I refer to the report that appeared under the heading Draw line between state and religion, say reformists .

I wish firstly to correct an error in that report which appears in the third paragraph wherein the writer has erroneously stated that Haris Ibrahim headed the panel of speakers, of which I was one.

To set the record straight, the press conference - which had been incorrectly referred to in the report as a forum - was chaired by Abdul Manan Harun whilst the main speaker was Tengku A'amash Adnan. Haris was not part of the panel of speakers and spoke only from the floor.

The report also has it that I had said that '... the separation of powers should be upheld and strengthened'. This is incorrect as I had never used the phrase 'separation of powers'. Rather, I had used the phrase 'division between the state and the church', which has a very different meaning from 'separation of powers'. The latter is, as I understand it, is legal phrase and refers to the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature.

I also refer to the last part of the report that attributes to Haris a stated view that the state should continue legislating and enforcing penalties for offences such as murder and adultery given that these acts might endanger the safety of people and lead to the breakdown of the family institution.

Haris has narrated to me the gist of his telephone conversation with your reporter and has asked me to state that he will give the fullest benefit of the doubt to the writer in reporting as he did and assumes that this arose from a misapprehension by the reporter of the matters stated by Haris, brief details of which are as follows.

It was postulated to Haris that as the Prophet Muhammad had been reported to have smashed containers of alcohol in the streets of Medina, might this not be taken as evidence that Prophet Muhammad had in fact criminalised 'religious offences'. Haris' short answer to that postulation was :-

1) As a historical account, it would need scrutiny and verification, which would pose a host of problems;

2) When measured against the Quranic injunction in Surah Al-Nahl, verse 125, that we are to 'call mankind to the way of your Lord with wisdom and sound advice, and reason with them in a well mannered way', Haris personally doubted the authenticity of that historical account; and

3) Haris noted that the Quran did in fact prescribe limits as to how certain 'religious offences' might be dealt with. He mentioned murder and adultery as two instances and noted that the limits set out in the Quran to deal with the same were - as he understood them - not intended as punishment but to enable the community to safeguard its survival.

Haris also drew the attention to the Quranic prescription that in any event, it was better to forgive the offender.

Editor's note: While the organisers had advertised the said event as a press conference, the two-hour function - which included a short break in between - turned into, more or less, a forum with a number of individuals, who outnumbered the journalists, participating in the discussion from the floor. As to the issue of 'separation of powers' in the article, the reporter was referring to the separation of powers between the church and the state, not separation of powers among the executive, judiciary, and the legislature.