The disturbance and irritation caused by the ill-judged and ill-thought-through declaration made recently by the deputy prime minister that Malaysia is an Islamic state, has been comprehensively demolished by two timely and wise statements made by the prime minister, one pre-the DPM's statement and the other, thereafter.

The PM pronounced as follows, respectively: '.... that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land...'; and that '... Malaysia is neither a secular nor a theocratic state'.

The real impact and import of these statements are more to be found in what was not said rather than what was. In the first statement, what he did not say, but clearly imported and implied, was that the syariah is not the supreme law of the land.

Ergo, Malaysia is not an Islamic state because in an Islamic state the supreme law should be the syariah. In the second statement, when he said that Malaysia is not a theocratic state, what he meant without expressly saying so is that Malaysia is not an Islamic state because an Islamic state is necessarily an Islamic theocratic state.

In these circumstances, I think we should all cling to these wise and authoritative words of the PM (and their necessary implications) and not push him into a corner and choke him into uttering the words that Malaysia is a secular state (as, for example, the learned and honourable Karpal Singh MP wishes to do) for the word 'secular' is imprecise, loaded (historically), apt to be misunderstood and generally unhelpful, in the present political climate.

Moreover, it is not incumbent on the leader of the executive arm of government, the PM, to clarify such erudite, technical and (possibly) legal terms of art. It is rather more appropriate for the Federal Court to do so, when an opportunity arises.

And we should trust the Federal Court to deliver the correct interpretation to terms which are broadly constitutional in subject matter, readily setting aside their 'personal feelings' (as recently recalled to us by Richard Malanjum CJ in the Lina Joy case). As, indeed, it did unanimously recently in respect of a number of thorny issues relating to the power, jurisdiction and grasp of the syariah courts.

In Latifah Bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati Binti Sharibun (25 July 2007), Federal Court Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad (with whom Arifin Bin Zakaria and Augustine Paul concurred) declared, inter alia, as follows:

Where there is any challenge to the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Syariah Court, on constitutional grounds, the appropriate and only forum to resolve the issue is the apex civil court, the Federal Court. Accordingly, it is still for the civil courts (now clearly identified as the Federal Court) to determine, when a court's jurisdiction is challenged on constitutional grounds, the question whether a matter is within or without the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Syariah Court.

It is clear that to speak of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, which was created by an amendment in 1988, (which provides that the civil High Court 'shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts') having taken away the jurisdiction of the civil courts in all matters pertaining to Islamic law is a fallacy. Article 121(1A) was not introduced for the purpose of ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

The syariah courts are inferior courts. They inhabit a sphere within the judicial space which is inferior to the superior civil courts, that is the say the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

Indeed, the last point begs the question: If Malaysia is an Islamic state, as asserted by the DPM, how could the syariah courts be inferior courts in the federation?