¹ Official statistics categorise the population as 66.1% Malay (including other indigenous peoples, many of whom are not Muslims), 25.3% Chinese, 7.4% Indian and 1.2% ‘other’: Economic and Planning Unit, Third Outline Perspective Plan 2001-2010 (Putrajaya: Economic and Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Office, 2001)Google Scholar, table 6.1, ‘Population Structure 1990-2010’.

² By stating the problem in this manner, I may appear to be assuming a structural opposition between “Islam” (equated with “religion”) and “Law” (equated with the “secular”), and by these essentializing reductions to ignore the myriad ways that institutionalized Islam in Malaysia (as both “religion” and “law”) is embedded in, and expressed through, routinized, bureaucratic state instrumentalities that are modern, political and “secular”. (Regarding Islamic modernization and bureaucratization, see Horowitz, Donald, “The Qur'an and the Common Law: Islamic Law Reform and the Theory of Legal Change” (1994) 42 American Journal of Comparative Law 233–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (part 1) and 543-580 (part 2) and Hamayotsu, Kikue, “Politics of Syariah Reform: The Making of the State Religio-Legal Apparatus” in Hooker, Virginia and Othman, Norani (eds.), Malaysia: Islam, Society and Politics: Essays in Honour of Clive S. Kessler (Singapore: ISEAS, 2002) [“Politics of Syariah Reform”] Google Scholar. Nevertheless, I pose the question in this way for two reasons. First, because that is the way the problem is often put in Malaysian public discourse, especially when lawyers are involved. Second, because to pose it otherwise would require me to pontificate on what in Islam is authentically “religious” and pertains to “faith” (as secular- and post-Christians understand the essence of “religion” (see Vries, Hent de, “Why still ‘Religion’?” in Vries, Hent de (ed.), Religion: Beyond a Concept (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008) 1–98, at 8-11Google Scholar), and what is extrinsic and severably political or secularized. This question of demarcation is, properly, a debate within Islam and for Muslims. That, in any event, is how the Catholic Lawyers' Society interpreted the identical problem when defending the Malaysian Catholic Church's religious obligation to engage in political and social “charity” from government accusation that the Church was impermissibly mingling “religion” and “politics”: see Catholic Lawyers' Society, “On the warning and ‘show cause’ letters issued by the Home Ministry to the Herald ”, Press Statement (18 August 2008), online: <http://www.catholiclawyersociety.org>))>Google Scholar.

³ Halliday, Terence C. and Karpik, Lucien (eds.), Lawyers and the Rise of Western Political Liberalism: Europe and North American from the Eighteenth to Twentieth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Karpik, Terence C. Halliday Lucien and Feeley, Malcolm M. (eds.), Fighting for Political Freedom: Comparative Studies of the Legal Complex and Political Change (Oñati International Series in Law and Society, Oxford: Hart, 2007)Google Scholar.

⁴ Harding, Andrew and Whiting, Amanda, “‘Custodians of Civil Liberties and Justice in Malaysia’: The Malaysian Bar and the Moderate State” in Halliday, Terence C., Karpik, Lucien and Feeley, Malcolm M. (eds.), Fortunes and Misfortunes of Political Liberalism: The Legal Complex in British Post-Colonies (under review) [“Custodians”]Google Scholar; see also Lev, Daniel, “Lawyers' Causes in Indonesia and Malaysia” in Sarat, Austin and Scheingold, Stuart (eds.), Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) [“Lawyers' Causes'”] Google Scholar and “A Tale of Two Legal Professions: Lawyers and State in Malaysia and Indonesia” in Alford, William (ed.), Raising the Bar: The Emerging Legal Profession in East Asia (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007) 383–414 [“A Tale of Two Professions”] Google Scholar; and Das, Cyrus V., Justice Through Law: Fifty Years of the Bar Council of Malaysia 1947-1997. A Pictorial Biography of the Legal Profession (Kuala Lumpur: Bar Council of Malaysia, 1997) [“Justice Through Law”]Google Scholar.

⁵ The literature is too vast to be listed comprehensively here, but important recent contributions include: Nandy, Ashis, “The Twilight of Certitudes: Secularism, Hindu Nationalism and other Masks of Deculturation” (1998) 1(3) Postcolonial Studies 283–288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; An-Na'im, Abdullah, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shar'ia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berger, Peter L. (ed.), The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Washington DC, Ethics and Public Policy Centre, 1999)Google Scholar; Vries, Hent de (ed.), Religion: Beyond a Concept (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Eagleton, Terry, Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Habermas, Jurgen, “Religion in the Public Sphere” (2006) 14(1) European Journal of Philosophy 1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Needham, Anuradha Dingwaney and Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder (eds.), The Crisis of Secularism in India (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Mahmood, Saba, Politics of Piety: the Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Scott, David and Hirschkind, Charles (ed.), Powers of the Secular Modern: Talal Asad and his Interlocutors (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Ramadan, Tariq, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press, 2007)Google Scholar and the engagements with his work in the Social Science Research Council's blog, “The Immanent Frame”, online: <http://www.ssrc.org/programs/religion-and-the-public-sphere/>>Google Scholar (especially postings by Robert Bellah, John Bowen, Jose Casanova and Wendy Brown); and Veer, Peter van der, Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

⁶ Liow, Joseph Chin Yong, “Exigency or Expediency? Contextualising Political Islam and the PAS Challenge in Malaysian Politics” (2004) 25(2) Third World Quarterly 359–372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tong, Liew Chin, “PAS Politics: Defining a Islamic State” in Gomez, Edmund Terence (ed.), Politics in Malaysia: The Malay Dimension (London: Routledge, 2007) 107–137 Google Scholar.

⁷ See Hamayotsu, Politics of Syriah Reform, supra note 2.

