In my previous letters I always refrained myself from labelling anyone. I only stick to the issues. I have no idea why my criticism of PAS, its interpretation of Islam, and sometimes simply pointing out the facts could be labelled as smearing, bashing or being ignorant.

So can we stick to the issues here? It does not do PAS or its supporters any good to silence public discourse, especially when it wants to come across as a better alternative then Umno. This leaves a bad impression.

I disagree with Abu Mubarak 's suggestion that people should refrain from public discourse without all, or accurate, information. All a PAS supporter needs to do is to point out the correct source of their information. Then, everyone could be educated and start commenting on the source. I think public discourse is a great source for information. I sure hope that PAS has a website link on the issue of hudud.

Abu Mubarak said he felt being insulted by my remarks. I think he should not be so quick in labelling them as insulting to the religion. After all, they are only remarks towards PAS' interpretation of Islam, which could well be wrong, since they are humans and are bound to making mistakes. Not to mention personal prejudices, which is where most of the comments were on.

On the matter of Muslim's right to practice their religion "in full", I have no objections, as long as it does not infringe on the non-Muslim's right to their daily life, lifestyle, religion and culture. Muslims are all free not to sing, dance and sell or consume alcohol in public. But Muslims have no right in denying others their rights. This applies to all rights, regardless if it affects our livelihood or if it is just simply our hobby.

All limitation and regulations should have sound rational and technical explanations. For example, if the music is too loud after a certain hour, or there has been irresponsible sale of alcohol, then limits can be imposed. The rationale that the rights of the majority needs to be respected cannot be a sound reason, because the rights of the minorities require equal respect.

On the issue of state-owned hotels , we have a problem of selective service based on religion, even though they are funded by all taxpayers. If non-Muslim taxpayers are conducting

functions that include dancing and alcohol, the state-owned hotel has to provide the service because the taxpayer actually 'owns' part of the hotel.

Unless they can ask PAS not to allocate their taxes or specify the percentage to be allocated in building and running these state-own hotels. Otherwise, it will be unfair on non-Muslim taxpayers.

The argument that a liquor ban must be imposed on state-owned hotels because otherwise it would have to force Muslims to sell alcohol, is flawed, unless it means that the employment of the state-owned hotels are limited to Muslims. I hope it is not the case or else it will mean discrimination.

State-owned hotels can set up a separate section handled and operated by non-Muslim employees, with separate accounts that buys and sells liquors to non-Muslims only. They can be in charge of the disco lounge as well. So the disco-dancing, liquor-drinking non-Muslims can enjoy the facilities paid for by their tax money. Of course, I will not object to closing down bars and disco lounges if they turn out to be unprofitable.