ARTICLE 12 - RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF EDUCATION.

ARTICLE 12, CLAUSE (2) - Every religions group has the right to establish and maintain
institutions for the education of children in its own religion, and there shall be no discrimination
on the ground only of religion in any law relating to such institutions or in the administration of
any such law but it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State to establish or maintain or assist
in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in
the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose.

According to this clause (2), every religious group is given the opportunity to establish
and maintain an institution to enhance, improve and give education to children in their own
religious group. Every religious group also was given equal freedom to provide real education
about religion without affecting other religious groups. Early education is given to children to
create awareness at an early age that can give effect to their lives of the future to build a person
with a high level of knowledge about education, especially to Islam. Apply the concept of
education in religion is able to produce a child who able to think more mature with the
knowledge that were given by their parents and the knowledge that apply by certain parties. The
federal and state governments have the right to assist and establish Islamic institutions in
providing instruction in the religion of Islam in terms of spending. It is not at all involving
discrimination or religious grounds in law-related. The basic identity of each community is not
depending on races but it depending on religion, customs, languages and beliefs. Each race has
their own customs, and religious, languages and beliefs to distinguish between the original and
figure added. Blending tradition and culture that give a slight change to the elements of religious
such as marriage ceremony that involve with others outside customs. It has give implications for
human life, even if we are Muslims but are still influenced by the customs and beliefs that are
not based on our own religions. That why, early education is very important for children to avoid
from misunderstanding in terms of religions, customs, languages and beliefs. But In Malaysia,
we still practices concept of respects other religions in terms of their beliefs, customs and
languages.
ARTICLE 12, CLAUSE (3) - No person shall be required to receive instruction in or to take part
in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.

According to this clause (3), since birth again, we have our own religions that were
determined from the descendant of parents. A person who born with education in terms of
teaching and religious that given from parents, the community and government in order to avoid
any misunderstanding that involving beliefs, teachings, customs and religions. Each religion has
its own teachings to show the difference between religion and we are not encouraged to belittle
other religious that can invite others to hostility, conflict and misunderstanding in life as society.
No mixing of teaching by any other religion in order to avoid any misunderstanding that may
invite confusion to Muslims. We have given emphasis to respect every religious right of other
races without touched on the sensitivity of belief, worship and teaching. If a person is a convert
to Islam then, that person should practice the teachings of true Islam to avoid an inverse
understanding and confusion that led to deviationist teachings and apostasy. The ritual that does
not involve the actual teachings, one is not allowed to receive or take part to protect and respect
the right of the name of the own religion. If that person has been converted to other religions,
then he or she can accept the teachings of other religion. With this article, it can maintain a name
and the right of a religion from scratches and no outside parties can argue about the teachings of
a religion. If we are not able to keep the teachings of our own religion, then the disagreement or
difference of opinion in religion and teachings were exist.







ARTICLE 12- CLAUSE (4) - For the purposes of Clause (3) the religion of a person under the
age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.

According to this clause (4), if teenagers who want to change his or her religion must be
over 18 years because the religion of the child should reaches legal age of 18 to make
independent decisions in choosing or changing other religions because then have passed the age
of maturity to make a decision that can affect to his or her life. During that time, teens are able to
think long to do something that would give big impacts enough without being influenced by their
parent decision. According to Islamic law, For the purpose for teenagers to change his or her
religion, a person who is not a Muslim may convert to Islam if he or her attains the age of baligh
and provided that if a person is below 18 years of age consent shall be obtained from the parents
or his guardian. A person who is not a Muslim may convert to the religion of Islam if he or she is
of sound mind. Any person below this age cannot convert himself or herself to Islam unless the
consent of parent or guardian is obtained and a person who is under 18 years old should have the
parent custody which including the protection, care, right disciple to determine the childs
religion. Although, a child does not reach puberty age, he or she can still convert with the
permission of the parents. Guardian means one who has powers over a childs upbringing, care,
discipline and religion.

Reported cases that can related with this article 12 (3) and (4) is the earliest case was the
1986 case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi of Pasir Mas Kelantan (the Susie Teoh case), which went
on appeal to the then Supreme Court in 1990. On 22 December 1985, the plaintiffs daughter, a
minor (referred to as the infant) was converted to a Muslim. The plaintiff sought a declaration, at
the Kota Bahru High Court. That plaintiff, as the lawful father and guardian, had the right to
decide her religion, education and upbringing. This application was dismissed with costs. The
plaintiff appealed that decision. The infant has now reached majority and therefore the subject of
the appeal is one only of academic interest. The issue for determination at the appeal was
whether an infant had the right of religious practice or whether this right was to be exercised by a
parent or guardian. Held (1) After a careful study of the grounds of judgment of the learned trial
judge, it was held that the trial judge was wrong in both law and facts. The trial judges analysis
and interpretation were based on wrong premises and not in accordance with the spirit and
intention behind the respective legislation. (2) Based on the circumstances of this case, the court
examined the purposes which the founding fathers of the Constitution had in mind when the
constitution was drafted. (3) In all the circumstances, in the wider interest of the nation, no infant
shall have the automatic right to receive instructions relating to any other religion than his own
without the permission of the parent or guardian. (4) The law applicable to the infant at the time
of conversion is the civil law. Consequently, the right of religious practice of the infant shall be
exercised by the guardian on her behalf until he reaches majority. Susie Teoh was 17 years and 8
months when she became Muslim. Her father Teoh Eng Huat, a Buddhist, could not locate her
and he took the Jabatan Agama in Kelantan to court. He applied for a declaration that, as father
and guardian to the infant, he had a right to decide her religion, education and upbringing and
that her conversion to Islam was invalid. The case was covered by the Guardianship of Infants
Act, 1961, a federal law of general application, Art. 11 (1) (freedom of religion), and Art. 12 (3),
(4) (right to education). The High Court ruled that the fathers right to decide the religion and
upbringing of the infant under 18 years is allowed subject to the condition that it does not
conflict with the principles of the infants choice of religion guaranteed to her under the Federal
Constitution. In other words, the infant has a right to choose her own religion if she does it on
her own free will. Susie Teoh was not in court to testify if she had voluntarily become Muslim as
her whereabouts were unknown. The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the High Court
and held that in all the circumstances and in the wider interests of the nation no infant shall have
the automatic right to receive instruction relating to any other religion other than her own
without the permission of the parent or guardian. The Supreme Court, however, did not proceed
with the declarations sought by Teoh Eng Huat as these were only of academic interest as Susie
Teoh had reached the age of majority by the time the case was heard in the Supreme Court in
1990.