⁸ Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (II) Enactment, 1993; Terengganu State Syariah Criminal (Hudud and Qisas) Bill, 2002, analysed in Ismail, Rose, Hudud in Malaysia: The Issues at Stake (Ilmiah Publishers, Petaling Jaya, 1995) [“Hudud”]Google Scholar, Hooker, M.B., “Submission to Allah? The Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (II) 1993” in Hooker, Virginia and Othman, Norani (eds.), Malaysian Islam, Society and Politics: Essays in Honour of Clive Kessler (Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2002) [“Submission to Allah?”] Google Scholar and Faruqi, Shad Saleem, “The Malaysian Constitution, The Islamic State and Hudud Laws” in Nathan, K.S. and Kamali, Mohamad Hashim (eds.), Islam in Southeast Asia: Political, Social and Strategic Challengs for the 21^st Century (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2005) [“The Malaysian Constitution”]Google Scholar.

⁹ Federal Constitution, Schedule 9, List I and List II, item 1.

¹⁰ Lee, Raymond L.M., “Patterns of Religious Tension in Malaysia” (1988) Asian Survey, Vol. 28, No. 4, 400–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peletz, Michael G., “Sacred Texts and Dangerous Words: The Politics of Law and Cultural Rationalism in Malaysia” (1993) 35(1) Comparative Studies in Society and History 66–109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ling-Chien, Neo Jaclyn, “Malay Nationalism, Islamic Supremacy and the Constitutional Bargain in the Multi-ethnic Composition of Malaysia” (2006) 13 International Journal of Minority and Group Rights 95–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walters, Albert Sundararaj, “Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Malaysian Christian Perspective” (2007) 18(1) Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 67–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution defines “Malay” as “a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom” and fulfils certain birth or residential prerequisites. This provision was interpreted by a single judge in the High Court to mean that “a Malay under article 160(2) remains in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days”: Lina Joy v. Majls Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor. [2004] 6 C.L.J. 242, at 271 Google Scholar.

¹² Kheng, Cheah Boon, “Ethnicity and Contesting Nationalisms in Malaysia” in Kheng, Cheah Boon (ed.), The Challenge of Ethnicity: Building an Nation in Malaysia (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2004) 40–53 Google Scholar and Puthucheary, Mavis, “Malaysia's ‘Social Contract’: the Invention and Historical Evolution of an Idea” in Othman, Norani, Puthcheary, Mavis, and Kessler, Clive S. (eds.), Sharing the Nation: Faith, Difference, Power and the State 50 Years after Merdeka (Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2008)Google Scholar. For select examples of recent public debate, see also: “Of creeping Islamization and breeding racism”, Malaysiakini (27 August 2006)Google Scholar; Kabir, Humayun, “Nazri lashes out at Malay supremacy advocates”, Malaysiakini (12 December 2009)Google Scholar; Razak, Aidila, “Speakers flay ‘ketuanan melayu’”, Malaysiakini (12 December 2009)Google Scholar; Fernandez, Joe, “Perkasa's hype of Malay supremacy is self-serving”, Malaysiakini (5 May 2010)Google Scholar; and “Perkasa and Khairy on collision course”, Malaysiakini (27 June 2010)Google Scholar (quoting the UMNO Youth Wing leader characterising the leader of Perkasa, a new ultra-right wing Malay supremacist group, as a “gangster” and “village thug”).

¹³ E.g., Ali, Ashraf, “Gerakan: AF manifesto a bunch of contradictory policies”, The Sun (5 November 1999)Google Scholar; Loone, Susan, “Kit Siang: is BN's ‘Islamic State’ the same as UMNO's?”, Malaysiakini (6 October 2001)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Cheah, Royce, “Government bans compilation of research papers”, The Star (Kuala Lumpur, 14 August 2008)Google Scholar. At the time of writing (July 2010), SIS has been successful in challenging the legality of the government's ban. A judge of the High Court of Malaya found that the Minister's decision to ban the book was tainted by both illegality and irrationality: SIS Forum (Malaysia) dan Dato ‘ Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar (Mentri Dalam Negri), High Court of Malaya (unreported) 25 January 2010.

¹⁵ Loh, Deborah and Shah, Shanon, “PAS wants Sisters in Islam investigated”, The Nut Graph (Kuala Lumpur, 7 June 2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ghazali, Rahmah, “Hadi adamant on SIS: ‘ban them’”, Malaysiakini (11 June 2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Habib, Shahanaaz, “Is whipping the answer?”, The Star (26 July 2009)Google Scholar; JAG Memorandum on Justice for Kartika: Stop Whipping and End Corporal Punishment for all Offences (25 August 2009).

¹⁹ “Syariah lawyers association regrets Shahrizat's statement on whipping of model”, Bernama (22 July 2009)Google Scholar.

²⁰ “SIS files for revision of Kartika's whipping sentence”, The Star (20 September 2009)Google ScholarPubMed; JAG Media Statement, “Stop whipping, stop the whipping of Kartika” (30 September 2009)Google Scholar; Zakaria, Hazlan, “JAG questions ‘judicial stealth’ in Kartika Case”, Malaysiakini (30 September 2009)Google Scholar. See also SIS, “SIS revision of Kartika's case turned down by registrar of the Kuantan Syariah Court”, Press Statement (3 October 2009)Google Scholar.

²¹ “Pas Youth slams SIS, JAG, calls for boycott”, Malaysiakini (2 October 2009)Google Scholar.

²² Jo-Ann, Ding, “SIS critics using police”, The Nut Graph (5 November 2009)Google Scholar; “Caning – police record statement of SIS director”, Malaysiakini (22 March 2010)Google Scholar.

