In our beloved nation the federal constitution bestows certain advantages to the bumiputeras in cognisance of the social contract between the races. It is a unique arrangement and has proven to be necessary in governing a multiracial country like ours. Not many nations on earth, multiracial or otherwise, have such provisions in place; a case in point being the US, whose original inhabitants are insignificant in every aspect of nationhood, a fate shared by our Orang Asli brethren.

The recent altercation as to whether Malaysia is an Islamic state is juvenile to say the least. A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make rules that govern the people. A nation-state is a sovereign state in which its citizens or subjects are united by factors which define a nation (a cultural entity) such as language, descent, religion, etc.

Hence, could Malaysia be an Islamic state if 40 percent of its population do not subscribe to Islamic edicts? The analogy here could be easily grasped if a non-religious example is used. China and the former USSR were once considered communist states. This was because the socialist form of government was the order of the day and applied to each and every citizen of the land. Socialist political parties exist in almost all nations today but that does mean those nations are socialist states.

The qualifying factor for any nation to be called 'a State' (theocratic or communist, etc) is for 100 percent of its citizens to be unified under the concept. Saudi Arabia is a classic example of an Islamic state as only Muslims can be its citizens.

The former prime minister, in response to PAS, stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state. It could become one in the event PAS comes to power and withdraws the Federal Constitution and replaces it with the syariah as the binding Constitution of the country applicable to all citizens. PAS knows too well what its chances are of doing so given that it has been donkey's years since it came to power in Kelantan and has not implemented the syariah in a state which is 95 percent Muslim.

I am inclined to accept the argument of Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi who has written that Malaysia is neither a theocratic state nor an avowed secular state. Our unique constitution shares features of both the religious and secular concepts. Hence, it would have been worthwhile for the former PM and probably the current government to counter PAS in an informed manner instead of trying to justify what our country is not, thus appearing silly in the process.

In reaction to civil society groups like the Article 11 coalition, Muslim-based NGOs and bodies are responding forcefully by organising their own gatherings, such as the congregation of 10,000 at Masjid Wilayah, which appear to be alarmist in nature rather than enlightening. However, it is a better way rather than assembling with a view of disrupting other legitimate forums.

What caught my attention about the Masjid Wiliyah meeting was the resolutions carried which appear to be similar in nature to the Hindutva movement promulgated by the former government of the BJP in India, the notions of the Christian right in the US and the Zionist concepts of Israel.

It would be interesting to ascertain how these national theocracy-inclined groups view each other on an international scale, such as whether Teras, Abim, PPI or Pembela would support similar attempts of the Hindus in India in promoting Hindutva vis--vis minorities in India or whether they would be at each other's throats in full recognition of the idea that 'mine is better than yours'.

It is increasingly becoming untenable for a community to claim superiority over other communities by virtue of the factors of race or religion. Viewed from the perspective of a global citizenry, the concept that each and every being is equal irrespective of gender, colour, race, age or religion is an acceptable notion and, in fact, highly just. This idea derives from no less divine a being than Jesus who said 'do not do unto others that you would not let them do unto you'. Or is it a case of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?