I wish to reply to MK Eng's 'Don't fall into DAP's trap' (Dec 19) and Charles Soong's 'DAP - pawn in the divide-and-rule game (Dec 19). By calling for a secular front, the DAP leaders are true to the party's struggle for the past 35 years, i.e. hold dear the concept of a just, free, secular and multi-religious democratic Malaysia.

It is a call not only directed to Keadilan and PRM, or the other opposition forces in the country, but a call extended to secularists and democrats currently aligning themselves with the ruling coalition. Such a call for a secular front is not limited to the non-Muslims but also the majority Muslim population to be a part of the decision making process to decide the country's future.

Using simplistic logic to equate the call for a secular front by DAP as "aiding and abetting" the oppressive Mahathir regime, MK Eng exposed himself as one who sees the world only in black and white. This is clearly inconsistent with the so-called 'rainbow coalition' concept advocated by his fellow comrades in Keadilan.

One could not help but notice that MK Eng was so untrue to himself that he can blatantly write that "PAS, even though we disagree with the ultimate objective it proclaims, is more sincere and consistent in standing by friends and helping allies in times of crisis".

The somewhat similar line was, 'coincidentally', found in Charles Soong's letter, who wrote that "it is only PAS that is capable of putting enough pressure on Umno in the heartland so that Umno cannot spread its resources to other constituencies" and that "PAS can never win enough seats in parliament to amend the constitution" to realise its Islamic state objective.

The opportunistic element and unfriendliness in such analyses toward PAS is easily detectable from these two opinions.

It is unimaginable that a self-respecting party like PAS would tolerate people who are trying to 'use' their partners in the BA for their own goal.

Charles Soong and MK Eng chose not to see this pertinent point in the whole issue, but instead urged the DAP to "stick with a friend (PAS)" instead of being true to its objective. The citing of the Fong Po Kuan and Lim Guan Eng issues as their proof that "the honest and upright Malay/Muslims oppositionists and their supporters who came to DAP's defence", exposed the inability of the two to realise that these two cases are not so much about the DAP, but concern the larger question of justice and freedom for all Malaysians.

Thus the support shown by "the honest and upright Malay/Muslims oppositionists and their supporters" is an encouraging sign that more people are awakening to issues of justice and freedom, beyond race and religion. Unfortunately this is not appreciated by the two but instead regarded as a partisan gain for the DAP.

But what is most worrying from the two opinions is not the partisan line on the issues of human rights and justice, but the ignorance and naivety about the most important issue currently facing the country, i.e. the marginalisation of the original mainstream national agenda to develop a democratic, secular and multireligious Malaysia, which is giving way to the agenda of Islamic state of Umno and PAS.

The inability of many to see beyond the short-term benefits of DAP remaining in the BA (retaining the support of the Malay and Muslim community in the hopes of toppling the BN, irrespective of the result of the change and whether every citizen will have a say on the final result of the change), is actually a great disservice to the country in general, an irresponsible daydream and a very dangerous political game.

MK Eng was probably right when he said that the party that is 'panicking' now is the DAP - but not for its own survival; rather, because DAP is the only party in the country that sees the problem facing our people and dares to speak up against friends and foes whose acts and decisions are threatening the secular nature of Malaysia.