Wednesday, August 09, 2017

Mysterious unlawful amendment of Article 12(4) of Constitution?

MM Online - Child conversion clause against constitution, Nazri says (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 — The legal clause that prevents unilateral child conversion was dropped from the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2017 (LRA) because it would have contravened the federal constitution, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said tonight.

The Star Online quoted the Tourism and Culture Minister as saying that in order for Section 88A to be included in the Bill, the constitution would have to be amended.

“The reason why we dropped the clause is because we would be forced to amend the definition of ‘parent’, which is clearly stated in the Constitution as ‘either one’.

“There have been four precedent cases whereby the court’s decision was based on the Constitution’s definition of ‘parent’,” he was quoted saying.

The former law minister said that a two-thirds majority approval in Parliament would be needed before the government could amend the constitution.

“But the nine clauses in the Bill are good for non-Muslim family matters,” he added.

Let's leave the 'other' benefits of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2017 (LRA) aside to discuss the issue of omitting one of its clauses, namely, Section 88A which pertains to the unilateral (one parent only) religious conversion of a child to embrace the Islamic faith and would have made that unilateral conversion illegal if Section 88A were to be approved by parliament.

That clause has been strenuously opposed by people who love conversion of a child into being a Muslim by only one of the parent who naturally would be Muslim, and to f**ks with the non-Muslim spouse.

However, Minister Nazri, unofficially the PM's Chief Head-Kicker wakakaka, has been right in that the proposed Section 88A is against the Constitution (as it currently reads - I'll come back to this shortly, wakakaka) because .....

..... Article 12(4) clearly spelled out that the faith of a minor below 18 was to be determined by ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father], thus requiring only one of the parents to unilaterally convert the child to become a Muslim, no doubt to the immense relief and delight of the 'cradle snatchers'.

If the Constitution says ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father], then Section 88A in saying ‘ibu dan bapa’ [mother and father] is against the words of the Constitution.

One avenue towards solving the unconstitutionality of the case would to amend ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father] into ‘ibu dan bapa’ [mother and father].

But alas, any amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3-majority of the Dewan Rakyat to take place, and in today's parliamentary composition and political climate, that's quite unlikely as even Muslim MPs would be intimidated by the ultra-conservative faction on both sides of the political fence into not supporting such an amendment. Who the f**ks wants to go to Jahanam?

Thai hell but adopted by an Islamic teacher to show young Muslims what hell or Jahanam was
for more, see my Oct 2016 post Muslims for Buddhist Hell?

You thought that was that then, but Wanita MCA has come up with a de Bono, demanding to know ..... wait I am getting ahead of myself. Let me quote MM Online's Wanita MCA wants MPs to amend Federal Constitution on child’s religion (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 9 — Wanita MCA urged today the Attorney-General’s Chambers and government and Opposition lawmakers to table a Bill to amend Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution to clearly state that a minor’s faith should be decided by both parents.

Wanita MCA chair Datuk Heng Seai Kie pointed out that up till 2002, Article 12(4) clearly spelled out that the faith of a minor below 18 was to be determined by ‘ibubapa’ [parents].

“It is important to investigate how ‘ibubapa’ was mysteriously switched to ‘ibu atau bapa’ [mother or father] without going through Parliamentary proceedings, and whether this subterfuge alteration is legal and binding."

“As this mysterious printing modification in the Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Federal Constitution) was not debated in Parliament, much less officially gazetted, can its interpretation by the judiciary to mean singular be thus construed as correct and not-flawed?” she questioned."

What? How dare the Constitution was amended quietly?

Who was that stealthy desecrator, the obscene mutilator?

What year was it done?

After 2002?

Well, the PM was/is Mahathir (up to 2003), AAB (2003 to 2009) and now Najib (2009 onward).

Pakatan supporters will blame Najib
BN supporters will blame Mahathir

and poor AAB will be marginalised, even from criticisms, wakakaka


  1. shd we basing on yr dichotomy, i am of course a pakatan supporter, n u r a bn supporter ie a dap traitor.

    1. wakakaka, you never tire of accusing me recklessly, considering you have hated the DAP for aeons

  2. I have in front of me a venerated copy of the original 1957 Constitution. The original document of record of the Malayan constitution was English, so there is no possibility of translation error here.

