Article 8 (1) of Federation Constitution provides that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law” and “there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment”45. 33. However, it is essential to note that the “gender” provided by Article 8(1) of Federal Constitution translated into national language is “jantina” (which means “sex”). The interpretation of these two words have brought different arguments to the provision. 34. Bearing in mind that although the Federal Constitution is meant to uphold the fundamental liberties of all, for a Muslim, Syariah criminal laws applies to them which also often referred to as “moral laws”. Moreover, article 8(5) (a) of the Federal Constitution states that the Article 8 “does not invalidate or prohibit any provision regulating personal law”, which relates to Islamic affairs enumerated in the state list under item 1 of List II of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution which includes …”creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included In the Federal list…”. 35. In addition, Article 3(1) states that Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Hence the impact on diverse gender and sexualities orientation are very significant. This coupled with the general understanding of gender identity not only have legal but also cultural and social impacts. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, article 3 (4) of the Federal Constitution stated that “nothing in this Article derogates from any provision of this Constitution”. It is also worth noting that article 4(1) on the supremacy of the Federal Constitution stated that any law passed which is inconsistent with Constitution shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency, and there was no mentioned that laws needed to comply with Sunnah and Quran46. In the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor the Supreme Court held that the “term “Islam” or “Islamic religion” in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in the context means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies”. 45 Article 8(2) of Federal Constitution 46 “The meaning of ‘Islam’ in Art. 3(1) is explained by the Supreme Court in Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55 (the panel comprising Salleh Abas LP, Wan Sulaiman SCJ, Seah SCJ, Hashim Yeop A. Sani SCJ (as he then was) and Syed Agil Barakbah SCJ), as follows (at p. 56): “In our view, it is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the word ‘Islam’ in the context of Article 3. If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution, unless such law is contrary to the latter.” Report On Transgender Persons In KL And Selangor | 19