I refer to the letter 'Secular' imprecise and apt to be misunderstood . LJ's conclusions drawn from the comments in the Federal Court judgment in Latifah Bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati Binti Sharibun, I think, are a little simplistic.

His first point on the challenge to the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Syariah Court, I think, is extracted from the following passages in the judgment:

'Of importance in this discussion is Article 128(1) that provides:

'128(1) The Federal Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have jurisdiction to determine...

'(a) any question whether a law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid on the ground that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws; and... '

'So, if for example, a question arises whether a particular provision of a law made by Parliament or the State Legislature is in contravention of the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, it is the Federal Court that has jurisdiction to decide'.

This, I understand to mean that if any legislation passed by Parliament or the state is ultra vires the Ninth Schedule, then only the Federal Court has jurisdiction to decide on this - which is to challenge the law and may not necessarily involve challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Syariah Court.

LJ's second point is that Article 121(1A) was not introduced for the purpose of ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts is also not correct. I think it is not a matter of ousting the civil courts but serves to demarcate their respective jurisdiction as explained in the judgment:

'Prior to the establishment of the Syariah courts, custody of children, Muslim and non-Muslim, was within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Then the Syariah courts were established with jurisdiction regarding custody of Muslim children, pursuant to the provision of the State List. However, in Myriam v Mohamed Arif (supra), the High Court held that it still had jurisdiction regarding custody of Muslim children. Hence the amendment'.

'Actually if laws are made by Parliament and the legislatures of the states in strict compliance with the Federal List and the State List and unless the real issues are misunderstood, there should not be any situation where both courts have jurisdiction over the same matter or issue. It may be that, as in the instant appeal, the granting of the letters of administration and the order of distribution is a matter within the jurisdiction of the civil court but the determination of the Islamic law issue arising in the petition is within the jurisdiction of the Syariah court.

'But these are two distinct issues - one falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court and the other falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah court. Still, there is a clear division of the issues that either court will have to decide. So, there is no question of both courts having jurisdiction over the same matter or issue'.

LJ's third point is I think a contortion of the comment in the judgment which I believe is extracted from the following parts:

'So, the civil High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court are established by the Constitution itself. But, that is not the case with the Syariah courts. A Syariah court in a State is established or comes into being only when the Legislature of the State makes law to establish it, pursuant to the powers given to it by item 1 of the State List. In fact, the position of the Syariah courts, in this respect, is similar to the Session Courts and the Magistrates' Courts. In respect of the last two mentioned courts, which the Constitution call 'inferior courts', Article 121(1) merely says, omitting the irrelevant parts:

'121(1) There shall be [...] such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law [...]'

'The point to note here is that both courts, civil and Syariah, are creatures of statutes. Both owe their existence to statutes, the Federal Constitution, the Acts of Parliament and the State Enactments. Both get their jurisdictions from statutes i.e. Constitution, federal law or State law, as the case may be. So, it is to the relevant statutes that they should look to determine whether they have jurisdiction or not. Even if the Syariah court does not exist, the civil court will still have to look at the statutes to see whether it has jurisdiction over a matter or not. Similarly, even if the civil court does not exist, the Syariah court will still have to look at the statutes to see whether it has jurisdiction over a matter or not.

'Each court must determine for itself first whether it has jurisdiction over a particular matter in the first place, in the case of the Syariah courts in the States, by referring to the relevant State laws and in the case of the Syariah court in the Federal Territory, the relevant Federal laws.'

I would say that this part of the judgment does not in any way conclude that the Syariah court 'inhabits a sphere within the judicial space which is inferior (as LJ puts it), but seeks to point out that the basis for these courts' existence comes from different sources. The High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court have their basis in the Federal Constitution and the Syariah courts from state legislation. This does not mean that the syariah courts are inferior and that their decisions can be reviewed by the civil courts.

It is my view that such distortions as presented by LJ are one of the causes of tensions and animosity in our society, and it is incumbent on all to take more than a little care in what they say or write unless the intention is to create strife and trouble.