An 's' too little? Making an ass of the law

The absence of a little "s" could mean a whole world of difference!

The word "parents" normally denote both the father and mother of a person, while the singular form "parent" could mean either the father or the mother.

But health minister Dr S. Subramaniam has his own way of defining the word "parent" without the "s," claiming it could mean the same thing as "parents," both the father and mother.

I'm not trying to conduct a grammar lesson here, nor has what I'm going to say anything to do with the health ministry.

However, the issue is going to have a major bearing on the rights of people of different faiths, and how they are going to get along with one another.

Under the Administration of Religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013 recently tabled in the Parliament, the consent of one parent alone is sufficient for the conversion of minor children to Islam.

The following case is purely my own supposition and is fictitious:

David and Mary were married and later gave birth to a son George. 15 years later, David was converted to a Muslim, had his name changed to Mohamad, and divorced Mary.

Under the Bill, Mohamad can have his son converted to Islam without the consent of Mary. But the problem is, the Bill entrusts the religion of the child to his father while denying the right of his mother Mary.

And the worse thing is, once George is also converted to Islam, Mary will very likely lose her custodial right on him.

In addition, the now young man George may have to deal with the reality of his abrupt conversion.

Is our law fair to Mary? Or the personal needs and rights of the young man himself?

The Administration of Religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013 affects not only Muslims, but also the rights and status of non-Muslims.

Was the decision made after serious deliberations and unanimously approved by the Cabinet?

How can such a lopsided bill that has yet to secure some social consensus nor conduct effective communication with people embracing different faiths be recklessly tabled in the Parliament in an attempt to legislate it when even some Cabinet ministers remain in the dark over this whole thing.

"Absurd" is the right word to describe it!

Subramaniam explained that the controversies arose because of misunderstanding over the translated version of the Bill, where the words "parent or guardian" were rendered. As if that was not enough, the minister supplemented with his own interpretation, claiming that words in singular form could also take a plural meaning.

Trying to interpret the word "parent" without the "s" as both parents is dangerous. Do we need a language professor from Cambridge to testify in the court in the event of a conflict or disagreement in the future?

Moreover, the words rendered in the Bahasa Malaysia version are "ibu atau bapa," which is self-explanatory: either the father's or the mother's consent is sufficient to convert a minor child without the need for the approval of the other.

For official legal documents, in the event of any conflict between the BM and English versions, the BM version shall prevail.

Apparently, this is no more an issue of translation, but that the Bill does empower either parent the right to make unilateral decisions at the expense of the other parent.

Such a dilemma may happen in many families in our multicultural and multireligious society. Any inequilibrium or inequality from the laws could instantly spark conflicts and disgruntlement.

The legal fraternity generally agrees the Bill has itself contravened the federal constitutional spirit while a former Cabinet minister confided that it overran previously achieved consensus within the Cabinet.

There is no other option for the government except withdrawing the Bill, or a breach in interfaith harmony will ensue, which is not what Malaysians would want to see.

- Sin Chew Daily