When DAP's Karpal Singh, Kerk Kim Hock and Teng Cheng Khim criticised PAS deputy president, Abdul Hadi Wang Hadi's suggestion to close down the Genting casino, they may as well save their breath and heed what malaysiakini columnist Dr Farish A Noor said in his articles 'Humpty Dumpty politics' (Nov 3) and 'Of mortal ulamas and belly buttons' (Oct 21) .

According to Farish, PAS was "a party whose ideology is rooted in a religio-political discourse of absolutes" and whose ulamaks "speak the language of unambiguous and unshakable absolutes.

Yes, PAS asserts and may well honour its claims to respecting the cultural and religious practices of non-Muslims in general and the Chinese community in particular whose electoral support PAS canvasses.

But because of moral absolutism based on faith, PAS will neither understand nor tolerate the perspective of moral relativism as applied especially to those of either a different or secular faith as touched on by your reader Paul Warren in 'Casino closure infringes non-Muslims' right' (June 18).

To PAS' argument that gambling was not a way of life for the Chinese, gambling though not a way of life, is however a way of pastime and indulgence of many Chinese worldwide especially during festive seasons.

Gambling, like alcohol consumption, is, of course, an unproductive pastime and even a vice if indulged upon immoderately as Lim Goh Tong, the chairperson of Genting Berhad, would himself agree.

But that is not the point really, isn't it?

The point is, freedom of religion and culture, as translated to non-Muslim perspective, will necessarily include being free to make moral choices under a political and cultural milieu in which religion and government/laws is separate (never mind that the government may actively sponsor or promote religion).

To be able to make without legal consequences a wrong moral choice that brings harmful consequences to one's own self, subject to there being no harm to others, is as much a political and legal right from the non-Muslim perspective.

To be subject to laws and norms requiring stricter observance of religiosity and moral conduct in the personal lives by reason of fusion between religion and government, is therefore a flagrant infringement of the rights of those who do not share the same faith and religion. This is the inescapable conclusion.

Fears of such a fundamental infringement cannot be allayed and ameliorated by PAS' tolerance of pig farming or support for lion dances or the Mooncake Festival.

According to the AFP report in malaysiakini ('PAS to appoint Chinese Muslim to party's central committee', June 18), PAS would soon appoint a Chinese Muslim to its party's executive body and central working committee. Mahfuz Omar, the PAS youth chief, said the decision was aimed at highlighting the sensitivities of the Chinese community and a step towards fostering closer ties with non-Muslims. The party wished to 'understand the culture and needs of the Chinese community', and he further said: "This proves that PAS is a multi-racial party concerned with the welfare of all races," he said, adding that the candidate is a Chinese Muslim convert. Only Muslims qualify to be PAS members.

The point that Mahfuz missed is that the obliteration of the distinction based on race cannot be satisfactorily substituted by a distinction based on religion!

Between the two forms of discriminations, arguably racial discrimination is more understandable and tolerable than religious discrimination. At least the former is more prevalent worldwide including in parts of the more developed and civilised world.

DAP, however, comes from a platform that eschews all forms of discrimination, whether racial or religious. DAP espouses a liberal democratic and pluralistic agenda and PAS a theocratic fundamentalist ideology.

Yet DAP is prepared to cooperate with PAS merely for an electoral chance to defeat Barisan Nasional.

DAP's recognition of PAS' ability to command substantial Malay votes (in comparison to Keadilan or PRM) and PAS' recognition of DAP in garnering the non-Muslim votes was the raison d'tre for this cooperation. (Farish summed it most sovereignly in "Of mortal ulama and belly buttons', Oct 21, by saying: "It almost seems that in order to maintain the fragile instrumental coalition that is the Barisan Alternatif, some of the BA leaders are willing to cut cards with the devil (perhaps not the wisest turn of phrase, but never mind) and get into a working coalition with parties that hold political views and ideological positions radically different from their own."

In so cooperating, both place political expedience above ideological principles.

The only difference is that the traditional constituencies of both PAS and DAP believe, and rightly so, that it would be PAS that would be able to eventually use DAP rather than the other way around. Hence in the last election, PAS gained more states, and DAP suffered a desertion of its traditional constituencies which had more to do with the non-Muslims' fear of PAS' theocratic and fundamentalist policies than the support of the BN's moribund ones.

(This is why the corollary holds equally plausible that the greatest electoral threat to BN remains the severance of PAS from BA that will render the coalition a more viable and acceptable one to all spectrums and segments of this multi-racial and cultural society.)

It should be obvious that if in an electoral defeat on BA's part, a PAS leader could take over the mantle of opposition leader, then surely in an election victory, its leader will become the prime minister to form the cabinet and government and dictate policies. That's the time for PAS to further consolidate its power and Islamisation programme. It is the belief in this that accounts for why PAS' strength continues to grow in tandem with DAP's continued marginalisation as a political force.

In summation, the DAP trio above mentioned should, like Lim Kit Siang, not clamour so loudly at Hadi's suggestion of the Genting casino's closure. Hadi was just being honest (in both words and intention), and DAP should know better.

DAP should eat the soup it stewed. No man who married his wife with eyes open should immediately thereafter complain about her warts and traits that he ought to know better.