²³ Martinez, Patricia, “The Islamic State or the State of Islam in Malaysia” (2001) 23(3) Contemporary Southeast Asia 474–503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harding, Andrew, “The Keris, Islam and the Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia” (2002) 6(1) Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 154–180 Google Scholar; Tong, Liew Chin, “PAS Politics: Defining a Islamic State” in Gomez, Edmund Terence (ed.), Politics in Malaysia: The Malay Dimension (London: Routledge, 2007) 107–137 Google Scholar.

²⁴ See further Ismail, Hudud; Hooker, Submission to Allah?; and Faruqi, The Malaysian Constitution, supra note 8.

²⁵ In articles 8, 11 and 10 respectively, and see further Anwar, Zainah, “Is an Islamic State possible”, New Straits Times (22 December 1999)Google Scholar and “Islam Hadhari champions needed”, New Straits Times (3 November 2006)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Jason, Roshan, “JAWI Raid: PAS Youth claims government shielding VIP kids”, Malaysiakini (February 25 2005)Google Scholar; “DBKL Officer: I saw couple acting indecently”, Malaysiakini (25 September 2006)Google Scholar.

²⁷ “Lawyers avoid Ayah Pin case”, New Straits Times (5 August 2005)Google Scholar.

²⁸ National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), “Rights to expression”, Press Statement (13 August 2008)Google Scholar; “Catholic weekly seeks court order to use ‘Allah’”, The Star (28 December 2007)Google ScholarPubMed. In December 2009, a single judge of the High Court of Malaya ruled in favour of the Herald's constitutional right to use “Allah” and quashed the decision of the Minister for Home Affair to restrict publication: Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Mentri Dalam Negri, High Court of Malaya (R1-25-28-2009, unreported 31 December 2009)Google Scholar. However the constitutional freedom is by no means assured as the Home Ministry has filed an appeal (reported in Yatim, Hafiz “‘Allah’ issue: Home Minister gets stay order”, Malaysiakini (6 January 2010 Google Scholar)) and meanwhile the government, which has obtained a stay order, has stated that it will refuse to recognise the legitimacy of non-Muslim use of “Allah” in the peninsula (there is limited cultural exception for the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak). (See Fernandez, Joe, “Putrajaya concedes on Allah for Sabah, S'wak”, Malaysiakini (15 January 2010 Google Scholar)). There were some violent, although thankfully limited, attacks on Christian and Muslim places of worship, (see, e.g., Razak, Aidila, “Brothers, Friend claim trial to firebombing church”, Malaysiakini (29 January 2010)Google Scholar; and “BN-Pakatan Youth issue rare joint statement”, Malaysiakini (28 January 2010)Google Scholar, which the government used to justify continuing the ban as a public security measure, and offices of the Herald's lawyers were ransacked ( Yatim, Hafiz, “Herald lawyer's office targeted in break-in”, Malaysiakini (14 January 2010)Google Scholar; “Allah row: Protect lawyers and judges”, Malaysiakini (16 January 2010))Google Scholar. Meanwhile, other Christian groups, such as the Evangelical Church of Borneo (Sidang Injil Borneo), still face restrictions on Malay language publications ( Yatim, Hafiz, “Allah row: court puts off SIB hearing again”, Malaysiakini (23 June 2010)Google Scholar).

²⁹ For which, see Hunt, Alan and Wickham, Gary, Foucault and Law: Towards ad Sociology of Law and Governance (London: Pluto Press, 1994), 48 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Phar, Kim Beng, Islamic Statehood and Maqasid al-Shariah in Malaysia: A Zero-Sum Game? (Chang Mai, Silkworm Books, 2009)Google Scholar.

³¹ This is the effect of the Federal Court decision in Sulaiman bin Takrib v. Kerajaan Negri Terengganu (Kerajaan Malaysia, intervener) and other applications [2009] 6 M.L.J. 354 Google Scholar. An earlier and, in its time notorious, instance of an arguably ultra vires fatwa being enforced occurred in the famous ‘Miss Petite Malaysia’ beauty pageant of 1997: see Imam, Mohammad, “Islamic Criminal Law in Malaysia: Federal State Jurisdictional Conflict” [1994] 1 Current Law Journal Malaysia xxiii–xxxii Google Scholar and Islam, Sisters in, Memorandum on the Provisions in the Syariah Criminal Offences Act and Fundamental Liberties (8 August 1997), online: <http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=699&Itemid= 209>>Google Scholar.

³² Federal Constitution, article 121(1A).

³³ These are expertly analysed by Li-ann, Thio, “Jurisdictional Imbroglio: Civil and Religious Courts, Turf Wars and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution” in Harding, Andrew and Lee, HP (eds.), Constitutional Landmarks in Malaysia: The First Fifty Years 1957-2007 (Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis, 2007) 197–226 Google Scholar.

³⁴ Whiting, Amanda, “Desecularising Malaysian Law?” in Nicholson, Pip and Biddulph, Sarah (eds.), Examining Practice, Interrogating Theory: Comparative Legal Studies in Asia (Leiden: Martinus Nihjhoff, 2008) 223-266, at 241-2 [“Desecularising”] Google Scholar.

³⁵ Daud bin Mamat v. Majlis Agama Islam [2001] 2 M.L.J. 390 Google Scholar; Kemariah bte Ali dan satu lagi lwn Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu dan satu lagi [2006] 5 M.L.J. 470 Google Scholar and see also Theophilus, Claudia, “Judiciary, bureaucracy blamed for unresolved religious issues”, Malaysiakini (26 June 2004)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Tongiah Jumali v. Kerajaan Negri Johor [2004] 5 M.L.J. 40 Google Scholar; Lina Joy lwn Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan dan lain lain [2007] 4 M.L.J. 585 Google Scholar.

