Agreed!

A lot of people are going to charge in here with an imperfect understanding of the issues.

The FC was bound by previous decisions on one legal point, and perhaps recognised that a temporary game of football between mother and father while waiting for final custody will cause the son harm later. The father certainly acted wrongly in snatching the child but if the mother herself has stated she does not intend to pursue punishment for that, it is her right.

For Mdm Deepa and her son, the critical hurdle is still going to be the custody hearing.

One can only hope the court decides wisely, and the prolonged suffering is resolved, for the sake of mother and child.

You just have to avoid the kind of career path that our favourite Kidex-related judge enjoyed.

That was a national disgrace, not merely one to the legal profession.

The legal profession and man in the street must be distinguished.

The average layman may not have much of a deep grasp of legal issues (don't feel bad, folks, neither does the Home Minister, as he's proven repeatedly!)

In cases that have a populist slant (i.e. those with a religious, political, or societal impact), then "coffee shop talk" is inevitable, and it really does not matter if it happens offline (in real coffee shops) or in the virtual coffee shops of social media. That's to be expected. Cases that develop the finer points of shipping law or conveyancing are important too, but they don't make good journalistic fodder, and so they pass largely unnoticed outside the legal profession.

Because judges by convention cannot interface with the media on cases, they cannot publicly defend themselves. That rule applies in almost every single country in the world that has a Westminster-style government (well, in theory, the way Malaysia is heading.)

But I think that judges and can, and do, distinguish between the "coffee shop talk" and professional criticism from the profession; it was the latter that Tun Arifin Zakaria was referring to.

To me, as long as the professional comments are fair and confined to legal points, they are fine. In many countries law journals are filled with academic and even lawyers' analyses of recent cases, after all. Judges are used to having every word of their judgements dissected. it is not a new phenomenon.

As for comments that may exceed those bounds, I think Mr Leong and Tun Arifin Zakaria can have an informal chat. It is not an insoluble difficulty. An agreement can be reached.

As for the A-G…oh, where do i start...

I would say that the confidence of the public has already been severely shaken by the many inexplicable decisions made by the A-G's chambers.

For example, when one has to contrive a completely novel legal defence called "defending the sanctity of Islam" to justify (rather, fail to justify) non-prosecution, what message does that send to the public?

That they should trust the administration of justice in this country?

When court orders are selectively enforced, when lawyers, academics, MPs fall prey to the Sedition Act while others roam scot-free, what message does that send to the public?

That they should trust the administration of justice in this country?

What precisely do we mean by the "Rule of Law" in Malaysia, now?

Whose Rules?

Whose Law?

Approximately 75% of Zaid's points here were NOT made by the G25, nor stated as their objective.

There is a great danger in "putting words" in their mouths, because it distracts their focus, and undermines their non-partisanship. Nor are they some magic cure to Malaysia's many problems; they are not attempting to be. That is a political battle, that must be fought by political parties via ballot boxes, or by civil society NGOs; not the G25.

"Zaid Ibrahim said it was imperative that they get Datuk Seri Najib Razak to state that Malaysia is not an Islamic state."

The Federal Constitution is neither secular nor Islamic - or to be more accurate the only intelligent response to that issue is: "In what context do you mean"?

Hence I do not see the overriding objective of this meeting to be a definitive declaration one way or another.

I fully agree with Zaid that Najib's basic cowardice and need for self-preservation will likely mean that the G25 meeting will be fruitless.

The greater value is that this group of respected Malay leaders may inspire a wider movement, e.g. the #iam26 petition, and such efforts at the grassroots.

Thus far, this is the best and most measured response to the original G25 letter that I have read, to date.

These paragraphs, indeed:

"Therefore, the government should set up a high-powered committee to review our Federal Constitution and to recommend amendments to incorporate the needs of the Muslims and entrench the rights of minorities. A constitution is not cast in stone as to be unchangeable. It is a living document and has to grow with the changing needs of our people. The committee should consist of Muslim and non-Muslim experts on Constitutional law, Islamic law and other relevant fields. It should, in addition to reviewing the Federal Constitution, address the weaknesses in the current truncated Sharia judicial system and make recommendations to overcome them."

Would, I believe, resonate well with the G25 themselves, as consonant with the intent of their letter.

It would be a good, positive first step, and the writers of this response should be commended for the suggestion.

Some random rhetorical questions that are merely intended to take the discussion further, or to spark further thought:

1) The invention of fictitious legal defences such as the recent "defending the sanctity of Islam" in the Bibles case is:

a) Undermining the rule of law
b) Unislamic, as being unjust in the circumstances
c) Acceptable, as even ex post facto rationalisations that are seen to protect Islam are justified

2) The arrest of Kassim Ahmad was:

a) Justified, as he is a deviant
b) Unjustified, as a plurality of views among Muslims should be tolerated and rationally discussed
c) Possibly unjustified, but we must abide with the decision of the religious authorities
d) Justified, but he should have recourse to a civil court if his Constitutional rights were infringed
e) Unjustified, but he should have no recourse to a civil court, because the Islamic court system must be a closed loop

3) The rights of Syiah and other minorities (or adherents of other Sunni schools) are:

a) Irrelevant, as the government has declared Syiah abhorrent
b) To be subsumed under one standard as determined by religious authority. Too bad
c) To be taken into account as Islam can accommodate a diversity of thought

4) Should religious enforcement bodies act in ways, or draft sermons, that reflect political objectives rather than detached & neutral religious ones:

a) Too bad, they must remain the arbiters of Islamic law
b) The civil courts need to remain as the final safety net for the protection of the individual
c) Civil courts cannot interfere and we cannot even acknowledge that this has sometimes happened

At a different tangent but still useful as discussion points:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/rencana/article/hudud-20-soalan-untuk-pas
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/20-questions-you-wanted-to-ask-about-hudud-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask-eric

I will say I do not agree with all of Paulsen's points, but at least they are there to spark thought. Both the G25 and the present 33 writers should also be commended for taking the dialogue further.

