K.Siladass – The Minister of Religious Affairs in the Prime Minister’s Department Idrus Ahmad has made a very bold statement that the decision of the Federal Court on Article 12 (4) of the Federal constitution is only an interpretative exercise. Although he has not referred to Indra Gandhi’s case which ruled that the word “parent” in Article 12(4) means both parents, the context in which it was referred is plain.

To say it is only an interpretation puts the Minister in a very awkward position, because, he seems not to understand that the decision in Indira Gandhi’s case is an authoritative pronouncement of the meaning of Article 12(4). The apex court made the ruling after having considered the law of interpretation.

Idrus Ahmad could have desisted the temptation to express an opinion which is very pedestrian.

The Minister’s attempt to call in aid that the States are entitled to legislate on matters relating conversion is a misconceived notion. Whilst it not denied that the State has the exclusive right to legislate on conversions, it cannot legislate laws inconsistent with what Parliament had expressly provided.

Hence the State will have to respect the Federal constitution which says the consent of the parent, meaning both father and mother, is indispensable when it concerns a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years. The word “parent” includes father and mother not one parent alone.

The Minister should look at Article 160 of the Federal Constitution which clearly states that the Interpretation and General Clauses 1948 Ordinance apply for the interpretation of the Constitution. It is legally understood that where the statute is expressed in singular it includes the plural.

If we were to accept the views of Idrus Ahmad and others like him, then, we will be placed in a very uncomfortable position in interpreting the words, “he”, and “his” liberally used in Part II of the constitution and advance the point that the protection is intended for males excluding females. One could see the illogical fallacy in that argument.

It is also pertinent to remember that Article 4(1) clearly states that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation, therefore, even when the State law is enacted relating conversion it cannot enact against the clear intention of Parliament.

Another point which must be very disturbing is the fact that the Attorney-General’s silence on this issue. It should have come out and cleared the air as to the force of the Federal Court’s final ruling on the meaning of the word “parent” when it  involves conversion.

Even the Rulers Conference should take a clear stand consistent with Article 12(4) of the Federal constitution and the ruling by the apex Court.

It is time that the country puts an end to this painful episode that had dragged on for more than thirty decades and had caused, and is inflicting, immense distress to Malaysians.