³⁷ These incidents are dealt with in the following cases: “Revathi: toughest experience of my life”, Malaysiakini (9 July 2007)Google Scholar and “Welfare home conversion: lawyer wants proof”, Malaysiakini (1 December 2009)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Kaliammal a/p Sinnasamy lwn Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutan (JA WI) dan lain lain [2006] 1 M.L.J. 685 [“Moorthy's case”] Google Scholar; “Court: movie-maker a Muslim, family devastated”, Malaysiakini (7 July 2009) (Mohan Singh's case)Google Scholar; regarding the contest for Rayappan Anthony's body, see MCCBCHS Press Statement (6 December 2006), online: <http://www.article11.org> and “Syariah lawyers wants MAIS to explain”, Bernama (12 December 2006) (and see further Whiting, Desecularising, supra note 34). Moorthy's widow has appealed to the Court of Appeal and as of this writing the decision is pending. See “Moorthy Case: MAIWP acted in bad faith, court told”, Malaysiakini (21 July 2010)Google Scholar and Chong, Debra “Everest mountaineer ‘Body Snatching’ case decision on August 6”, The Malaysian Insider (21 July 2010)Google Scholar.

³⁹ Shamala a/p Sathiyaseelan v. Dr. Jeyaganesh a/l C. Mogarajah [2003] 6 M.L.J. 515 Google Scholar; Shamala a/p Sathiyaseelan v. Dr. Jeyaganesh a/l C. Mogarajah [2004] 2 M.L.J. 241 Google Scholar; Shamala a/p Sathiyaseelan v. Dr. Jeyaganesh a/l C. Mogarajah [2004] 2 M.L.J. 648 Google Scholar; Shamala a/p Sathiyaseelan v. Dr. Jeyaganesh a/l C. Mogarajah [2004] 3 C.L.J. 516 Google Scholar. At the time of writing, Shamala's appeal is pending in the Federal Court, see Yatim, Hafiz, “Conversion of children: Federal Court to decide”, Malaysiakini (28 April 2010)Google Scholar; “Five vexed questions for Federal Court”, Malaysiakini (29 April 2010)Google Scholar; Yatim, Hafiz, “Test case emotionally and mentally traumatizing”, Malaysiakini (3 May 2010)Google Scholar, Yatim, Hafiz, “Shamala case: Objections raised, decision postponed”, Malaysiakini (3 May 2010)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Subashini a/p Rajasingam v. Saravanan a/l Thangathoray [2007] 2 M.L.J. 798 Google Scholar; Subashini a/p Rajasingam v. Saravanan a/l Thangathoray [2007] 2 M.L.J. 705 Google Scholar; Subashini a/p Rajasingam v. Saravanan a/l Thangathoray [2007] 4 M.L.J. 97 Google Scholar; Subashini a/p Rajasingam v. Saravanan a/l Thangathoray and other appeals [2008] 2 C.L.J. 1 Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Indira Ghandi's story received extensive coverage in the press; a useful summary is Kabir, Humayun, “Conversion row: mother gets visiting rights”, Malaysiakini (14 May 2009)Google Scholar; the plight of Shamala and Subashini is analysed in Whiting, Desecularising, supra note 34, at 232-237.

⁴² Yatim, Hafiz, “Test Case emotionally and mentally traumatising”, Malaysiakini (3 May 2010)Google Scholar and see sources cited supra note 39.

⁴³ See further Whiting, Desecularising, supra note 34 and also Whiting, , “Gendered Vulnerabilities and the Juridification of Identity in Malaysia” (2008) 1 (June) NIASnytt Asia Insights 25–27 Google Scholar. The High Court's approach in Indira Gandhi's case will depend upon the outcome of Shamala's pending appeal in the apex Federal Court. In addition to the reports listed supra notes 39 and 41, see Kabir, Humayun, “Conversion: judge needs time to study complex case”, Malaysiakini (2 April 2010)Google Scholar; Yatim, Hafiz, “Five top judges to hear Shamala case on Monday”, Malaysiakini (29 April 2010)Google Scholar; Kabir, Humayun, “M Indira case – court postpones for third time”, Malaysiakini (7 May 2010)Google Scholar; Kabir, Humayun, “No relief for Indira, case postponed again”, Malaysiakini (21 June 2010)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Flint, Shamini, Inspector Singh Investigates: A Most Peculiar Malaysian Murder (London: Piatkus, 2009)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Loh, Deborah, “Conversion still a problem”, The Nut Graph (15 December 2009)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ For minor political parties' statements, see, for example: “PAS plan for Islamic State shocks DAP”, The Sun (Kuala Lumpur 25 June 2001)Google ScholarPubMed; “Ling Assures Chinese Malaysia is Secular State”, The Sun (21 October 2001)Google ScholarPubMed, and “Drama in Dewan Rakyat”, Malaysiakini (11 July 2005)Google Scholar. The Catholic Church of Malaysia's statement is reported in Jegathesan, M, “Catholic Church alarmed by Mahathir's Islamic State Declaration”, Malaysiakini (6 August 2001)Google Scholar; the MCCBCHS statement is reported in Netto, Terence, “Religious coalition cautions against altering the Merdeka Contract”, Malaysiakini (31 January 2001)Google Scholar. The Malaysian Bar's official position has been stated several times, see “Infringes on rights – proposed tax”, The Sun (15 December 1999)Google ScholarPubMed; “Constitution clear on Islamic State”, The Sun (4 November 2001)Google ScholarPubMed, “PM's declaration a ‘political statement’: Bar Council”, Malaysiakini (2 November 2001)Google Scholar; and Tsin, Soon Li, “A Secular constitution protects all religions”, Malaysiakini (6 June 2007)Google Scholar; Bar Council Statement, “Malaysia is a Secular State” (18 July 2007)Google Scholar and Bar Council Statement, “Statement on the Common Law” (24 August 2007)Google Scholar. For a careful and persuasive history of the constitutional drafting process, see Fernando, Joseph M., “The Position of Islam in the Constitution of Malaysia” (2006) 37(2) Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 249–266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Thomas, Tommy, “Is Malaysia an Islamic State” (2006) 14 Malayan Law Journal 15 Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ For reports of statements by former Prime Ministers Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Badawi, and supporting statements from deputies, see Loone, Susan, “Islamic infrastructure and court are marks of ‘Islamic state’: Rais”, Malaysiakini (7 October 2001)Google Scholar; “PM defends ‘Islamic State’ declaration”, Malaysiakini (17 September 2002)Google Scholar; “Islam Hadhari”, New Straits Times (24 September 2004)Google Scholar; Manirajan, R, “Malaysia Islamic State as Islam official religion”, The Sun (18 July 2007)Google Scholar. “This is an Islamic State: Najib”, Malaysiakini (17 July 2007)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Tong, Liew Chin, “PAS Politics: Defining a Islamic State” in Gomez, Edmund Terence (ed.), Politics in Malaysia: The Malay Dimension (London: Routledge, 2007) 107–137 Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ The harmonization project (Projek Harmonisasi) was officially launched in December 2007 at the “Third International Conference on Harmonization of Civil Laws and Shari'ah”, but has been longer in the making. See the report of the third conference, including resolutions to “amend laws that are not Shari'ah compliant”, “to ensure new statutes are in accordance with Shari'ah” and “to create Malaysian common law and rules of equity which is based on Shari'ah and acceptable rules and customs”: Attorney-General's Chambers website, online: <http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/images/pdf/syar/isu08/harmonisasi.pdf>. See also the keynote address of the Attorney-General at the opening of the conference, supporting the harmonization proposal, online: <http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/pdf/speech/KEYNOTE%20ADDRESS..pdf>.

