I refer to the letter We are not dimwits . PT Tan's letter hits the secular/religious argument right on the head. Let's stop using archaic terms to denote the divide. Let's use proper parliamentary/ constitutional language

Secular means state and religion are always separate. Parliament is supreme. A religious state is the opposite. The quest for an Islamic state is not new - the Vatican is a modern day example of a religious state, they used to have their armies and today have their own banking system.

It is patently obvious that both Najib Razak and Dr Mahathir Mohamad would love to believe that they think the Muslims in Malaysia are living in an Islamic state but obviously they have conveniently forgotten there is a constitution which says Malaysia is a secular state. Everything they enjoy flows from this cardinal concept.

Malaysia is not a supermarket where you can pick and choose rules at your convenience, It's there in black and white and you need a two-thirds majority to change the constitution.

Let's just take the simple concept of bank interest. You cannot have banks charging interest in an Islamic state. Banks like CIMB has become a billion dollar business with interests from both Muslim and non-Muslim customers. In an Islamic state, they will have to close shop.

In a religious state, the supreme leader (like the Ayatollah in Iran) wields supreme power but is not elected. The mere fact that both Najib and Mahathir will need to reiterate the religious status of Malaysia just proves that they are merely MPs (or ex-MP) in a Muslim-majority constituency elected to propagate their own ideas.