At the risk of incarceration, I conclude cautiously that despite our differences and, as a fellow Malaysian residing at large in a multi-cultural society, we have been living harmoniously albeit separately. What we have in our hands nevertheless is nothing more than superficial solidarity among the Indians, Chinese and Malays. No doubt we more than often share our cuisine, culture, costumes, customs, traditions, language, principles, wisdom and values but let us try not to deceive one another given that disparaging discrepancies and attitudes between the ethnic groups are anything but encouraging and have been deteriorating of late.

Herein, I thrust my hands out while begging for clemency; to speculate further on amendments that need to be made to our languid and long-serving constitution. What frightens me actually is that the very guardians that have been entrusted to uphold our constitution have unforgivably let us down recently.

Given the incendiary connotations of the Lingam Tape scandal, it cannot be held against one that lawyers can now choose their judges or in which court to have their clients' cases heard. Certainly one would feel cornered and indignantly compelled to advocate that anything but corruption remains rife among/within the judiciary and senior affiliates but, given this 'unethical' scenario Malaysians can take solace once again with respect to our constitution that, perhaps, Malaysia masih boleh la .

In actual fact, I sincerely believe that this is a 'tolerant' country given that no voices were raised although our Ikim chairman keeps blaming the 'ignorant' parents of innocent boy(s) who are still in a limbo as to should or shouldn't they be converted to Islam. We also have highly dedicated religious officers' diligently removing corpses from their respective wakes. What about teachers up north who condemn and denounce their students for pledging their so-called histrionic allegiance to Satan?

We also find forms in government offices that 'conveniently’ forget to include a particular religion in its list of options when filling-in bio-data. Beef too, from a sacred animal to some, can be openly sold with no respect whatsoever to the religious sensitivities and beliefs of adjacent stall owners and their respective patrons in any pasar malam here.

Is it any wonder, given our Paleolithic constitution the syariah court is 'allowed' to pass judgment on an apostate – an injunction with 'inflections of restitution' perhaps (for which matter can I be forgiven to admit at the risk of sounding racist?) Or to have thy deceased body from being cremated according to Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist rites or should I say, rights. No offense arbitrarily to any one named Lingam but, if I, too, can 'choose' to have my rights exercised or cases heard pending unbiased verdicts in a particular court then why and how I ask, could one directive from one court upstage or override another?

No offence once again to any one religion in this country but couldn't we have put our irreversible and colored disparities aside and allowed one funeral to be carried out according to the religious practices and beliefs of the one and only woman who was next to his convalescing bedside; in this case she being his devoted wife? Shouldn't the choice of court for non-Muslims be already accorded in our perspicacious and revered constitution?

And can't there exist in ratification a treaty between the civilian and religious courts TO NOT overrule one another until acquiescence, in this case the right of next-of-kin, to receive in reparation the body of a dead apostate member of his/her family? Can I engage my lawyer to pull some strings for me should my apostate brother choose in which court to have the renunciation of his former religion heard and sanctified?

Let us hope that the constitution has already steadfastly engineered a covenant that proves every Malaysian is accorded his or her fundamental human right to practice any one religion in his or her life and god forbid, in which court to have his or her 'reversal' of religion confidently restored. It is imperative and an onus on somebody perhaps (pardon the finger-pointing but please forgive me for I am a desperate Hindu clutching at straws here) to convince us Indians as well as everybody in the legal fraternity that, 'everything' is transparent and conspicuous - not to mention inherently veritable lest, civilian confidence or the lack of it erodes further.

Please forgive me if I am wrong for what do you think is going to happen should I decide to forego my former religion but am left in 'shark-infested' seas when 'choosing' to legally de-pledge /renounce my current religious beliefs or upbringing? Can I engage my lawyer with 'connections' to get me the 'right' court to hear me de-oath?

By all means I am pretty sure that should any one court remain indecisive and refuse to 'entertain' the genuine appeal of the soon-to-be apostate/'infidel', definitely another legal ground or parallel can be used for his or her sorry hearing. Let us hope at least the constitution then clearly states where to go and who to look for as well as what my fundamental human rights are with regards to religion and freedom to practice any one faith, before a family like Mr Gan's is misled further in this country.