⁵⁰ Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Malaysian Constitution, supra note 8; Muzaffar, Chandra, “Malaysia: a secular or Islamic State?”, Malaysiakini (20 June 2007)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 M.L.J. 55 Google Scholar.

⁵² Ibid., at 57.

⁵³ Ibid., at 55.

⁵⁴ HAKAM – (Persatuan Hak Asasi Kebangsaan) was founded in 1989 out of concern with the deterioration of civil and political rights in under the Mahathir administration, especially with the use of detention without trial under the Internal Security Act as a means to silence political opponents of the government, see online: <http://www.hakammalaysia.org/?page_id=2>.

⁵⁵ Quoted in “Infringes on rights – proposed tax”, The Sun (15 December 1999)Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁶ supra note 51, at 57.

⁵⁷ During the infamous ‘judiciary crisis’ of 1988, Lord President Salleh Abas was dismissed from judicial office by the Mahathir government because of the robust way that he defended the independence of the judiciary from executive attack. Ironically, and implausibly at that time, given his ruling in Che Omar, one of the charges against him was that he had sought to introduce Islamic law. The saga is notorious in Malaysian political and legal history and much written about. See Sinnadurai, Visu, “The 1988 Juridicary Crisis and its Aftermath” in Harding, Andrew and Lee, H. P. (ed) Constitutional Landmarks in Malaysia: The First Fifty Years 1957-2007 (Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis, 2007): 173–196 Google Scholar for the most recent review of this episode and citation of key literature.

⁵⁸ SIS et al. (n.d.), Letter to the Editor, “Hudud in Terengganu: A Law to Protect Rapists”, online: <http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=467&Itemid=178>; see also Ismail, Hudud, supra note 8.

⁵⁹ Aziz, Arfa'eza A, “BN trapped itself within Islamic state declarations: Salleh Abas”, Malaysiakini (October 2002)Google Scholar; also Aziz, Arfa'eza A, “Respect the right of states to implement religious laws: Salleh”, Malaysiakini (2 October 2002)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Siong, Tong Yee, “M'sia a Muslim county, not Islamic state: Salleh Abas”, Malaysiakini (9 October 2001)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ supra note 51, at 57.

⁶² The remainder of this article draws upon and substantially extends material and argument canvassed in Harding and Whiting, Custodians, supra note 4.

⁶³ This article focuses on the situation in peninsular (West) Malaysia and does not examine lawyers or legal and political issues in the East Malaysia states of Sabah and Sarawak. The legal profession in East Malaysia has received practically no scholarly attention, a neglect I hope to rectify in a later stage of this research project. Statistics are taken from the Bar Council of Malaysia's own calculations: see Bar Council General Statistics 2009 (as at 19 January 2010), online: <http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/general_notices/bc_general_statistics_2009.html>.

⁶⁴ See the excellent account in Burrage, Michael, “Mrs Thatcher Against the ‘Little Republics’: Ideology, Precedents and Reactions” in Halliday, Terence C. and Karpik, Lucien (eds.), Lawyers and the Rise of Western Political Liberalism: Europe and North America from the Eighteenth to Twentieth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Discussed in Halliday, Terrence C., “Review: Politics and Civil Professionalism: Legal Elites and Cause Lawyering” (1999) 24(4) Law and Social Inquiry 1013–1060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Gordon, Robert, “The Independence of Lawyers” (1988) 68 Boston University Law Review 1 Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ There is an unresolved debate about the proper way to characterise Malaysian state and government: soft-authoritarian? semi-democratic? electoral authoritarianism? illiberal democracy? pseudo-democracy? See Case, William, “Malaysia's General Elections in 1999: A Consolidated and High-Quality Semi-Democracy” (2001) 25(1) Asian Studies Review 35–55 Google Scholar and Case, William, “Testing Malaysia's Pseudo-democracy” in Gomez, Edmund Terence (ed.), The State of Malaysia: Ethnicity, Equity and Reform (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004)Google Scholar; Munro-Kua, Anne, Authoritarian Populism in Malaysia (New York: St Martin's Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ See Harding and Whiting, Custodians; Lev, Lawyers' Causes and A Tale of Two Legal Professions; and Das, Justice Through Law, supra note 4.

