Two issues with Elya Lim Abdullah's letter .

She says: ' While Malaysians are free to practice any religion they may profess , the Constitution is explicit about the place of Islam as the religion of the federation and the role of the Malay Rulers as the heads and guardians of Islam.'

This statement is incorrect. Malay Malaysians, about 55 percent of the population, are born into the Muslim faith. When they reach the age of majority, they would be subject to apostasy laws under the Shariah law.

They therefore, cannot exercise their rights, as Malaysians, to 'profess and practice their religion' as the Constitution allows. In practice, they are not free to choose.

If my interpretation is incorrect, please inform me.

Ms Abdullah also says: 'If this role of Islam (in the public domain) - which finds its way in government policies - is the outcome of a legitimate democratic process, would Syed Alwi acquiesce to it?'

I think she means that if the parties advocating the establishment of a theocratic state were to win a two-thirds majority in Parliament, then such a theocratic state would be quickly established. And Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad is asked if this were acceptable to him.

However, it is highly cynical to use the mechanism of a democratic state to establish a theocratic state and then to abolish personal freedoms and sovereignty of the public at large. These to be replaced by the edicts of theologians.

It is not a case of 'the end justifies the means'.

We who have tasted the fruits of democratic freedoms, of space for personal expression (however limited it may be) must resist these false arguments, this empty pseudo-intellectual posturing, wherever and whenever it pops up.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.