: This is an application by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that his renunciation of the Islamic religion by a deed

poll dated 12 October 1995 is in accordance with the law and valid;

(b) a declaration that he is not required to obtain the consent of the

defendant to renounce the religion of Islam;

(c) costs; and

(d) any further or other relief the court deems fit and just.

According to his supporting affidavit wherein the deed poll and a statutory declaration of 12 October 1995 were exhibited, the plaintiff was born a Buddhist. He embraced the religion of Islam on 30 March 1978 and used the name of Md Hakim Lee. But by the deed poll and the statutory declaration, he has renounced the religion of Islam and showed an intention to use the name of Lee Leong Kim in place of Md Hakim Lee. He deposed that his action is guaranteed by art 11 of the Federal Constitution and as such, no authority or body could limit or hinder his freedom. The defendant did not file any affidavits in opposition to this application of the plaintiff. However, the defendant filed a summons-in-chambers to have the said application of the plaintiff struck out under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC), on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear this application of the plaintiff by virtue of art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. After submissions made before me on this application by summons-in-chambers of the defendant but before a decision was made, by consent, the defendant withdrew its summons and thereby leaving the substantive application of the plaintiff to be proceeded on with a hearing with the defendant raising the issue of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this application of the plaintiff in the light of art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, as a preliminary issue. On the hearing of the application of the plaintiff aforesaid, both learned counsels for the parties made no submissions but agreed to adopt wholly their submissions made during the proceedings under O 18 r 19 of the RHC in as far as they are relevant to the application of the plaintiff. With that, my decision on the threshold jurisdiction of this court to hear the substantive application of the plaintiff follows.

Clause (1A) was added to art 121 of the Federal Constitution by Act A704 and came into force on 10 June 1988. Clauses (1) and (1A) of art 121 state as follows:

(1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and

status, namely --

(a) one in the states of Malaya, which shall be known as the

High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry

in Kuala Lumpur; and

(b) one in the states of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be

known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have

its principal registry at such place in the states of Sabah

and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine;

and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law; and

the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction

and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(1A) The courts referred to in cl (1) shall have no jurisdiction in

respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah

courts.

(Emphasis added.)

To my mind, the language of art 121(1A) used by the legislature is clear and without any ambiguity. The civil courts, in this case, the High Court, has no jurisdiction in respect of any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts. What then is the matter that is within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts? Is the matter of the declaration sought by the plaintiff by his application a matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts and therefore, this court is prevented by