Let me answer this by alluding to a few court cases which turned on a consideration of Article 12(4).
In the ORIGINAL 1957 Federal Constitution in the English language that our forefathers left for us, Article 12(4) provides as follows: “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”.
Please note that ‘parent’ and ‘guardian’ appear in the singular.
In the late 80’s, a Chinese girl who was born into the Buddhist faith, whilst still below the age of 18, embraced Islam. The father applied to the Kota Baru High Court for declarations that as he was the lawful guardian of the daughter and would decide her faith, her conversion to Islam without his consent was void. The High Court dismissed the application and the father appealed to the Supreme Court.
By the time the appeal was heard, the daughter was over 18 years so that whatever pronouncement of the law would be academic to her case. What needs to be noted here is that the Supreme Court confirmed that the right of religious practice of an infant shall be exercised by the parent or guardian until the infant reaches the age of 18. On the facts, the court did not have to address the question whether ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) meant both father and mother or either one. This the case of Susie Teoh.
In 2002, in the case of Chang Ah Mee, the High Court in Sabah had to decide whether a unilateral conversion of a minor child to Islam by the recently converted father without the consent of the mother was valid. The judge held that ‘parent’ in the Islamic Administrative law relating to Sabah, in the light of Article 12(4) read together with the new anti-gender discriminatory provision of Article 8(2), meant both the father and mother.
Let me emphasise the point here. The judge in Chang Ah Mee ruled that ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) of the ORIGINAL 1957 Federal Constitution in the English language that our forefathers left for us means both father and mother.
Along comes the case of Nedunchelian. Again, one parent who converts to Islam converts 4 minor children to Islam without the consent of the non-consenting parent. Article 12(4) of the ORIGINAL 1957 Federal Constitution in the English language that our forefathers left for us comes up for consideration again. This time, though, there is also a version in the national language. In the national language version, parent is translated as ‘ibubapa’. See how the judge applied Article 160B :
“…Article 160B expressly states that the authoritative text of the Constitution is the Bahasa text…when the equivalent term of ‘parent’ which is ‘ibubapa’ in the Bahasa text is construed it invariably is interpreted in the singular sense as the plural sense would be kedua ibubapa in the Bahasa text. That being the case the INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS of the Constitution in placing the word parent in the singular clearly intended it to be such…I have to respectfully differ from the views expressed in Chang Ah Mee”.
Do you see what has happened?
The INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS has been displaced by a conflicting translation of the draftsman or draftsmen in the AG’s Chambers.
Let me spell this out plainly.
Article 12(4) of the ORIGINAL 1957 Federal Constitution in the English language that our forefathers left for us has been amended by the mechanism of a conflict and a discrepancy in the translation of that ORIGINAL by the draftsman or draftsmen in the AG’s Chambers! The draftsman’s or draftsmen’s discrepancy now is the supreme law of the land, not that which our forefathers left us.
Or as Gan put it, ‘an underhanded way to bulldoze a situation’.
In the Sulaiman Takrib case, which is still awaiting the decision of the Federal Court, one of the arguments taken on behalf of Sulaiman turned on the phrase ‘precepts of that religion’, found in item 1, List II, 9th Schedule of the ORIGINAL 1957 Federal Constitution in the English language that our forefathers left for us. Dato Umi Kalthom, then Senior Federal Counsel appearing on behalf of the AG, informed the court that in the earlier national language version of the Constitution, ‘precept’ was translated to mean ‘rukun’. In the latest version, though, ‘precept’ has now been translated to mean ‘perintah’.
By Article 159 of the ORIGINAL 1957 Federal Constitution in the English language that our forefathers left for us, only Parliament could amend that Constitution. In 2001, our parliamentarians castrated themselves and left that Constitution, and us, at the mercy of draftsmen at the AG’s Chambers.
Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill?
Next stop : Hansard
The People's Parliament 
Gan
April 29, 2007
Another “knocking me senseless” scenario.
The law of the land being allowed to be mis-interpreted due to translation and having learned judges using such mis-interpretations as a basis for their judgement rather then taking it upon themselves to set matters right.
This is tantamount to being that the laws are now being interpreted by the translaters rather then by the learned judges.
I thought usually in legal documents there is a statement to state:
1. when a term is used in the singular form it can also be be applied in the plural form and vice versa or something to that effect. Therefore when “parent” is translated to “ibubapa”, it will also be meant to be in the plural sense without having to add the word “kedua” which is redundant.
2. when a contract (even in some reference materials) is translated from its original language to another language, and, should there be any conflict – the intent and interpretation from the original language shall prevail.
I am sure many of the learned judges will surely know this.
Does this example supports my line of thinking?
A surgeon using a medical reference book discovers a translated error from it’s original document.
This information is required for him to treat his patient, what does he do – use this error as an excuse and shirk his responsibility from treating his patient?
I shouldn’t think so – as a Doctor who has sworn by the Hippocrates Oath to save lives, he will definitely allow his good judgement to prevail and do what’s right and good by his patient ie instead of splitting hairs on the interpretation, he as a professional in his profession will recognise that it’s a translation error and consciously select the right information.