⁶⁸ Putnam, Robert, Bowling Along: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000)Google Scholar; see also the helpful analysis in Walzer, Michael, “The Concept of Civil Society” in Walzer, Michael (ed.), Toward a Global Civil Society (Providence: Berghaln Books, 1995)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Economic and Planning Unit, Third Outline Perspective Plan 2001-2010 (Putrajaya: Economic and Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Office, 2001), table 4.6Google Scholar; Economic and Planning Unit, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 (Putrajaya: Economic and Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Office, 2006), table 16.5Google Scholar; Welsh, Bridget, “New Identities, New Politics: Malaysia's Muslim Professionals” (2008) 18(3) National Bureau of Asian Research (NRB) Analysis 35–51, at 39-40 [“New Identities”]Google Scholar. Current Bar Council statistics confirm this too: of a total of 1320 registered legal practitioners, 4848 are Chinese, 5089 are Malay, and 2480 are Indian (copy on file with author).

⁷⁰ Legal Profession Act 1976, sections 3, 10 and 11.

⁷¹ Johan Sabaruddin, Johan and Xavier, Grace, “Legal Ethics, Taught and practiced – A Malaysian Perspective”, LawAsia Conference, March 21-24, 2005, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (delivered on 21 March 2005)Google Scholar.

⁷² Welsh, New Identities, supra note 69, at 46.

⁷³ The debate was hosted by Riz Khan and first screened on 8 August 2007; it can now be viewed online: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9i2EqnpJk>; for subsequent discussion, see the commentary posted on The People's Parliament, online: <http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/sulaiman-vs-imtiaz/> and Disquiet, online: <http://malikimtiaz.blogspot.com/2007/08/riz-khan-interview.html>. Examples of Haji Sulaiman Abdullah's defence of judicial independence, the rule of law and civil liberties include: Bar Council, “Judges dispute: a reply to the Chief Justice”, Press Statement (9 August 2002)Google Scholar; “Bar Council's move to hold EGM is in ‘national interest’”, New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, 15 June 2000)Google Scholar; Pathmavathy, S, “A unified Bar rejects ISA”, Malaysiakini (20 September 2008)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Islamic NGO Election Demands (20 February 2008) (copy on file with author); and see infra note 120.

⁷⁵ Quoted in Tsin, Soon Li, “Division in the Bar is ‘natural’”, Malaysiakini (17 October 2006)Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ This explanation builds upon the sophisticated analysis of Chicago lawyers advanced in Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., Cappell, Charles L., Halliday, Terence C. and Schaalman, Michael H., “Diversity, Representation and Leadership in an Urban Bar: A First Report on a Survey of the Chicago Bar” (1976) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 717–785 Google Scholar and Halliday, Terence C., “The Idiom of Legalism in Bar Politics: Lawyers, McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Era” (1982) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 911–988 Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Welsh, New Identities, supra note 69, at 47-48.

⁷⁸ For example, see Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, section 59(1); Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negri Melaka) 2002, section 68(1); Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negri Sembilan) 2003, section 80; Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Perak) 2004, section 69; Enakmen Pentadbiran Hal Ehwal Agama Islam (Terengganu) 2001, section 57.

⁷⁹ See, for e.g., Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993), section 59(2): the Majlis may, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong [King], make rules (a) to provide for the procedure, qualifications and fees for the admission of Peguam Syarie; and (b) to regulate, control, and supervise the conduct of Peguam Syarie. In the case of the Federal Territories, these are the Pegum Syarie Rules 1993 P.U.(A) 408/93.

⁸⁰ For example, Pegum Syarie Rules 1993 P.U.(A) 408/93, Rule 10.

⁸¹ For example, Pegum Syarie Rules 1993 P.U.(A) 408/93, Rule 7.

⁸² I am alluding here to the possibility of developing further the notion of lawyers as ‘cultural intermediaries’ advanced in excitingly original work by Lauren A. Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History 1400-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Sharafi, Mitra, “A New History of Colonial Lawyering: Likhovski and Legal Identities in the British Empire” (2007) 32(4) Law & Social Inquiry 1057–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Benton and Sharafi examine indigenous legal actors under colonial rule and understand them as ‘ethno-juridical translators’ or ‘intellectual middlemen’ (at 1078, 1084) in encounters between local communities and the Imperial power, translating each to the other and thereby assuming some level of expertise and power over the knowledge thus produced and a degree of prestige over the local communities thus represented. I am suggesting here that this notion could gainfully be shifted to a different temporal frame, and that postcolonial Malaysian lawyers who straddle both the secular-national and religious-state jurisdictions might be in a strong position to assume the authority to speak to and on behalf of each regime of legal knowledge. In this article, all I can do is raise this question, which will be pursued in the next stage of this research project.

⁸³ Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, section 59(1).

⁸⁴ Pegum Syarie Rules 1993 P.U.(A) 408/93, Rule 10(a)(i); see also (a)(ii), (iii). The requirements vary throughout the Federation. For example, like the Federal Territories, the Selangor Administration of Islamic Law Enactment does not specify that a peguam syarie applicant must be a Muslim, but the Rules do (compare Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negri Selangor) 2003, section 80 with the rule in Kaedah-Kaedah Peguam Syarie (Negri Selangor) 2008 (Sel P.U. 23/2008), rule 8(1)(a) “seorang yang beragama Islam”)); whereas Penang makes no requirement in either the statute or the subordinate instrument (Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negri Pulau Pinang) 2004, section 80 and Kaedah-Kaedah Peguam Syarie (Negri Pulau Pinang) 1997 (Pg P.U. 5/97) rule 9); yet in the State of Pahang both the parent statute and the subordinate instrument require that a peguam syarie be a Muslim (“beragama Islam”): Enakmen Pentadbiran Undang-Undang Islam 1991 (Negri Pahang) section 66 and Peraturan-Peraturan Peguam Syarie 1995 (Pahang P.U. 12/95), Rule 9.

