The AMLA Amendments - Association of Muslim Professionals

KARYAWAN
The AMLA Amendments Overview
Are We
Ambitious
Enough
Mohd Nizam Ismail
THE ADMINISTRATION of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill,
which made changes to the Administration of Muslim Law Act
(AMLA) was presented for the first reading in Parliament on 15
September 2008 and passed by the House on 17 November 2008.
As stated by the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr Yaacob
Ibrahim in his Second Reading speech on 17 November 2008,
AMLA “provides for many facets of Muslim life today”. Indeed, AMLA,
since its introduction in 1966, is the key legislation that governs
the running of key Muslim institutions – the Majlis Ugama Islam
Singapura or the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), the
Fatwa Committee in MUIS, the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM),
the Syariah Court and the Appeal Board – as well as the personal
lives of Muslims in Singapore, particularly in relation to marriages,
divorces and inheritance.
Given the centrality of AMLA, it is not surprising that some perceived
the scope of the recent amendments with disappointment. There was
a sense that the changes were not ambitious enough to address the
demands and needs of a changing and increasingly globalised Muslim
community in Singapore.
Rather than setting out the strategic legislative roadmap for the
community in a globalised and modern environment, the AMLA
seems content in making a potpourri of technical “quick-fixes”. The
key changes to AMLA this time were:
• Increasing the rate of contributions to the Mosque
Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF), and to expand the usage of
MBMF for mosque upgrading, funding of madrasahs and to
fund social work for dysfunctional families;
• Raising the minimum Muslim marriage age from
16 years to 18 years;
• The resort to the District Court for enforcement of orders made
by Syariah Court (by removing the need for Syariah Court orders
to be registered at the District Court before enforcement); and
• Appointment of a Deputy Registrar of the Syariah Court.
Need for Public Consultation
Given the significance of AMLA to the community, there could
have been public consultation on the Bill. In his Second Reading
Speech, the Minister mentioned a series of consultations with
community leaders “since June (2008)”. There was reference to the
media reporting of the AMLA amendments and of “encouraging
discussions” and feedback. However, these processes are not quite
the same as conducting a structured public consultation.
Increasingly, we have seen many government institutions, including
the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Ministry of Trade and
Industry, conducting extensive public consultations on changes
to laws and regulations that affect either the financial industry or
the public at large. Typically, public consultation documents are
prepared carefully, setting out details of proposed changes to laws;
the underlying policy thinking behind certain proposals; the tradeoffs
(if any) arising from the proposal; the implications of proposed
policies; as well as specific issues or questions that the government
agency would like the public to comment on.
The wisdom behind having structured public consultations is
obvious. Such an approach ensures that ideas from the public are
channelled in an organised way, and also ensures that buy-in is
obtained from the public on proposed policies. This process could
have been done for the AMLA changes.
Moving away from process, let us look at the impact of some of the
proposals that were made as well as some of the issues that the Bill
could have addressed.
Dysfunctional Families Treated as Community Issues
Going into the substance of the proposals, the most significant
change to AMLA is in the usage of MBMF. Of key concern is the
resort to the MBMF to handle the issue of dysfunctional families
within the community, given the prevalence of divorces and
remarriages among Muslim divorcees.
9