It is interesting that our first three prime ministers' well-documented statements on the secular nature of the Malaysia constitution (all of whom were trained as lawyers with a good knowledge of British common law and how it works) have been spun in Parliament as being of 'personal opinions' whilst our erstwhile fourth PM's opinion is spun as the definitive interpretation of so-called 'Islamic' nature of the constitution.

If indeed the Federal Constitution was intended to be Islamic in substance, why is there no reference to shariah law and shariah courts in the original constitution before post-Merdeka amendments? The reason can only be that the writers of the constitution never intended our Constitution and State to be religious in substance.

The many references to Islam as the 'official religion of the Federation' (as opposed to 'state religion of the Federation') was used to recognise the religion of the majority and the sultans in the official ceremonies of Parliament like the swearing in of the King and the government. Surely they could not be expected to be sworn in on a Bible (like they do in Westminster on which our model our parliamentary democracy is built on)? This is well-documented by the Reid Commission which drafted the constitution.

This is indeed becoming a sensitive issue, not so much because of the emotional rhetoric and baggage that comes with it, but because it reveals the politically bankrupt nature of those wanting to break the original social contract between all the major Malaysian races and impose their own version of Ketuanan Melayu and Islam.

For crying out loud, if you want to spin and revise history, at least do it credibly and with intelligence.