My letter on ' Tok Guru's limit on lipstick and perfume ' seems to have attracted more attention that I had intended. First it was Fatimah ( The Tok Guru too is human ) who thought that I had to be a lot more reverent when talking about or referring to the Tok Guru.

Now there is Abdul Hakim ( Unwise to criticise the Tok Guru ) who appears to believe that I had transgressed into someone else's religious territory...which once again was not my intention and certainly did not do.

Fact of the matter is that if this was purely a Muslim matter then the Tok's advice should have been confined to the religious papers to be read only by Muslims. Unfortunately this was published in the daily Barisan Nasional-controlled press and there was no where that was stated that the advice was purely for the consumption of Muslims.

If indeed what Abdul Hakim says applies, than it would seem like he is suggesting that Muslim men respond only to the dressing of Muslim women. It would be very nice and comforting for the rest of us to know that whatever our dressing, or lack of it, would not endanger our women from uncontrollable Muslim men. Try telling that to Canny Ong's family!

We also need to discuss the position of the Tok Guru. Obviously my reference to him as Tok Guru appears to refer to the positioning and platform he wishes to be seen on. He wants to put himself up as a religious man of God motivated by that calling.

He feels compelled to push the religious button every opportunity he gets and wants to be quoted as such carrying the authority that such a position in any community in any religion endows upon him. When one does that, then it is only right that any comment at all be confined to people from within that community and within that religion.

However, the Tok Guru is also the menteri besar of Kelantan. He is also the spiritual head of PAS, a political party whose ambitions are to rule this nation of almost 40 percent non-Muslim inhabitants. What it is about him that has earned him the right to be quoted, not only in the national press, but also in the international press? Is it his Muslim credentials or is it his authority to rule over a state and people, i.e his political credentials?

Indeed we all know only too well, the religious credentials of any living individual that have earned them frequent reference in the media for their proclamations. Christianity has the Pope and occasionally the Archbishop of Canterbury. In Islam for as long as Ayatollah Khomeni was alive, he was quoted. In Malaysia, none of the ulamas or the imams are ever quoted. Amongst the Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, the Dalai Lama is quoted more often than he might deserve. After all, he is only supposed to be supreme head within the Tibetan Buddhist community.

Does anyone outside Malaysia have any reverence for the Tok Guru? Would I be right to say that if not for his political credentials he would not have got any mention in the local press? Have I earned my right to respond to this man who according to Fatimah is after all only human?

I have no intention to denigrate and transgress into the beliefs and practice of Muslims or indeed anyone else. However, someone who sees himself only as a religious person motivated by his faith has really got no business standing on the political platform which can attract a whole lot of attention.

He cannot on the one hand benefit from the exposure that the political platform provides and yet seek cover within his religious cloak when the going begins to get tough. A religious man too can put others in danger when he drives a car. If he was to commit a driving offence, should he be excused because he is a man of the cloth?