The Constitution may say ‘parent’, but it doesn’t say ‘ibu bapa’

There is much joy among some over the decision of the Federal Court on unilateral conversions.

There is talk by the Prime Minister and others of re-introducing the proposed Section 88A to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill. And there are threats from certain groups that there could (or would?) be more child snatching cases after this judgement.

Racists, by their battle cries, are ready to prove the threats are real. This is because the supreme law of the country is the Constitution and Section 88A is not consistent with the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Constitution, which says that only the consent of “ibu atau bapa” is required to convert minors.

So even if Section 88A is reintroduced and passed by Parliament, child snatchings could continue, and the section could be challenged as being unconstitutional (i.e., the Bahasa Malaysia version). Will courts accept that Section 88A can and does overrule the Constitution which continues saying “ibu atau bapa”?

Therefore, even before Section 88A is reintroduced, the translation of the Constitution which is wrong (in fact that is what the judgment of the Federal Court means), must be corrected.

Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution (the original English version) is very clear: “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.” And Clause (3) states: “No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.”

The Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution explains in simple English how masculine gender and singular and plural words in the Constitution are to be interpreted or constructed. Thus if the child has one living parent or guardian, “parent” or “guardian” is read in the singular, but if both parents or guardians are alive, then it is to be read as “parents” or “guardians.” Where the Constitution says “his”, it also includes “her”.

All the laymen who are harping on the words “parent or guardian” being in the singular are naïve about the way laws are written and interpreted. They can be forgiven. All those legally trained persons who are saying the same thing are not worth their salt and cannot be forgiven. The Federal Court has given them a slap in the face.

The question that begs an answer is what was the motive of the person or persons who translated “parent” into “ibu atau bapa” when the correct translation should be “ibu bapa”? I don’t suppose the translation was done by Dewan Bahasa. It must have been done by legally trained persons who normally draft laws.

Why was this mischief done, ignoring the Eleventh Schedule? Obviously religious sentiments must have played a major part. It was a very stealthy way of re-writing (or Islamising) this part of the Constitution without raising anyone’s eyebrows.

Mischief in the translation is apparent because the word “his” in both Article 12(3) and (4) was not translated to read “anak lelaki” or “anak laki-laki” (which would mean girls cannot be converted by any one parent!) but left to include both genders. Why this blatant double standard in the translation of words in the same sentences?

Scant respect was shown by the lower courts to the provision always found in laws translated from the original in English into Malay, i.e., that in case of doubt about any translation, the original English version shall prevail. The apex court respected this.

The prime minister, if he is genuine about the issue of unilateral conversions, should therefore first correct the Malay translation of Article 12(4) of the Constitution so that it reads “ibu bapa.”

Not doing this could mean there is something sinister about proposing to reintroduce Section 88A at a time when the 14th general election is so close. The root of the problem is “ibu atau bapa” and this must be removed from the Constitution.

I’m sure the opposition parties would support it and the two-thirds majority should be easily obtained without PAS’s support, unless Umno members also oppose it.

Bringing back Section 88A without first amending the wrong translation of Article 12(4) will be nothing more than election campaigning to get the votes of the non-Muslims.

Lawmakers should see to it that the door is not left wide open for child snatchers to continue their nefarious actions and rely on the superiority of the Malay translation of Article 12(4) to declare Section 88A unconstitutional! And another bench of the Apex Court could someday uphold the Malay version “ibu atau bapa” if it is still in the Constitution.

I wonder whether not correcting “ibu atau bapa” to read “ibu bapa” in the Malay version of the Constitution could be construed as contempt of the Apex Court’s decision.- Mkini