I would like to respond to Lee Ban Chen's ('An Islamic state cannot be secular', Nov 23).

By articles 74 and 75, read together with the Ninth Schedule, the Federal Constitution allows separate law-making powers in respect of syariah by state governments under the state list as compared against civil laws by central government under the federal list. Many syariah laws have in fact been passed by state legislatures under the advice of religious councils.

For the past 20 years the Umno-led government has embarked on Islamisation, the reasons for which are well explained in Farish A Noor's (M'sian foreign policy - a reflection of its domestic policy', Nov 24) and need no repetition here.

To say that the constitution is entirely secular is not true because it allows for separate and prolific development of syariah under the state list for Muslims. To say that the government is secular is equally untrue after its 20-year record of Islamisation.

In any case, it is surely unrealistic to define the nature of a state, whether secular or Islamic, based only on constitutional interpretation alone without regard to existing realities of changes in the last 20 years in the fabric of society and the plethora of Muslim features that permeate it.

It seems strange that despite accolades of being a model Islamic nation from many Muslim countries and their leaders, there are so many Malaysian Muslims and non-Muslims denying that Malaysia is an Islamic state for different reasons.

Can there exist a secular Islamic state, an apparent contradiction in terms? There is no reason why it cannot.

If one thinks beyond the box, an Islamic state can have secular laws and institutions as much as a secular state can have Islamic institutions, depending on whose viewpoint.

At least that is the way it can be in the realpolitik of a multi-cultural and religious society like ours.

If the majority of 60 percent of the country's population are Muslims and they have become more conscious of religiosity, whether due to 20 years of pro-active Islamisation by the government or developments in the Middle East, and aspiration for an 'Islamic state', they cannot within a democratic framework, be denied.

It is simply naivety in realpolitik for any ruling party, seeking to self-perpetuate, to contradict this changed reality brought about by Islamisation by asserting otherwise the secularity of the state.

At the same time if 40 percent of the population are non-Muslims whose rights are dependent on the existing secular laws and institutions not being replaced by Islamic ones, they too cannot be ignored by a government which not only needs their support but is also committed to economic development, foreign investment and modernity.

While the PM has never confirmed, let alone declared, that Malaysia is a 'secular' Islamic state, as interpreted by MCA, in spite of repeatedly challenged by Lim Kit Siang to do so, it must be remembered that the PM has also not expressly contradicted or refuted this interpretation by MCA though for him to confirm it would defeat the purpose of proclaiming an Islamic state in the first instance. So it could now still be interpreted as secular by non-Muslims, and Islamic for Muslims.

The writer said that this political expedience, based on a contradiction in terms, was opportunistic.

This is true. In general, politics is however mostly opportunistic. It has but one objective - perpetuate the rule by garnering maximum support from a cross-section of divergent communities.

The concept of 'secular' Islamic state is creative in trying to bridge the conflicting and diametrically opposing demands of Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Necessity, out of the unique diversity of demands, is the mother of this self-contradictory invention.

To prove to Muslims that Malaysia is an Islamic state, the government has to resort to 'expert testimony' after discussion/consultation attended by 70 Islamic leaders, scholars and activists, religious experts and the Ministry of Information has to even come out with a booklet Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam written by Ustaz Wan Zahidi bin Wan.

The publication measures indices of an Islamic state based on 12 duties of the governance of an Islamic state as elaborated by Shafi'i jurist al-Mawardi (died 450 Hijra or 1,058 AD).

Does it mean that by mere reliance on the authority of such a publication, the government will necessarily bring the administration progressively to a total Islamic state of the form contemplated by the Islamic jurist in 1058 AD as feared by the writer?

Is it necessary for the government to do that when by an interpretation of the quintessence of the principles enunciated in that publication, the country in the present form is already an Islamic state?

Given the realities of the plural and multi-cultural nature of Malaysian society, it is not easy to go that way anyway. If the ruling party was prepared to do that, Umno may as well merge with PAS now!

Having said that, the writer is right about non-Muslims having a legitimate ground for some anxiety. For the PM's proclamation of an Islamic state may spur and rally bureaucrats in officialdom to progressively implement Islamic policies in an overzealous manner without sensitivity to non-Muslims' rights. There is where the real danger to Malaysia's pluralism progress and non-Muslim interests lie.

Though the Constitution has not changed, non-Muslims' rights are not confined to constitutional rights. They are rights that are exercised daily on how their children fare and are treated in national-type schools; how they make a living or carry out leisure activities, and how to interface with bureaucracy and officialdom.

Subject to overzealous implementation being guarded against, the contradictory 'secular Islamic state' deserves further thinking of how it could evolve in a direction unique to Malaysian circumstances and compatible with the legitimate, if conflicting, expectations of both Muslims and non-Muslims.