I would like to thank Jeffrey for his letter, 'The necessity of a secular Islamic state'(Nov 13) - written in defence of MCA's interpretation of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's version of Islamic state - for it furnishes food for thought and further discussions.

However, it is of paramount importance to point out that the PM had never confirmed, let alone declared, that Malaysia is a "secular" Islamic state as interpreted by MCA, notwithstanding he was repeatedly challenged by DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang to do so.

Umno MPs went to the extend of prohibiting the opposition MPs from bringing up the so-called 'secular Islamic state' controversy in Parliament, which they regard as an insult to the Muslims of this country.

Hence, it is regrettable that Jeffrey has based his entire argument on this unfounded and self-contradicted concept - a secular Islamic state - which is an outcome of the irresponsible and self-deceitful game of semantics by MCA propaganda bureau.

Worse still, he even tried to defend Dr Ling Liong Sik for his improper analogy, by which Ling intended to mislead the people into believing that Islamic state is but a matter of name (about how a rose is called by different names) and interpretation, and nothing material would change after its proclamation .

Jeffrey simply said that Ling's analogy was to allay fears in MCA's constituencies, and the so-called 'secular Islamic state' was in fact a different flower - a hibiscus instead. Now rose becomes hibiscus, but what is the logic of events to analogise hibiscus with secular Islamic state? Or again, it is just another game of semantics?

Ceremonial function

Though the reasons given are debatable, Jeffrey is right in pointing out that the government had in the 80s and 90s sought to up the ante in its own Islamisation programme, and as a result, hundreds of millions of ringgit have been expended by the state in building mosques, training of religious teachers, infusing of Islamic values in civil service, developing educational curricula, setting up banking systems, Islamic think-tanks, centres and university. Indeed they are all substances in unity with their respective forms.

But this couldn't prove that the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas is wrong in pointing out that Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in fact vested Islam with only a ritualistic and ceremonial function, as originally intended, or the government's Islamisation programmes are all mere forms without substances, as argued by Jeffrey, rather, the appropriateness of the overall Islamisation programme is debatable under the present constitution, especially in contrast with the restricted freedom enjoyed by other religions in the country.

To deny the secularity of our country and government by solely relying on the fact that Islam is the religion of the federation and the government is not neutral in religious affairs is obviously insufficient, because as a whole, religion (including Islam) is still separated from politics, not merged with or above politics as the case of Islamic state, and Syariah is not yet the supreme laws of the country, to say the least.

The opportunistic nature of the so-called secular Islamic state is best illustrated by the following statement: secular for non-Muslims, Islamic for Muslims, so that everyone will not be dissatisfied.

Deceitful racial line

This is exactly the deceitful racial line adopted by Barisan Nasional component parties, as if the state could be dichotomised into secular and Islamic according to their political expediency, and the mantra of 'compromise' is always at work throughout the process of nation building as suggested by Jeffrey.

The reality is not so rosy and idealistic as painted by Jeffrey. For example, it certainly couldn't be regarded as a compromise of any kind when the government on the one hand carried out two decades of pro-active Islamisation programmes, though not necessary to the satisfaction of PAS' supporters; and on the other hand, suppress the freedom of other religions.

The unilateral proclamation by the prime minister and the ruling coalition that Malaysia is an Islamic state based on the conclusion of the discussion/consultation attended by 70 Islamic leaders, scholars and activists, without any consultation with other non-Islamic religious leaders, leaders of various NGOs, leaders of the component parties of BN, or debated in our Parliament, again, not an iota of the spirit of compromise had been shown.

I hope that Dr Patricia Martinez's analysis: "Islamic state in Malaysia: an analysis" (Nov 13) should have enlightened Jeffrey on the nature of Mahathir's version of Islamic state. It proves that the so-called secular Islamic state to the satisfaction of both Muslims and non-Muslims is but an oasis in a mirage .

Even in the forums held by MCA and Gerakan for the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS), according to Patricia and not reported by the media, all the members present from the MCCBCHS and a few MCA and Gerakan members, expressed either concern or outright rejection of the notion that Malaysia was an Islamic state, or that non-Muslims had nothing to worry about.

Real worries

The worry is substantiated by the definitions of the Islamic state in the booklet entitled "Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam" published by the Ministry of Information, i.e. :

1) The nation has to be under Muslim governance;

2) The nation is controlled by Muslims; and

3) The laws of an Islamic ruler are enforced.

The 12 duties summarised in the booklet as encumberment upon the ruler of the government as his responsibility add more worry to the non-Muslims, especially on unequal status as second-class citizens (zimmi) , treatment of women, and whether or not moral and religious injunctions of, and punishment by the Shariah are applicable to non-Muslims.

The booklet further states that the policy of infusion/application of Islamic values (Dasar Penerapan Nilai-nilai Islam) into the government of the country, to bring everything in line with the requirements of Islam in stages and in a way that is wise, will proceed continually until the aim of upholding an Islamic state in the national system is fully implemented.

These self-evident statements should serve to stop those who argued that nothing had or would change in terms of government policy or law as a result of the proclamation that Malaysia is an Islamic state.