I refer to the malaysiakini report Malays converting: Why not? says Dr M .

It is most regrettable that even as the report carried the definition of 'Malay' in Article 160 (2), it did not think it necessary to also make known to readers the opening words of clause (2) of that particular Article, which reads: 'In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them...'.

It is plain from those opening words that 'Malay' as defined therein is to apply in the context only of the Constitution, where the word 'Malay' appears, and the context does not lend a different meaning.

Unless I am mistaken, the word 'Malay' only appears in Articles 89, 90 and 153. The context in these Articles do not suggest a meaning otherwise than as provided in Article 160(2).

With respect, it appears that your report has overstated the case in postulating as Mahathir did that the Constitution 'determines that a Malay is one who speaks the Malay language, practices Malay customs and follows the religion of Islam'. In reality, the Constitution only takes this position in respect of Articles 89, 90 and 153.

Your report also concluded that arising from Article 121(1A), the, '... Civil and Syariah courts have since enjoyed separate jurisdictions'. The implication from this is that prior to the introduction of Article 121(1A) in 1988, these courts did not have separate and distinct jurisdictions.

This, too, with respect, is incorrect.

The jurisdiction of the civil high courts has, since the inception of the Constitution, been as distinct and separate with that of the syariah courts as it has been with the industrial and the native courts. The civil high courts, together with the Federal Court and more recently the Court of Appeal are part of the superior courts structure set up under the Constitution.

All other courts, including the syariah courts, came within the category of inferior tribunals. Lawyers will understand that there is nothing derogatory in this term. All inferior tribunals enjoyed a distinct and separate jurisdiction from that of the civi high courts. When these inferior tribunals exceed their distinct and separate jurisdiction, the civil high court is duty-bound to intervene.

Seen in this light, Article 121(1A) neither altered nor added anything to the law. Certainly, its language does not permit of a construction that enhances the position of the syariah courts.

Finally, it is reported that Mahathir had said that if one renounced Islam, then he is not a Malay. This, again, is not correct. Such a person would only not be a Malay for the purposes of Articles 89, 90 and 153.

And that, surely, is not the end of the world for such a person.