    Article 12 says
    (4) 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.

    note the singular noun

    Methinks Heng Sai Kee and Ktemoc are either masturbating or publishing Fake News.

    1. not so fast, methinks you could be the one masturbating:

      I refer you to K Siladass article in MKINI dated 29 June 2016. Relevant extracts are as follows:

      Article 160 of the Federal Constitution deals with interpretation, and it provides specific meanings to words used in the Constitution. Article 160(1) refers to the Eleventh Schedule to the constitution and states that the meanings given there shall apply. And the Eleventh Schedule states that the “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular”.

      In this context section 4(3) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 states the same eg.:

      “Words and expressions in the singular include the plural, and words and expressions in the plural include the singular.”

      And the Bahasa version states:

      “Perkataan dalam bilangan tunggal termasuklah bilangan jamak, dan perkataan dalam bilangan jamak termasuklan bilangan tunggal.”

      Going by these definitions, where words and expressions are in singular they include plural and plural include singular is constitutionally and commonly accepted legal position.

      The constitution which was in English was translated into the national language and to give effect to the translation Article 160B was inserted, which came into effect on Sept 28, 2001. It reads:

      “Where this constitution has been translated unto the national language, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may prescribe such national language text to be authoritative, and thereafter if there is any conflict or discrepancy between such national language text and the English language text of this constitution, the national language text shall prevail over the English language text.”

      The Bahasa version is as follows:

      “Jika Perlembagaan ini telah diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa kebangsaan, Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh menetapkan teks bahasa kebangsaan itu sebagai teks sahih, dan selepas itu, jika ada percanggahan atau perselisihan antara teks bahasa kebangsaan itu dengan teks bahasa Inggeris Perlembagaan ini, teks bahasa kebangsaan itu hendaklah mengatasi teks bahasa Inggeris itu.”

      Translated as ‘ibu atau bapa’

      The English expression of the word ‘parent’ in 12(4) read together with the Eleventh Schedule and Section 4(3) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 would have cleared any confusion; but, confusion did germinate with the translation of the constitution. Particularly, the word ‘parent’ has been translated as ‘ibu atau bapa’ (mother or father). The National language version is as follows:

      “Bagi maksud Fasal (3) agama seseorang yang di bawah umur lapan belas tahun hendaklah ditetapkan oleh ibu atau bapanya atau penjaganya.” (italics mine)

      So it was 28 Sept 2001 (guess who was the PM, wakakaka) that teh Malay translation changed the meaning of 'parent' from singular and plural to definitely only singular.

      K Siladass article in MKINI in full may be read at

      You don't have to apologise to me but I think it's only polite for you to apologise to Heng Seai Kie WAKAKAKA

    2. Nothing to apologise for.
      The Bahasa Malaysia translation, as such, is an accurate one for Clause 12(4)

      The translator was supposed to do a language translation, not conduct a legal interpretation.

      The 11th Schedule 2(95) is a separate part of the Constitution, and it has force, fair enough, but let the Constitutional lawyers argue it out in Court over the substantive effect on Clause 12(4).

    3. it doesn't matter whether the Malay version is correct. Heng Seai Kie has been correct that an unauthorised amendment occurred around 2002 (actually 28 Sept 2001). The occurrence was via a Malay translation which altered the meaning of 'parent'

    4. This question should be directed at the translation of the word parent (legalistically either singular or pural) to ibubapa (pural) / ibu atau bapa (singular).

      The English legal terms have been in used, through hundreds of year of try&error, long enough to become legally matured & inclusive.

      While the Malay terms r ONLY a SAD direct translation, more so when the cabability of the translators in understanding the legal implications is in questions. The neutrality of the number IS lost.

      Any wonder, in many parts of the world, where contractual legal disputes r interpreted/settled using the accepted English terminology, even when the native is none English speaking.

      Even if such an MISTAKE is made, a well-trained legal mind SHOULD, by right, be able to exercise fair judgement in giving the essence of these words in determining the case in dispute. This incident says much about the dishonoured & tripilated state of the bolihland judiciary!

      Hence, pinching this translational error (intentionally or otherwise) to be another insidious act of mamak is indeed flying off the tangent!