CK Tan's 'A multi-religious-based Islamic state?' (July 2) raises an interesting premise. While it is good to be idealistic, there is a major flaw. The two parts of the sentence are diametrically opposed.

Multi-religious and Islamic state? By definition an Islamic state is one guided by the laws of Islam, not by other religions. The entire argument can be boiled down to definitions, but these are critical definitions. Another confused definition is a 'secular state' and a 'secular society'.

Here are where flaws in PAS's key mandate lie. While I admire and respect PAS' integrity and their goals, and admire it as a political party far more than the ruling coalition (an understatement), I still think Karpal Singh hits the nail on its head in this one. If one accepts Malaysia as a multiracial and multireligious society then no one single religion should dominate its government and laws. This does not mean religion shouldn't dominate our private lives. This is where the difference between secular 'state' and 'society' lies.

Why use US as an example of a secular state? It is certainly not a secular society, as Christian right-wingers dominate politics.

What about closer to home? India is a secular state, and a fine example of how religion in politics can be a dangerous thing (and I am not talking Islam).

Turkey, with a majority of Muslims, struggled for a secular state.

Japan, with a majority of Buddhists, is also I believe a secular state.

Why talk about US? Just across the causeway, there's Singapore, a secular state, and one that has succeeded in keeping all religions alive in the homes of its people.

PAS' biggest problem with non-Muslims is not its integrity, but its constant call for an Islamic state,a call that is not difficult to hear because it is everywhere (why not try their book Model Negara Islam launched in June). A few weeks ago, I read a foreign (not local media) report on PAS' acceptance of Chinese as members - well, okay, nice try, but the report stresses that they had to be Muslim. So the issue here is not race, but religion. And the issue does not involve just PAS. I clearly remember Keadilan's Dr Wan Azizah telling CNN that Malaysia is an Islamic country, it certainly was a surprise to me.

My question to our potential leaders is this: With over 40 percent of non-Muslims in Malaysia, why is there a pressing need to Islamise the government? Isn't there already a strong infrastructure for the study and practice of Islam on the ground level? If it can be improved, shouldn't it be improved at ground level, by people who are dedicated to that function, rather than in the legislation and running of a country?

A non-Muslim PAS-sympathiser told me that Islamic principles were consistent with other religions. We all know this. In general all religions advance the same ideas, only in different ways. Why then is there a need to tag our government with just one religion? I say because it is precisely that. A tag, a branding, to put it in advertising lingo.

Because if these leaders felt that Islamic principles were so important to legislature, they can very well incorporate their principles and practice, without having to brand it. But then that defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it? So we cannot incorporate tolerance and virtues into government without branding it Islamic. And our laws cannot be made more transparent and just without similar branding? I don't buy the idea. Aren't Christian laws, or Buddhist laws, just as virtuous?

It is clear that this is all political leverage. PAS, as well as other Muslim opposition leaders, cannot live without the obvious advantages Islamic branding offers them. And when they knowingly opt for this branding, they have to let go of those who won't bite.

You can't have it both ways. I am not Muslim, and as much as I admire the values advanced by that religion, I want my leaders to govern, not preach. And I also want my private religious views respected.

Which brings me back to Karpal Singh's statements. While I am constantly amazed to read negative comments about him and his party, the most amazing thing I have so far read is that DAP is a Chinese communal-type party. Karpal Singh is the most interesting-looking Chinese man I have ever seen. One of your readers, Raymond Chin ('Troublesome DAP should be expelled', June 30), has successfully succumbed to the smokescreen that clouds the issue.

It is not about race. Nor is it about values and a society guided by spiritual goodness. It is about positioning for power. As long as PAS sticks to its Islamic manifesto, which is transparently its very reason for existence (which is not a bad thing, don't misinterpret me, just a statement of fact), then it by nature cannot expect to appeal to non-Muslims. Just answer a few simple questions. Will PAS ever allow Hindus and Buddhists into their party? Can PAS ever imagine being headed by a Sikh? And why not? Now let's extrapolate that to the eventuality if PAS should ever be the ruling party of Malaysia. You figure.

So what about BA? It is a collaboration of disparate parties to fight a common enemy. Unfortunately, I don't see a happy ending. It is an unhappy alliance of individually vested interests.

What of Keadilan? Just a simple observation: Who was Keadilan before the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim? They represented the very same people whom we are fighting against now. The only difference is that they have made a martyr of the man in the name of justice for all. Where was justice before all this hullabaloo?

If you clear off all the drama and hype, it is not difficult to remember that through the years, the only cry for justice came from the one we all love to malign now, DAP. I say cheers to them.