Revisiting the word ‘parent’ in Clause 12(4)

By Ravinder Singh

There is much hairsplitting over the word “parent” in Clause 12(4) of the Constitution where it says: “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen shall be decided by his parent or guardian.”

If “parent” here means either the father or the mother, then there can be no doubt that “his” definitely refers to a “male” as it is unambiguous. So, is this Clause 12(4) talking of converting only the boys? If so, then it goes without saying that all cases of the conversion of girls below 18 are illegal.

However the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution states: “words importing the masculine gender include females.”

Similarly, the same Schedule also states: “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.”

Suppose Clause 12(4) said: “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen shall be decided by his parents or guardians” (plural), but if the child had only one living parent or guardian (singular), could a single parent or guardian then convert the child without running foul of the requirement that it is only “parents” or “guardians” (plural) that could make such a decision?

Thus the word “parent” in Article 12(4) is meant to make it possible for the one living parent or guardian to decide on the conversion of the minor and at the same time make it mandatory for such a decision to be made by both parents or guardians where both are still alive.

How does the Constitution do this?

This is where the Constitution’s provision that “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular” comes into play.

So the proper reading of the word “parent” in Article 12(4) depends on the living parent(s) or guardian(s) of the child and means that if only one parent or guardian is living, then the consent of that one person is sufficient and if both parents or guardians are living, then the consent of both living parents or guardians is required.

If the writers and approvers of the Constitution had meant that either one of the parents could convert a minor child without the knowledge and approval of the other, then they could have easily stated “shall be decided by his father, mother or guardian”, or “shall be decided by either of his parents or guardians”.

But they chose to write “shall be decided by his parent or guardian” and also to state that “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular” so that both scenarios are addressed in a single phrase, meaning that the living parent(s) or guardian(s) as the case may be, shall decide the religion of his/her/their child?

It is therefore mischievous to claim that “parent” means either parent when both parents are still living.

Ravinder Singh is an FMT reader.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.

Mukah Pages bring you trending news media with Free Malaysia Today http://ift.tt/1UeIMdJ