In reference to Lee Ban Chen's 'The Islamic state debacle' (Nov 12), what Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's "political gimmick" intends to do is to reconcile the increasing religiosity of Umno's Muslim constituency and their aspirations on one hand with the multiracial-pluralistic realities of the country and non-Muslims' rights of the other.

To counter the radical winds of political Islam blowing from the Middle East, since the Iranian revolution deposing the Shah, the government had in the 1980s and 90s sought to up the ante in its own Islamisation programme of establishing more places of worship, Islamic banking, the International Islamic University and Islamic think-tanks and research centres, and in the process it should not surprise anyone that the Muslim constituency is now more religiously conscious.

Equally, the multicultural, multiracial and multireligious character of the country and the rights of non-Muslims on whose support the Barisan Nasional also depends cannot be ignored.

So out of necessity, comes the contradictory term of a "secular Islamic state" - secular for non-Muslim, Islamic for Muslim, so that everyone will not be dissatisfied.

For those who complain about this dichotomy, isn't "compromise" the main mantra of co-existence and cornerstone of nation building in Malaysia? Doesn't this country have the right to forge her own identity based on the uniqueness of her plurality? Can detractors reverse the religious consciousness of Muslims after two decades of pro-active Islamisation or Islamise non-Muslims? If not what is the practical solution in realpolitik?

The object has consistently been to make this country a modern Islamic state different from those in other parts of the Muslim world wallowing in the backwaters of development or torn in internecine strife. The Islamic state a la Malaysia seeks to combine Islamic values alongside secular laws and institutions underpinning economic development and co-operation with the non-Muslim world and their different systems of thought in this Global Village.

As no state can claim a monopoly of what constitutes the ideal Islamic state, Malaysia's unique and modern version with its 'non-exclusivist' and culturally porous and tolerant approach will serve as a model for the rest of the Muslim world especially in the aftermath of Sept 11.

To allay fears of MCA's constituency, MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik said: "Many things can be called by more than one name. A rose in English is a rose, in Mandarin it is mei-kwei , in Malay, bunga mawar , and in Tamil, roja , but they all mean the same thing."

The fact is that the so-called "secular Islamic state" is not just a play of semantics on how a rose is described. It is a different flower - a hibiscus.

The line taken by the Bar Council that Dr Mahathir's declaration is "essentially a political statement" which did not affect freedom of religion nor change the secular status of the country as expressed by the constitution ("PM's statement a 'declaration statement': Bar Council", Nov 2) overlooks the fundamental fact that secularity of country and government is connoted by neutrality of government to any religion of which this government is not!

How could former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas say that Article 3 of the constitution vested Islam with only a ritualistic and ceremonial function, when in reality, hundreds of millions of ringgit have been expended by the state in building mosques, training of religious teachers, infusing of Islamic values in civil service, educational curricula, banking systems, Islamic think-tanks and centres? This is substance, reality rather than form!

The retention of secular institutions like a parliamentary system based on elected representatives making laws based on common law is that which also gives Mahathir's version of the Islamic state the necessary compromise features - its unique strengths- to accommodate non-Malay rights and the imperatives of secular economic development.

This, and not the right of non-Muslims to practise their respective religions, is that which differentiates Mahathir's version from PAS' more conservative, exclusivist and rigid a la Middle East based on Wahibbism.

It will be recalled that PAS does not prohibit non-Muslims from observing their respective faiths. It even allowed the largest sitting Buddha in Southeast Asia to be installed atop the Wat Machimmaram temple in its controlled eastern state.

But PAS' version mandates the adoption of Islamic laws for administration - and governance of both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and the promulgation and interpretation of Islamic laws are the sole preserve of Ulamas who have received the revealed guidance of the Almighty and hence this approach is inconsistent with pluralism or democracy based on sovereignty of the people and their man-made laws.

I therefore conclude that the threat to pluralism democracy and survival of democratic institutions in this country is not posed by Mahathir's version of the Islamic state (warts, ISA and cronyism notwithstanding) but PAS' puristic and rigid version.

In the final analysis, whatever the political framework, the living standards of all peoples have to be raised, mentality opened and exposed to other systems of thought, and there is no point in emulating the Islamic state models of some countries in the Middle East if their model(s) have not raised living standards, and are mired in internecine ethnic or religious conflicts.

Malaysians should not be copycats. If we take pride in our diverse cultural heritage, then we should have no qualms in forging our own destiny or version of the 'Islamic state' based on our own uniqueness and strength drawn from plurality. If there is anything that plurality have taught us, it is not to think in rigid and absolute terms.