In my last article on the role of the Malaysian constitution in defining our civil law or public space morality, I asked the prime minister five questions to help the cabinet (as the executive) - and hopefully the legislature and the judiciary - to review some core issues in the light of the questionable and confusing interpretation and decisions related to the M Moorthy case.

The Moorthy family and lawyers have said that they will take the matter to the International Court of Justice (World Court). That is as it should be. It is the international principles of civil law which define global public space. Malaysia and Malaysians do not live entirely on their own on an island, especially on human rights principles.

Therefore, as much as Malaysia has an opinion about the nature of democracy in Burma, the rest of the world is also allowed to have an opinion on how we "treat human beings and specific human rights cases in Malaysia". The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights dictates this by our own agreement.

I call the core issue of religious expression in free space as 'public space morality'. Whose or which set of values help us define the rules of conduct within this "organisation" we call Malaysia, the nation-state? What is the basis of these "organisational values"? Where do we get those values from? And, what framework do we use in the adoption of these values?