Khoo Kay Peng's letter ( DAP should differentiate between Islamic 'state' and Islamic 'country' ) is a reflection of the muddled thinking of the writer on this particular subject as well as his veiled and ill-conceived attempt to propagate falsehoods and half-truths on other issues, not to mention a rehashing of old arguments.

Firstly, Khoo appears to have gone off-tangent and missed the whole point of what is at stake in the debate on Islamic state. Instead of using academic niceties to explain away and even obscure the real issues involved, Khoo could have done better by responding to the core arguments as to why Malaysia is not an Islamic state.

An examination of the political and legal history of Malaysia would reveal that Malaysia is clearly a secular state. This is evidenced by various historic documents and judicial pronouncements. Both the reports of the Federation of Malaya Constitution Commission, 1956-57 and the Commission of Inquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962 had stated that the observance of the principle that Islam is the official religion shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practicing their own religions and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS), in a statement on Jan 31, 2002, reiterating the stand of the council after Dr. Mahathir had declared Malaysia as an Islamic state on Sept 29, 2001, had this to say:

"When Malaya and later Malaysia was founded there was a social contract among the different communities of different races and religions on the type of constitution the country shall be governed by. Such social contract was then enshrined in our constitution and cannot be changed without consultation and consent of all the communities that make up Malaysia

"In 1988, we deemed it necessary to come out with a declaration. More than 13 years later, we are of the view that the situation has become worse and therefore find it appropriate to reiterate our stand and urge the federal and all state governments to respect the rights of every person to freedom of religion and recognise that Malaysia is constitutionally a secular state."

One must also not forget the advice of our nation's founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman. At his 80th birthday hosted by Barisan Nasional leaders on Feb 8, 1983, he said that "the country has a multiracial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular state with Islam as the official religion." ( The Star , Feb 9, 1983)

It would be interesting to find out what Khoo and his party Gerakan have to say on the above. Despite all the hot air generated by Gerakan president Dr Lim Keng Yaik about taking on DAP national chairman Lim Kit Siang in a debate on Islamic state, the former appears to have shied away. I suspect that Gerakan is at a loss to defend the indefensible, vis a vis its ludicrous argument that Malaysia had always been an Islamic state.

Malaysia is a secular state precisely because it is governed by an essentially secular constitution, a fact that Khoo seems to have forgotten. The DAP's 'Defend Secular Malaysia' campaign is aimed at nothing more than to call on all Malaysians to uphold and reaffirm the secular nature of our polity which was never in dispute until Mahathir's unilateral and unconstitutional Islamic state declaration. There is no new concept of secularism which Khoo imagines the DAP to be advocating.

What is disconcerting about Mahathir's declaration is the possible sea-change in nation building that it would engender, particularly in the face of on-going competition between PAS and Umno to out-Islam each other. There is no guarantee that the present status quo would remain the same, as there is always the danger that rhetoric can easily become reality. Khoo should realise that the issue at hand is not about differences in definitions but about the very real implications of an Islamic state. In any event, Khoo's contention that Lim had confused the different terminologies is inaccurate as the term "Islamic state" had consistently been used in the many press statements issued by Lim.

Khoo's accusation that Lim had vilified him for lacking political backbone is again inaccurate and misconstrued, as Lim's criticism is directed against the Gerakan leadership for not having the guts to speak out against Mahathir's declaration.

On Khoo's argument that "Muslims are welcomed to call this country an Islamic country and the non-Muslims can also freely define Malaysia as a secular or multireligious country", Praba Ganesan in his letter said, "There cannot be plurality in Islamic state definition, which Khoo referred to, had correctly opined that the latter's contention is rationally flawed and that "[one] cannot call a country many things just so that everyone gets to define the nation in a way that pleases them and their sentiments." That is precisely the point. Either Malaysia is an Islamic state or not. I am afraid that the approach taken by Khoo is more harmful than helpful as truth and clarity may be sacrificed in the process.

Finally, Khoo had also accused Lim of manipulating his remark on Chinese education. Perhaps it would be best for readers to judge for themselves whether this is the case or if the opposite is true and whether Khoo's own subsequent attack on the character of Lim is not overboard, unjustified and malicious.