Allow me to refer to the letter entitled Syariah laws do not trample on civil liberties .

While it is true according to author that the constitution does not forbid state enactments of the Syariah, it's quite another to consider Chapter II of our constitution as sufficient protection of 'fundamental human rights which have been universally recognised and accepted worldwide'.

Take for example is Article 10, which the author brought up. It states in Clause 2 the following:

'Parliament may by law impose -

(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order;

(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.'

Further on, Article 10 restricts the freedoms of speech, expression, assembly and association with Clause 4:

'In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.'

Clearly Article 10 stands out as a clear contradiction to Article 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the most accepted international code on civil liberties and rights.

More so, the author reiterated that this matter 'concerns only Muslims'. I'm quite sure if state enactments tramples on rights of those following other religions say, punishing a Christian for converting to Islam, certainly the author would disagree that such a matter 'concerns only Christians'. Perhaps the author meant that non-Muslims of Malaysia shouldn't have any say whatsoever on how their fellow Malaysians are treated and the laws they are subjected to.

Furthermore, the author states that Muslims 'have a right to be governed by the Syariah' but I must ask the author where this right comes from. It isn't enshrined in the Constitution nor is it an international recognised part of fundamental civil liberties.

Does this means that Malaysian Catholics have the right to be governed by Roman Catholic canon law? Should we give Hindus their right to be govern by Hindu religious law?

The author mentions her support for allowing fellow Muslims to follow the lifestyle of their choice unless they 'denigrate Islam and the Syariah. But as the Jawi raid earlier this year showed, the 'right' for Muslims to enjoy the choice of living a 'Westernised lifestyle' is not 'always' practiced.