THE Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. Any amendments require the support of the two-thirds majority in the Parliament, the Senate and the subsequent approval of the King.
There can be no arbitrary changes although the Constitution is a living law that is responsive and reflective of the larger societal changes.
The recent proposal by the Attorney-General (AG) Tan Sri Idrus Harun to render the Bahasa Malaysia (BM) version of the Constitution as the authoritative text has to be carefully deliberated and considered.
Although the Constitution has provided for the BM version rather than the English version as authoritative text, problems might arise in relation to the interpretation of texts, meaning of words, singular or plural and translation.
In other words, the sole focus on the BM as the authoritative text might lead to a situation whereby the original source might be forgotten at the expense of narrow nationalism.
Even though the Constitution provides for the BM version as the authoritative text, the question arises as to future of the original source of the BM version – the English version.
The question is how BM can be the authoritative text when it has been translated from the original English version.
Contention over word “parent”
If it is well and good for the lawmakers to adopt the BM version as the authoritative source, then what is the relevance of the original source?
Is the original source in English going to be discarded as the non-authoritative version or source?
But when it comes to the dispensation of justice – if there is dispute – then there might be a need to refer to the original text, in other words, the English version.
If the Constitution deems the BM version as the authoritative text, then how to refer to the original English version.
The argument in favour of rendering the BM as the authoritative has raised concerns among the rights groups.
They argue for, for instance, that there is fundamental difference in the meaning of parent in the English version compared to “ibu” and “bapa” in the BM version. In the English version, the word “parent” refers to both the parents – mother and father – with plural meaning.
However, in the BM version, it is either “ibu atau bapa”.
In deciding the case in favour of mother M. Indira Gandhi in the unilateral conversion case involving her children in 2018, the Federal Court ruled that word parent meant both the father and mother.
In other words, without the consent of both parents, children below the age of 18 cannot be legally converted.
There is fear expressed especially by the non-Muslims that the reliance on the BM version of the Constitution as the authoritative text might complicate custodial matters when parents are separated or divorced leading to religious conversion of one parent.
Legal disputes in the offing
Political parties such as PAS has welcomed the BM version as the authoritative text because its myopic stand on religious conversion relies on the BM version where it is either the consent of the father or the mother.
There is no altruistic design on the part of PAS to think of the Constitution in a holistic manner. It is always about one-sided political advantages.
The BM version might be rendered as the authoritative text in line with the provision in the Constitution.
However, the BM version of the authoritative text cannot escape the fact it was translated from the original English version. This is running away from this well-established truth.
If the English version is done away as the original text of the Constitution, then the reliance on the BM version will open the floodgates for countless legal disputes challenging earlier decisions based on the English version of the Constitution.
Idrus should not think and act as though the adoption of the BM version as the authoritative text of the Constitution is line with the aspirations of the nation.
The Constitution never gave a timeline for the replacement of the English version with the BM version although the latter could emerge as the authoritative text.
The paramount significance of justice, fairness and democracy should be the guiding principles and not the mechanical introduction of the BM version as the authoritative text.
Even if the BM version is introduced as the authoritative text of the Constitution, the English version should remain as a guide to legal and constitutional principles. – Jan 12, 2023
Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
