I refer to Eileen Ng's report 'PAS says government full of thieves' (Sept 10). Although as a citizen and taxpayer I would loathe the plundering of the nation's coffers as much as Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the revered spiritual chief and chief minister of Kelantan, there are secular laws in this country to address these transgressions and misfeasance, if indeed they could be proven, than the chopping off of the hands of the 'thieves'.

If the 'thief' happens to be a non-Muslim would his hands be equally amputated according to Hudud laws?

I certainly would not wish to see even a thief of my car or a robber of my wallet to have his hands chopped off in a public square as a deterrent. Or that the paramour of my wife be stoned to death. That it is simply not my moral standards in this regard that goes near to prove a measuring cast between the PAS' spiritual leader and me.

The fact that "PAS-ruled Kelantan state passed strict Islamic criminal laws providing for amputation for thieves and stoning for adultery in 1993" which were vetoed by the federal government is disconcerting of PAS' seriousness in this respect that is not acceptable to the rest of us of a different worldview.

Although I acknowledge that gambling is a vice and I lose money in the Genting casino more than I win, this 'vice' is my own business and not that of PAS' or the state if it comes to power.

So what if I were allowed to worship the 30m high, 47m wide statue of Buddha sitting cross-legged in a meditation pose at the Wat Machimmaram temple in sleepy Tumpat town in the eastern state?

Am I supposed to be overjoyed by this expression of religious tolerance by PAS when I as a non-Muslim can't have the freedom to choose to live my life my own way by occasionally gambling in the Genting casino or drinking in my favourite pub even though I know they are vices?

What is life in a morally sanctified and clinically clean milieu without vices but plenty of sermons and moral guardians breathing down my neck in which I am not even allowed the normal foibles of human beings?

If I do not harm anyone else, my vices are my business and not PAS' and that to me is real liberty and freedom - not some morally sanitised Animal Farm supposedly near to heaven in which I am supposedly having freedom because I am allowed to worship the Buddha.

Of course, PAS will encourage the worship of other religions or any religion because as long as people place more importance to religious worship than mundane worldly things they will respect and defer to the clerics.

Though I don't like thieves, I dislike moral guardians even more because the latter try to dictate my private morality or immorality, my weakness and foibles that I treasure more than anything else in the world - this is simply not the business of government - and this more than anything else proves another measuring cast between PAS and the present government.

Freedom of religion is nothing and a poor bargain for loss of personal freedom to live one's own life without interference of the state on private morality. Get this very clear.

Lee Sing Poh, who said that he was unfazed by PAS's Islamic goal as they could always be voted out again if things became unfavourable for the community and that "the mainstream newspapers all depict PAS as evil but I find they have good virtues and they do not force Islam on us," did not know what he was talking about.

In the first place, Lee should not only think narrowly of PAS' policy as affecting his community. He should think of all communities, races, Muslims as well as non-Muslims - in short, the nation's interest.

Secondly, once any party is entrenched in power, it could change the constitution and rules of the game.

What makes Lee think that PAS can be voted out again? If I were a PAS leader, I will make sure that it will not be voted out.

Ask yourself: Why should a party that purportedly carries out the Almighty's mission and laws and purpose be subject to the vagaries of men's feeble electoral system and laws? Does Lee understand the concept of a theocratic state - one that upholds the sovereignty of God's law and executes His purpose? It is not one subject to sovereignty of the people and executes their wish through elected representatives by which voting system is relevant.

Of course, at present PAS has to play by electoral rules or else it cannot gain power.

However, once it does so, it is a different ball game, it will be time to usurp the rights of the people to elect representative and make laws because these rights of the people made by their representatives are nothing when compared with their rights derived from God's laws as divined and made by the ulamas of which the people need to be educated! Where is the need for the parliamentary system?

If you don't believe me, ask PAS leaders whether the premises of what I said are true or are not true! At this stage they won't dare to answer.