Article 4(1) of the the Constitution of Malaysia states: 'This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.'

Many changes have been made to the Constitution over the years. The powers of the syariah courts have been improved over the years. Since 1965, the syariah courts can pass sentences of not more than three years imprisonment, a fine of up to RM5,000, and/or up to six strokes of the cane - a revision from the previously maximum of six months and fine not exceeding RM1,000.

This supposedly gives the syariah courts more bite to carry out their role but the fact remains that it has limited jurisdiction. In 1988, amendments to Article 121(1) of the Constitution resulted in the now infamous Article 121(1A). However, nothing in these changes over the years can be said to have made the syariah courts an equal of the civil court system. Mohamad Hashim Kamali (2000) noted that the syariah courts are 'an unequal part of a dichotomy', but many would disagree even to that.

The status of the syariah courts remain a creation under the Constitution, specifically, Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule (Legislative List), which states that '... the constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law...'

The Constitution provides under Article 153(1) that the Yang diPertuan Agong is '... to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities ...' and that under Article 3(1) 'Islam is the religion of the Federation ...'.

The Constitution lends no argument for the supposed superiority of Islam over other religions or faith, or for the supremacy of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak over other ethnic communities and races. Instead, the Constitution has clearly made provisions for Islam to be a protected faith in the Federation and the special position of the Malays and bumiputera is duly acknowledged.

This is the quid pro quo - our social contract, where all Malaysian citizens recognise the unique position of Islam, the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak in our country - not their dominance. The Constitution guarantees rights, not oppression. We all must revisit and return to this foundation which enabled our forefathers to build a free and independent country, a place we all can call home, a place of our own.

Unfortunately, things change. Both local and international forces - be they political, economic, social, religious or cultural - interact, react and evolve in an increasingly complex (and sophisticated) society. A change for the better is always welcomed, but it is not always clear where the road of change will lead us.

In this instance, I can agree with Tun Hanif Omar that Malaysia is neither a wholly secular nor Islamic state. But there is no doubt that Malaysia is a Muslim country (by a simple majority). However, a quasi-secular constitution begs the question of what the remaining parts are made of. Does a quasi-secular constitution also mean a quasi- religious (although not necessarily a quasi-Islamic) constitution?

There are both religious and secular arguments against and for the separation of the 'Church' and the state, but what does one mean when one says that a constitution is quasi-secular?

Our government may not be wholly secular either, but our Constitution is a written document where the rules and principles of how our state is to be governed are outlined. It is puzzling when Zainur Zakaria, a senior lawyer and former Malaysian Bar president, implied that there is a 'higher law' than the Constitution in Malaysia. Granted, there are higher powers, but nobody should take matters of the law into their own hands. A civil society functions by the rule of law, and any efforts towards amendments in the laws are provided for in the present mechanisms.

What Malaysians are looking at now, really, is a clear effort to draw a line, a very clear legal line, to the responsibilities of the syariah and civil courts and clarifying the fundamental nature of the Constitution of Malaysia. There seems to be a lot of deliberate blurring of the issues by some lawyers to confuse the matter and to fan extreme religious sentiments on the subject, invoking feelings of hatred, suspicion and conspiratorial designs.

The outcome of Lina Joy's case will not set an earth-shattering precedent. It could go either way. What the public needs to know is that with the present limitations of the syariah courts, cases of apostasy are left hanging due to the lack of legal resolution. Bearing in mind the present shortcomings in both the civil and syariah courts, plus very reluctant partners for dialogue, it is not entirely clear when the legal procedures can be mapped out to everyone's satisfaction.

A nod, by the way, to Haris Ibrahim for pointing out on 'judicial legislation' and 'usurpation of (the) role of the state legislature'. A brilliant observation!