⁸⁵ Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, “Non-Muslim syarie lawyers”, online: <http://www.ikim.gov.my/v5/print.php?grp=2&key=2099>.

⁸⁶ See, for e.g. “Non-Muslim gets leave in bid to be syariah lawyer in FT”, Malaysiakini (14 May 2010)Google Scholar; Mageswari, M, “Test case for non-Muslim lawyer in syariah court”, The Star (15 May 2010)Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Bar Council, “Syariah courts must embrace all lawyers”, Press Statement (17 June 2010)Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ “Court order sought on state assemblies' powers to pass criminal laws”, Bernama (14 June 2002)Google Scholar; “Court to hear both petitions challenging hudud law”, Bernama (19 March 2004)Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ The Society's webpage is http://www.catholiclawyersociety.org/index.htm.

⁹⁰ A collection of press releases from 2007 until 2009, stating the Society's position can be found online: <http://www.catholiclawyersociety.org/reporting/reporting.htm>.

⁹¹ A broader selection of examples are canvassed in Harding and Whiting, Custodians, supra note 4.

⁹² Bar Council, “Disappointment with the passing of the Terengganu Hudud Bill”, Press Statement (19 July 2002). The state of Kelantan enacted a similar law in 1993. Neither is fully enforceable, as both are subject to constitutional limits on the criminal jurisdiction of syariah courts (provided for in Federal Constitution Schedule 9, List II, item 1 and Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965); see further, Shad Saleem Faruqi and M.B. Hooker, supra note 8.

⁹³ Bar Council, “Proceedings concerning constitutionality of laws”, Press Statement (3 November 2003)Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ “Hudud – Lawyer obtains leave to file petition for declaration”, Bernama (11 July 2002)Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Bar Council, “Malaysia is a secular state”, Press Statement (18 July 2007)Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Bar Council, “Leave the common law alone”, Press Statement (24 August 2007)Google Scholar; see also Bar Council, “Common Law”, Press Statement (23 August 2007)Google ScholarPubMed.

⁹⁷ Bar Council, “Religion of children – Parental Rights”, Press Statement (23 April 2004)Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Bar Council, “Shamala's case”, Press Statement (22 July 2004)Google ScholarPubMed.

⁹⁹ Bar Council, “Syariah court only for Muslims”, Letter to the Editor, The Sun (26 March 2007)Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁰⁰ Bar council, “Islamic laws not to be applied to non-Muslims”, Press statement (3 April 2008)Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Bar Council, “Death threat against Malik Imtiaz Sarwar”, Press statement (22 August 2006)Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Bar Council, “Lina Joy decision”, Press statement (31 May 2007)Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Bar Council, “Embrace diversity and engagement”, Press statement (8 June 2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Spykerman, Neville, “Bar Council threatened with action over online Allah poll”, The Malaysian Insider (13 March 2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Bar Council, “Malaysians must rise above polemics”, Press Statement (25 March 2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ “Bar Holds Workshop on Inter-religious Council”, The Star (Kuala Lumpur, 18 May 2003)Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁰⁷ Discussed further in Whiting, Desecularising, supra note 34. The group's activities and press statements are available on its website: “Article 11: The Federal Constitution, Protection for All”, online: <http://www.article11.org>. Members include: All Women's Action Society (AWAM); Bar Council Malaysia; Catholic Lawyers' Society; Malaysian Civil Liberties Society, Protem Committee (MCLS); Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST); National Human Rights Society (HAKAM); Sisters In Islam (SIS); Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM); Vivekananda Youth Movement, Seremban; Women's Aid Organisation (WAO); Women's Development Collective (WDC).

¹⁰⁸ Anbalagan, V., “Forum will go on, says Bar Council”, New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, 7 August 2008 Google Scholar); Aziz, Fauwas Abdul, “Conversion forum goes ahead”, Malaysiakini.com (8 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ ACCIN Press Statement, “National conference on initiative towards the formation of an Interfaith Commission (IFC), held at Bangi, February 2005”, online: <http://bantahifc.bravehost.com/accin_press_statement_on_ifc_nationalconference.htm>; and see also ACCIN Statement, “Reasons for non-countenance”, online: <http://bantahifc.bravehost.com/ACCIN_reasonsfornoncountenance.htm>.

¹¹⁰ “PM: Interfaith Commission could hold back unity”, Malaysiakini (22 June 2005)Google Scholar; see further “Interfaith Commission: two competing views”, Malaysiakini (3 March 2005)Google Scholar; and Aziz, Fauwaz Abul, “Lack of trust and timing cancel out Interfaith Commission”, Malaysiakini (5 April 2005)Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Netto, Anil, “Mob rule: déjà vu in Penang”, Malaysiakini.com (16 May 2006)Google Scholar; Theophilus, Claudia, “Police ignored mob, say forum organisers”, Malaysiakini.com (15 May 2006)Google Scholar; “Article 11 coalition will not be cowed”, Malaysiakini (18 July 2006)Google Scholar.

¹¹² WAMI, Writers' Alliance for Media Independence, “Silencing the Article 11 Debate is Undermining Democracy”, Press Statement (2006), online: <http://www.article11.org>>Google Scholar.

