Malay or Muslim - Relooking at Article 160(2)

Having posted the above article, I had the opportunity of speaking to Haris Ibrahim, the lawyer and People’s Parliament blogger on the interpretation of “Malay” in Article 160(2).

He pointed out part (b) of the definition of “Malay” and suggested that "the issue of such a person" need not satisfy the conditions set out in part before (a). The whole section is reproduced below:

Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -
(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
(b) is the issue of such a person;

One view:

Part (b) of the above section states “is the issue of such a person”. This means the children of the “Malay” who satisfies part (a) is a “Malay”. The only condition that need to be satisfied by a person to be considered constitutionally a “Malay” under part (b) is only one, namely, to be the ISSUE of the person who satisfies part (a).

The language of the Constitution appears to suggest that part (a) conditions need not be satisfied by the person who is “Malay” pursuant to part (b). For example, he could be born in Ireland and yet still qualifies as a “Malay” if he is the issue of the person who is “Malay” pursuant to section (a).


Second view:

On the other hand, could it not be interpreted in another way? That is "Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom AND (a) or (b). In other words, the issue of the person qualified under (a) must also satisfy the condition that he professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom. I would think this appears to be the more tenable interpretation.

Which is correct?