The recent squabble over the issue of Islamic state in the BA is not helping the cause of political change in the country. What it has allowed the BN to do is to drive a wedge through the forces of the opposition in this country. They know it's an effective "wedge issue" and they're not leaving it alone; milking it as much as they can to maximise damage to a fragile alliance.

This issue is being distorted daily by the BN media machinery eager to manipulate and whitewash their own record of cynical Islamisation that created the critical mass of Islamists that are now spearheading this debate dynamics. So, the BN has little moral authority to dictate the terms of the debate now.

There's a sense of deep detachment and cynicism amongst Malaysians towards the ruling regime and an unwillingness to put faith with the opposition. This matter isn't helping clarify political choices for the people.

As an issue, it will not go away but why not, reconfigure the debate by neutralising it as an issue? Instead, what about de-linking the issue of "the promise of implementation of an Islamic state" from the 2004 election goals of BA by promising a referendum on it?

A referendum, say within the five-year term of the next government with each member of the BA promised a free vote of conscience to campaign for or against among Malaysians. Sure, it will bring out the ideological differences of the member parties of BA but to be sure, it will also "flush out" the contradictions within the BN grouping. I suspect Umno will probably campaign to out-Islam PAS in such scenario. And the rest of the BN, will be tested on their present rhetoric of "anti-PAS Islamic state".

Sure, a referendum is unusual in Malaysia but to say never is anti-historical because in the past Tunku Abdul Rahman's government used it to merge the satellites of Singapore, Sabah & Sarawak into the new Malaysia. Constitutionally, it is not explicitly denied to the Malaysian people as a means of deciding public policy.worldwide, it is a respectable method for enunciating public opinion free from politicians' inaction and cowardice in facing tough issues.

Sure, a referendum is always risky to both sides of the debate because of its elements of uncertainty. By demography, it would appear the "pro-Islamic state" camp has an upper hand but growing global influences has created big pockets of Malay urban middle-class, attracted to vague ambiguities of native, secular lifestyles.

In a secret vote, their allegiance is very much in play. Assuming all sides of the debate is neatly delineated along racial-ethnic religious lines, the non-"Islamic state" position could be stronger in a future referendum on the issue.

To offer safeguards in a modern democratic society, constitutional judges and scholars should further elaborate the procedures of referenda in Malaysian Constitution.

Politically, the use of referendum is the only honest solution in today's impasse between advocates of the theological state and secular liberals, who believe in people exercising their social and economic freedoms free from "big government" interference.