I refer to Anak Perelih's letter . Here, we see Anak Perelih clinging to same excuse as had Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, by attempting to whitewash the utterly despicable acts of criminal lust that occurred in Pakistan as just tribal law practised in the frontier regions.

He failed to mention that these frontier regions are actually ruled by Islamic parties, the two largest of which are Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamaat-e-Ulema-Islam. Together with four other Islamic parties, they form the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), governing the regions.

In other words, this brutality was perpetuated in the country's Islamic heartland. The saddest fact, which was eventually brought to light (incidentally by the international secular press), that the alleged crime against the 'aggrieved' party did not actually happen. It was fabricated. By then, the poor innocent girl had already been targeted for pack raping.

What fate did those criminals suffer, particularly the 'judge'? Were he and the other 'animals' stoned to death? Had it not been for the international press, this evil act would have disappeared conveniently for the village elders.

As can be seen, a theocratic state (of any religion) cannot guarantee an absence of crime, or the presence of justice, as PAS would like us to believe. How could there be justice when the people in power are utterly corrupt or lustful perverts.

Recourse to justice through due process is even more impossible in such a state than a secular one, because the political incumbents are Teflon-protected in the name of God, and by the intolerant religious practices that make any questioning of them an act of apostasy and therefore punishable.

Anak Perelih stated that my claim of PAS becoming intolerant once it has been voted into power is simply an assumption. But it is no more an assumption than the one that PAS and its supporters want us to make: that they would be fair and just.

He claimed that states controlled by PAS should be Islamic states, with syariah laws to respect the Muslim majority. What about the minority? At least secular laws do not discriminate against them or the majority. Under a secular state, everyone can practise their religion without fear or favour.

Why should minorities then vote for a party that will deny them the right, among other things, to practise their own culture, conduct themselves along laws recognised by the secular state, or partake in culinary preferences like alcohol or bah-kut-teh? Why should they elect someone into power, in order to have laws and beliefs of a different religion shoved down their throats?

PAS and its followers can do likewise, and we respect your rights. All we ask for is please don't clobber our rights with your beliefs and associated rules.

Voters should not be forced to tolerate the cruel practice of amputations, stoning to death, and other various vicious state-sanctioned punishments whose effect are irreversible should there be any mistake. We have seen such an event occur the Pakistani case, where sheer criminal fabrication led to such a cruel consequence for a young innocent girl a crime to merely satisfy the offenders' lusts.

From such examples around the world, we can see how religious-political leaders, who go generally unchallenged, can determine justice as they see fit, or in accordance with their prejudice, self-interest or even lust. This would be disastrous for democracy and human rights.

In a theocratic state, the clergy assumes position of the ruling elite. The frightening consequence of having such religious-political leaders is that they will find it convenient to resort to their religious 'credentials' to pass unfavourable and invariably unfair judgement on their opponents, shamelessly usurping the prerogative of God.

Indeed, by the very deceitful act of assuming God's position in passing judgement, they become the real sinners. This is the reason why we must oppose PAS from becoming the federal government.