¹¹³ “PAS strongly opposes Bar Council's conversion to Islam forum”, Bernama (7 August 2008)Google Scholar and Leong, Chan Kok, “PAS opposes Bar's forum on Islam”, Malaysiakini.com (7 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ “UMNO Youth warns Bar Council”, The Star (Kuala Lumpur, 7 August 2008)Google ScholarPubMed; “Invoke ISA if Bar Council goes ahead with forum – Ali Rustam”, Bernama (8 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Vinesh, Derrick, “Molotov cocktail shock for Shahrizat”, The Star (Kuala Lumpur, 9 August 2008)Google Scholar; Chong, Debra, “Desperately seeking law and order”, Malaysian Insider (Kuala Lumpur, 23 September 2008)Google Scholar; Sacha, Seira, Bakar, Binti Abu and Osman, Noor Binti Arianti, “Molotov Cocktail thrown into Bar President's old house”, Malaysian Bar Web report (9 August 2008), online: <http://www.malaysianbar.org.my>Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Sacha, Seira, Bakar, Binti Abu and Osman, Noor Binti Arianti, “Molotov Cocktail thrown into Bar President's old house”, Malaysian Bar Web report (9 August 2008), online: <http://www.malaysianbar.org.my>Google Scholar; Ong, Andrew, “Protesters stop Bar's conversion forum”, Malaysiakini.com (9 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ For example, Bar Council elections in December 2008 for the 2009/2010 term reveal a very low level of interest amongst the national profession, as 12,747 postal ballots were issued, but only 3, 683 were returned. Voter response was not much better for the 2010/2011 period, with 12,949 ballots issued in November 2009, but only 3,094 returned. These figures are taken from “Shafee voted out of Bar Council with 13^th placing”, New Straits Times (6 December 2008)Google Scholar; and “Bar Council 1010/2011 Election Results” (1 December 2009), online: <http://www.malaysianbar.org.my>>Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Welsh, supra note 69, at 48.

¹¹⁹ Malaysian Bar, Annual Report 2002-2003, Syariah Laws Committee Report (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Bar Council, 2003), at 140–141 Google ScholarPubMed.

¹²⁰ Islamic NGO Election Demands (20 February 2008) (copy on file with author).

¹²¹ Malaysian Bar, Annual Report 2002-2003, Syariah Laws Committee Report (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Bar Council, 2003), at 139–140 Google ScholarPubMed. Hong, Carolyn, “Legal fraternity split over interfaith conference”, The Straits Times (Singapore, 18 February, 2005)Google Scholar.

¹²² Hong, Carolyn, “Legal fraternity split over interfaith conference”, The Straits Times (Singapore, 18 February, 2005)Google Scholar; “Invoke ISA if Bar Council goes ahead with forum – Ali Rustam”, Bernama (8 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²³ “Bar Council told to stay away from politics”, Bernama (16 November 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ “Muslim Lawyers form group to defend Islam from ‘attacks’”, The Star (Kuala Lumpur, 14 July 2006)Google ScholarPubMed. “10,000 Muslims attend forum on apostasy”, Malaysiakini (24 July 2006)Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ For example, the Bar Council, the PGSM and the Muslim Lawyers instructed lawyers to hold watching briefs in the Lina Joy litigation (see Islam, Peguam Pembela, “Lina Joy, murtad and freedom of religion under article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution” (2007), posted online: <http://www.myislamnetwork.net>Google Scholar; the Bar Council and the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association (PGSM) instructed lawyers in the Moorthy case (Shanmuga, K, “Re Everest Moorthy”, online: <http://www.ccmalaysia.org/news/constitution/Everest_Moorthy_summary.pdi>>Google Scholar), and Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, currently president of the Muslim Lawyers Association and previously president of the PGSM, held a watching brief for PGSM in the litigation concerning Rayappan Anthony's funeral, see “Body tussle case: Cabinet steps in”, The Sun (6 December 2006)Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Zalkapli, Adib, “Harsher actions if Bar Council holds more forums on religion, warn Muslim protestors”, The Malaysian Insider (Kuala Lumpur, 9 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ Pathmawathy, S, “Zulkifli defends his action at Bar forum”, Malaysiakini.com (18 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Teoh, Shannon, “PKR mulls action over MP who stormed forum”, The Malaysian Insider (11 August 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ Ahmad, Salbiah, “Adding grey to article 3”, Malaysiakini (26 October 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Bar Council, “Abolish whipping for any offence”, Press Release (24 August 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Habib, Shahanaaz, “Is whipping the answer?”, The Star (26 July 2009) (quoting the views of the current PGSM president)Google Scholar.

¹³² “Muslim lawyers want action taken against SIS, WAO”, Malaysiakini (1 October 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³³ “Muslim lawyers question legality of Sultan's decision”, Malaysiakini (2 April 2010)Google Scholar; “Kartika punishment: Sultan has the power, says Nazri”, Malaysiakini (5 April 2010)Google Scholar.

¹³⁴ Pathmawathy, S, “Anguished mom knocks on PM's door”, Malaysiakini (17 April 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ “Gov't bars secret conversion of children”, Malaysiakini (23 April 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Bar Council, “Bar Council urges government to move swiftly”, Press Statement (28 April 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ “Conversion case puts gov't promise to test”, The Straits Times (27 April 2009)Google Scholar; “Muslim groups upset with religious conversion ruling”, Malaysian Insider (29 April 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ Siew, Zedeck, “Why only briefing for Muslim MPs?”, The Nut Graph (29 June 2009)Google Scholar.

¹³⁹ “Amendment to marriage laws will help converts”, Malaysiakini (24 November 2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ Arukesamy, Karen, “Proposal to let converts file for divorce in civil court”, The Sun (25 November 2009);Google Scholar “Gov't urged to come clean on conversion laws”, Malaysiakini (26 November 2009)Google Scholar; MCCBCHST, “Report on proposals for family law reform troubling” (30 November 2009)Google Scholar; Pathmawathy, S, “State religious authorities sitting on conversion bills”, Malaysiakini (14 July 2010)Google Scholar.