May it continue, and have fruitful consequences for Malaysian society.

I do not mean to downplay your fears, but I would just like to point out that (as in many of these discussions), issues of law, issues of public policy, and issues of morality become clouded or mixed up together.

The original writers of that letter only made 5 points:

i) A plural legal system that has led to many areas of conflict and overlap between civil and shariah laws.

ii) The lack of public awareness, even among top political leaders, on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the powers of the religious authorities and administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia.

iii) The need to ensure the right of citizens to debate the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in this country.

iv) The need to promote awareness of the rich diversity of interpretive texts and juristic opinions in the Islamic tradition.

v) The need for the Prime Minister to assert his personal leadership as well as appoint key leaders who will, in all fairness, champion open and coherent debate and discourse on the administration of Islamic laws in this country to ensure that justice is done.

Each of these is based on sound public policy arguments.

The fear you have identified is a separate issue:

"There is a growing pressure to, speaking allegorically, subvert the qiblah (direction) of the Muslims to the West, not the geographical West, as it already is, but the ideological West. This is the legitimate fear of the Muslims."

That conclusion does not flow from the actual argument put forward by the 25. None of the 5 points raised by them lead to that conclusion.

Let us push it to the extreme: the fear is that a rampant influx of "Western values" will corrupt Muslims, to the point where wild homosexuality, drinking, loose morals, and a host of other undesirable behaviours will descend on us.

Like I say, that is unrelated to the five points raised, but anyway here are two answers to that:

a) Why is it that extensive Muslim communities in, e.g. France, Germany and the UK have not been so influenced? Despite being smack bang in the heart of the evil West? It comes down to strength of faith, surely.

b) The personal and ethical morality of Muslims is not affected by calls to systemise and clarify the legal boundaries of interaction between state and religion. These boundaries are very unclear in Malaysia, both for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Lawyers and public policy are taught to be systematic. Your discomfort with the Court of Appeal transgender decision is currently a discomfort with the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution can be changed, however, should public policy demand it. But it needs to be systematic and rational.

What is the solution? It might be that for Malaysian Muslims, the Syariah Courts alone must determine the limits of crime and punishment. Fair enough. That is an issue to be discussed and openly debated. The laws can be changed.

That is what the Group of 25 are asking you to do - debate, discuss.

They are not forcing any conclusions down anyone’s throat.

I note with great interest that two of the three signatories to this rather farcical "reply" profess to be legal practitioners.

That truly surprises me, because the "argument" they are purportedly replying to is entirely one that they themselves have concocted, rather than one that was put forward by the Group Of 25 originally.

Lest we forget:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/champion-open-debate-and-discourse-on-islamic-law-noor-farida-ariffin-and-2

Now, just to summarise the thrust of that original article, it identified five key areas that required attention:

i) A plural legal system that has led to many areas of conflict and overlap between civil and shariah laws.

ii) The lack of public awareness, even among top political leaders, on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the powers of the religious authorities and administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia.

iii) The need to ensure the right of citizens to debate the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in this country.

iv) The need to promote awareness of the rich diversity of interpretive texts and juristic opinions in the Islamic tradition.

v) The need for the Prime Minister to assert his personal leadership as well as appoint key leaders who will, in all fairness, champion open and coherent debate and discourse on the administration of Islamic laws in this country to ensure that justice is done.

None of these is accurately represented, much less rebutted, in what flatters itself here as "A response to letter by 25 eminent Malaysians".

To take just one egregious example:

"The Writers assert that the existence of Islamic law within the framework of the Constitution is plurality of laws considered as negative elements. The Writers thus imply that there can only be one law within the Constitution, and Islamic law should not be a part of it."

Nowhere was this even remotely asserted.

Misrepresentations and distortions pepper the rest of the "reply" to the point that it's pointless to read it, which leaves open the door for rather more emlightened minds to take the debate further (and I do not necessarily mean to agree with the Group Of 25's original letter; it was, however, carefully drafted, and deserves better than the sloppy, misleading response it has received here.)

Had this "reply" been presented in court, I would expect it to draw a sharp response from the bench as a blatant attempt to mislead the court.

The court of public opinion would certainly come to an identical conclusion.

"I feel to gain respect from others we must show that we have the best practices first"?

"Best practices" the Umno way?

I believe the correct term is "worst practices".

The doubtless vocal defence of "worst practices" will try and keep your political masters in power, but for lawyers to stoop to this low level is against everything lawyers should stand for.

It's about justice, not highway contracts, remember?