-M. Kulasegaran, MP for Ipoh Barat, May 24, 2016.
Yesterday, in a written parliamentary reply to my question as to when unilateral conversion would be banned, the Minister in the Prime Minister Department Jamil Khir Baharom stated that one parent can decide on conversion and that any legislation to ban unilateral conversion is unconstitutional.
The public is shocked by this answer which is a set back to the progress on promised reforms in this area as well as an u-turn on the 2009 Cabinet decision on unilateral conversion of minors.
In 2009, the Cabinet had decided that ‘a child must follow the religion practised by the parents at the time of marriage in the event of one of them opts to convert”. This is the benchmark of the Cabinet at all material times, although the directive did not have the bite of the law as it was a mere advice only. Nevertheles, the directive was reasonable and fair and in the interest of all.
Last year, the Cabinet hd set up a five member Cabinet Committee whose membership included Nazri Aziz, Leow Tiong Lai, Joseph Kurup and Dr Subramaniam to deal with interfaith conversion and custody matters.
Dr Subramaniam had said in January that the prime minister had agreed in principle to consider amending the law to prevent children from being converted to another religion without the consent of both parents.
So, is the parliamentary answer provided by Jamil Khir the latest and new policy stand taken by the Cabinet Committee? I suspect the committee would not have agreed to this disturbing and unreasonable interpretation and the stand taken by Jamil Khir.
Last Thursday, in the Indira Gandhi case while trying to obtain leave to refer matters of public importance, a question specifically on the meaning and effect of “parent” was agreed to be referred for full hearing at the Federal Court soon. Thus this issue as far as the courts go is not final yet.
Singular and Plural
The present narrow and restricted reading of “parent” ought to be done away with. Reading and applying rationally the interpretation aspect should settle this issue. Article 160(1) of the Constitution which refers to the Eleventh Schedule with respect to the provision of the interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance states in s. 2 (95)with respect to Construction of singular or plural a follows:
“Words in the singular include the plural, and words in plural include the singular.” Thus the word “parent” should read as “parents”.
The above interpretation is consistent with the other constitutional provisions (3. Religion of the Federation, 5. Liberty of the person and 8. Equality), particularly the fundamental liberties provisions, and which best promoted commitment to international norms and enhanced basic human rights and human dignity, is to be preferred.
It is obvious and clear that the 2009 Cabinet ruling on this issue was correctly decided and in line with the interpretation aspect.
Before 2002, the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Constitution on “parent” as printed by the Government printers had used the words “ibu bapa” instead of ibu atau bapa” in Article 12(4). The translation of “parent” into ibu bapa” is a direct translation whereas the translation ibu atau bapa” is an interpretive translation.
Thus the Prime Minister must step in to clear the air and assert that the 2009 Cabinet directive on unilateral is very much intact. He should be bold enough to ask Khir to withdraw the new stand which is unfair, illogical and unreasonable. The U turn must be shot down immediately
