under the Societies Act 1966 was recently rejected by the RoS.
Due to various abuses of administrative practices, biased decisions, financial improprieties and other problems some Church members took the initiative to have the Church registered under the Societies Act 1966 that will give the Church a legal standing and also enable the Church to undertake its various activities, both domestic and foreign, to be covered by the law.
The Malaysian Mar Thoma Church, which was founded in the early decades of the last century, has since its inception been under the administrative control and jurisdiction of the Metropolitan (head of the Church) and the Episcopal Synod based in Kerala, India.
For more than a decade now, various problems have arisen in the Church due to the indifferent, ignorant and biased handling of numerous problems by the Church authorities in India.
It was for these reasons that an application for registration was made to the RoS to register the Church under the Societies Act 1966. Registration will enable the Church to come under Malaysian law and allow the RoS to ensure good governance, transparency and accountability.
Various Churches of different Christian denominations are registered under the SA 1966 and face no problems or, if there are any, the RoS acts on the complaints quickly. In fact, registration will ensure oversight by the RoS that brings proper administrative control and enable Church members' grievances to be investigated and not ignored or trampled upon as at present.
I wish to state here two important evidence that the RoS had ignored. The matter of the Church registration was brought up in Parliament during Question Time by YB Chow Kon Yeow on Sept 28, 2004, (No. Fail 8483) and the answer given was that all houses of worship and religious organisations other than Islam have to be registered.
In a subsequent letter dated Dec 8, 2004) (ref. PPM/AM Pert. 1.15 Jld 9 (13) from the RoS Registrar then, Kaswuri Kenan, it was specifically stated that the Malaysian Mar Thoma Church needs to be registered under the Societies Act 1966 to ensure that it falls within the ambit of Malaysian law.
What more evidence does the RoS and the Home Minister need to approve the registration of the Church? The RoS Registrar himself had said so and the reply in Parliament was also in the affirmative.
Is there any better reason than these for registration? Or could it be the case that the Home Minister was not given the full details of the application for registration?
It will reflect negatively on the authorities if the rejected applicants, who are increasing in number, are always compelled to opt for judicial review to find a favorable solution or a proper decision.
Judicial review adds to the legal costs and delay and not many applicants can afford it and some take the injustice in their stride for want of a better avenue to overcome it.
I hope the Home Minister, bestowed with much authority and power, will be sympathetic to applicants who refer their cases to him. It is only when the applicant feels that the due process of the law was not followed as happened in the rejection of Pejuang and Muda application, that it would motivate the applicant to opt for judicial review.
The Malaysian Mar Thoma Church members hope that the Home Minister will look into the Church registration issue legally, positively and favourably. It is high time that the Malaysian Mar Thoma Church is registered.
V. Thomas
Sungai Buloh, Selangor
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times