The recent announcement made by DAP's Lim Kit Siang on his intention to take on Gerakan's Dr Lim Keng Yaik in a debate on Islamic state reminisces the confrontational and dogged political style and leadership approach of Lim which has brought him numerous electoral successes (especially in the 70s and 80s where racial tension was at its peak) as well as negative impact on his parliamentary contributions.

In fact, in the words of the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon, Lim would have been a more effective and respected opposition leader if not for his combativeness.

Perhaps as a precursor to the debate, Lim might want to respond to these questions. First, could Lim define and expound on his concept of secularism which is widely used in his recent political tirade against the notion of Islamic state. It would be useful to note that Lim has used the words 'state' and 'country' or 'nation' synonymously and more so has emphasised on the use of the word 'state' in his anti-Islamic state propaganda with full conscious of its connotation.

It is essential to recognise that there is a fundamental difference between these words. The definition of a state differs from that of a nation (Mingst, 1999). The state is characterised by a central decision-making and an enforcement machinery (a government and an administration) which can be used to implement its agenda (Brown, 1997).

In explaining the difference, Mingst explains that at the core of the concept of a nation is the notion that people having commonalities (language, customs or faith) owe their allegiance to the nation. A state is a legal representative of a nation. Using the examples of Canada and the United States, she further argues that diverse nationalities can exist within the framework of a state.

In keeping to this argument, I said in my previous letter "Malaysia is a Muslim-majority country with more than 52 per cent of its residents being of the Islamic faith. Hence, the party accepts plurality in definition: Muslims are welcomed to call this country an Islamic country and the non-Muslims can also freely define Malaysia as a secular or multi-religious country.

What is more important is that the federal constitution remains as the highest authority of governance and protector of citizen rights and freedom" which was meant to project the contrasting definition of 'state' and 'country' or 'nation'. At the same time, I have also emphasised that the legal framework which envelopes the various nationalities must be subjected to the federal constitution which is in essence secular.

At the embarrassment of distorting my core argument, Lim had also vilified me in his responses that I lack political backbone for stating that it is possible for the concept of plurality and diversity of nationalities to exist in the framework of a state.

Another writer, Praba Ganesan, in his well-meaning reply pointed out that a nation "can only have plurality of interests and governance, but a nation can have only one definition " which I disagree with but found that he is even more liberal for stating that a nation can subject itself to multiple governance models hence, putting himself at risk of being misunderstood for professing that a subtle form of hybrid governance e.g. Islamic state and secular state can co-exist side-by-side as long as there is only one official definition. If this is ever the case, I would vehemently oppose to its existence, however remote the chance is.

Second, having laid the foundation to sort out the difference of definition between 'state' and 'nation' or 'country', Lim is still mute to my response that his inability to differentiate between Islamic 'state' from Islamic 'country' is what has clouded DAP's political partnership with PAS. It is obvious that PAS' Islamic state concept is not centred on the paramountcy of the federal constitution or parliamentary democratic principles, but on the Quran and Hadith as the source of laws and policies.

Under such circumstance, it is not wrong to claim that DAP's partnership with PAS is centred on the former preoccupation with power, even at the expense of subjugating or 'pawning' its political principle. Lim jingoistic propaganda and claim of championing the freedom of the people from hegemonic theocratic rule is highly questionable in view of his inability to justify his party's cooperation with PAS in the 1999 general election.

Furthermore, DAP's Kerk Kim Hock's press statement which said that his party will continue to collaborate with PAS on specific issues especially on human rights is a clear endorsement of PAS' paradoxes and double-faced political strategy which on one hand promises democracy but on the other hand implements sexist rules and regulations aimed at 'correcting' public order using its radical morality apparatus. Adding on to the doubt, the appearance of some high profile DAP leaders at PAS political talks is a reflection of DAP's political deftness in manipulating the Islamic state issue. DAP should sack those leaders if it is serious in its 'Defend Secular Malaysia' campaign.

Third, can Lim prove that his anti-Islamic state campaign by playing up the secularist sentiment is not an attempt to move the ground of non-Muslims who are suspicious of the Islamic state aspiration projected by PAS and some radical Umno members in order to gain electoral support from this ground? And in the process, contribute to the already serious polarisation in our society.

Lim's combativeness is also made worse by his aversion to fair play. He manipulated my remark on Chinese education by claiming that I "blamed the Chinese mother-tongue education for social ills such as high dropout rate, prostitution and criminal activities and that the main reason for Chinese students failing to get employment is lack of English proficiency."

I pointed out that both DAP and Dong Jiao Zong should not merely resort to the possible change in the character of the Chinese vernacular schools as the main reason of rejecting change and improvement. Such an attitude may breed complacency and a false sense of confidence of the supremacy of the vernacular school system.

Instead, we should look into the claims contained in the report compiled by the Education Ministry which revealed many other astonishing issues and problems that plagued the system. Lim's reaction and response magnified and confirmed his preference for status quo and regressive mindset.

If my remark is defamatory, his claims at the DAP Perak forum on "Astro and Indians as the Underclass" were even more outrageous in nature. Lim ascribed two developments of the Indian community, one as 'underclass' and the other as 'criminal class', to the leadership failure of Samy Vellu.

Lim's direct attribution of the successes and failures of the Indian community to a single person is problematic especially when the community has proven to be self-resilient and independent. Inevitably, Lim may have also overstated the importance and role of Samy Vellu and that he alone can mould and shape the fortune of the Indian community.

On this note, while I can understand the intention of Lim in highlighting the failure of Samy Vellu's leadership in enhancing the prosperity of his community, I am appalled by his reaction to my remark on the Chinese vernacular education system.

Perhaps this is driven by his own chauvinism and flawed conclusion of the supremacy and reverence of Chinese culture and whatever that is linked to it, to the point that it promotes stagnation. The nascent Chinese new world order, in the context of modernisation, is trying exactly to avoid this pit hole.

It will be interesting to find out what Lim is trying to achieve out of this debate and his frantic polemics on secularism.