THERE is much joy among some over the decision of the apex court on unilateral conversions. There is talk by the prime minister and others of reintroducing the proposed Clause 88A to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill.

And there are threats from PAS and other Islamists that there could (or would?) be more child snatching cases after this judgment.

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

So even if Clause 88A is reintroduced and passed by Parliament, child snatchings could continue and Clause 88A would be challenged as being unconstitutional (i.e. the Malay version).

Will courts accept that Clause 88A can and does overrule the constitution which continues saying “ibu atau bapa”?

Therefore, even before Clause 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 11^th 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 naive 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 11th schedule? Obviously religious sentiments must have played a major part. It was a very stealthy way of rewriting (or Islamising) this part of the constitution without raising anyone’s eyebrow.

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 Clause 88A at a time when 14GE is very 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’ support, unless Umno members also oppose it.  

Bringing back Clause 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 Clause 88A unconstitutional! And another bench of the apex court could someday uphold the Malay version “ibu atau bapak” 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. – February 2, 2018.  

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.