What can we make of the call by Rais Yatim ( The Sun , March 3) for a law to separate religion from politics? The minister invited political parties, the legal fraternity and religious authorities to give their views to enable the government to draft the necessary laws.

The minister was also reported to have said that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution states that if any matter jeopardises public order, the government can come up with certain legislation to ensure the people's well-being.

Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution in fact provides for the freedom of speech, assembly and association. The inspiration for this proposed law appears to stem from the restrictions to Article 10 in Article 10 (2) (a), (b) and (c).

What becomes of the spirit and import of the freedom itself? We have, since merdeka in 1957, a myriad of Acts of Parliament passed to whittle down our freedom of speech, assembly and association. These laws include the Police Act (police permits), the Sedition Act, the Printing Presses and Publication Act and the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Some of these laws have been challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds that they impinge upon freedoms. That challenge has yet to succeed in our courts. Any proposal to further encroach upon Article 10 must be viewed with great trepidation or even resisted.

The suggestion of further encroachments, just four months after the general elections, may well stun voters who returned this government its requested two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The ISA, a colonial law "re-invented" by the government in 1960 as an Act of Parliament for example, was used for the arrests and detention of the followers of the Arqam movement in 1994 and a handful of people in 1997 who were allegedly deviant Muslims on the ground that they were Shii Muslims.

Unfortunately the preventive detention technique (arrest without trial) under the ISA pre-empts judicial scrutiny of the executive action. So no one really knows if the Arqam followers or the handful of Syiahs were indeed a threat to national security. To this day we are still in the dark if the arrests were religiously or politically motivated.

Perhaps what should be a matter of priority on religion and law would be the resolution of problems arising from the use of law as a reflection of religion. State Islamic laws are already in place dealing with family matters including inheritance, conversions, religions of minor children when one parent converts to Islam, certain crimes (not hudud laws) and evidence.

These laws were passed by Barisan Nasional majority state legislative assemblies before PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu. Some of these laws on conversions like "automatic conversions" of minor children into Islam when one parent converts to Islam are problematic as parties traverse the civil and Islamic law systems of the country.

Minor children are reportedly kidnapped by either the parent who has converted to Islam or the parent who has not so converted or taken out of the jurisdiction of the state concerned. Even counsel in these cases, are not spared persecution and prosecution.

In one reported case, counsel was arrested and taken to court for not providing information to police who were allegedly investigating a kidnapping case of a young Muslim woman. The young woman, according to press reports, had chosen to wed a person of another faith.

In Susie Teoh's case several years ago, her father and guardian had lodged a complaint that his daughter was converted to Islam without his knowledge and consent. He was even unable to determine the whereabouts of his child, who at the relevant time, was not yet 18 years of age.

Should we be passing an Act of Parliament which could further complicate these matters? Further, we do not want lawyers, interested citizens or even members of political parties voicing concerns over these issues coming under the scrutiny of a law "separating religion from politics" on the grounds that they may be treading on "sensitive" issues, or are "seditious", or "politicising religion" or "tarnishing the faith"; the latter two being reasons offered for the proposed law separating religion from politics ( The Sun , March 3).

The "BN state Islamic laws" and soon-to-be-law PAS dress code for "Muslim women in Terengganu only", assumes that the practice of Islam is homogeneous, its juristic opinions reflecting a "oneness" in Muslim thinking - that there is a monolithic Islamic standard. That assumption provides the legitimacy for the law, compelling performance through sanctions in the dress code example.

In the case of the law on "automatic conversions" of minors, the "oneness" supposes a universality such that its application would extend to non-Muslim minor children who "become" Muslims upon the conversion of one of their parents. This assumption negates any say of the non-Muslim spouse in the choice of the religion of the child.

The assumption of "oneness" in Muslim thinking is a false assumption - a legal fiction, as the available work and commentaries show disputations on every imaginable issue. It has been said that there is only consensus ( ijma ) on the rituals ( ibadah ) of the religion.

The available legal literature may well qualify as a legislator's nightmare. On the other hand, the legal literature shows remarkable flexibility in the differences of opinion such that a choice of an opinion or opinions become contestable.

Law has a distinctive and formidable ability to define and pronounce authoritatively on any matter. It lays a claim to "truth" and is thereby able to disqualify opposing claims to its "truth".

It is a vehicle, a language, a form of discourse, a system through which meanings are reflected and constructed and cultural practices organised. This the law-making body in making a certain choice of a particular juristic viewpoint over others as law, lays claim to "truth".

The PAS dress code reinforces a manner of dress as the truth for Muslim women. The argument that it is limited to Terengganu is irrelevant to the agenda as the code projects the "truth" for all Muslim women although the penalties can only be implemented in that state.

The PAS view on dress for Muslim women is shared by many Muslims, irrespective of whether they voted for PAS or BN. Similarly, PAS may not be opposed to the Islamic state laws passed by BN.

On this score, one wonders what the fuss is between the political parties. PAS targets the dress code because no one really would seriously put up a fight on the " tudung issue" which is perceived to be such a trivial matter to many and only affects Muslim women in Terengganu in any case. It's just women.

Thus the views of women and men against the PAS dress code are marginalised on these assumptions. They were even denounced as "playing into the hands of the BN-controlled media". On that count, some shifted positions within a couple of days.

To be fair to PAS, they attempted a shura (consultation) with the rakyat. But is PAS really open to a contestation on the issue? PAS could table the proposed law in the state legislative assembly regardless of any contestation in Terengganu or anywhere else.

PAS could just assume the usual political stand, like BN, and say that it has been returned to power (in the state of Terengganu).

But politicians have to move away from this idea of having power and seriously view the idea of political participation and live it. Political participation must mean that the people must have a way of significantly influencing the processes of determination of policy and legislation of laws.

Every individual must be entitled as of right to express approval or disapproval of policy and legislation and be afforded the opportunity to seek to change them in association with others. Equally important is the ability of each and every subject of the state to challenge any policy or law through legal or political means. Concerted public opinion and action is a political force.

The Muslim women dress code issue may be interrogated in a number of ways. It may be interrogated within its religious framework by reference to the texts of the faith and juristic opinion or under various constitutional principles including equality before the law.

Any issue which affects the fundamental liberty of any person is of fundamental concern. If a Muslim women who seeks gainful employment in Terengganu has to first observe the dress code law, against her will, that is a breach of her fundamental liberty.

If a Muslim woman in Terengganu is made to observe any dress code law just because she has to, as a "good" Muslim and she is against it, surely that compulsion is a breach of her liberty of religious expression.

Similarly, a Muslim woman should not be compelled to discard her tudung if she chooses to wear it for any conceivable reason. Religion or politics should not be a bar to debate and challenge.

SALBIAH AHMAD is a lawyer and also with a resource group called Sumberdaya Guaman Rakyat.