In the concluding part of a Q&A with malaysiakini readers, Gerakan secretary-general Chia Kwang Chye fields questions on the party's views on the 'Islamisation' of Malaysia, expansion of civil liberties and post-Mahathir politics.

The declaration by Dr Mahathir Mohamad that Malaysia is already an Islamic state ( sic) was made at a Gerakan delegates' conference. DAP has used this issue to attack your party. Will this hurt your electoral chances in the upcoming elections?

Chia Kwang Chye

: Under the Federal Constitution, Islam is the official religion although religious freedom is also guaranteed. The majority of the population is made up of Muslims and Malaysia is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference. So the declaration by the PM that Malaysia is an Islamic country (" negara Islam ") is a statement of fact.

The constitution has not been amended and there is no intention by the government to amend it. If you look at the broader picture, there has been no change to our lifestyles or to any policy of the country.

If these issues are not properly explained, then yes DAP's (attacks) would affect us. But so far, DAP has been neither consistent nor sincere in (its) handling of Islamic issues. They have flip-flopped many times.

DAP's stand has always been emotive, emotional and opportunistic. In 1986, they did well because of their anti-Islamic stand. It is only when their fortunes were changing after 1995 that they colluded with PAS. To me, this is something that cannot be forgiven.

After 1999, they realised that this strategy hurt badly so they flip-flopped back to their anti-Islamic stand. Even then, it was not done immediately after the 1999 elections. They made the decision only after the Sept 11, 2001 incident (terror attacks in the US) and on the eve of the Sarawak state elections.

By 1999, Kelantan had been under PAS for some years and if I am not mistaken, they had already passed the hudud laws. To say that (DAP) thought PAS would not press the issue would be naive. They knew about PAS' stand for so many years, so why did they join them? If you look at the way they make their decisions, it is all based on political calculations.

Till today, I think DAP sees Umno as a bigger enemy than PAS. They seem to spend more time and energy attacking the more moderate stand of Umno when people should be made more aware of the more extremist stand of PAS.

I think the declaration by the (former) prime minister also exposed PAS' opportunistic stand to set up an Islamic state in a multi-racial country.

PAS now has a dual manifesto - one for national level and one for state level. After all these years of talking, PAS has not been able to come up with a document on their concept of Islamic state. Either they are confused or they are buying time to hoodwink non-Muslims into supporting them. I think it is more the latter.

It should be like this: if someone wants to know what is an Islamic state, (PAS) should be able to give a document which explains this.

DAP has also been trying to hoodwink the people on the concept of a secular state. The true definition of a secular state is that religion has no role in government or schools, (only) in private life.

This is not the situation in Malaysia. Islam is the official religion, so the country cannot be considered as secular anymore. In a true secular state, you cannot wear any religious garments in government or in schools, (as happens) in France and Turkey.

DAP has to decide what it means by a secular state.

There has been a lot of Islamisation going on under the BN government that has nothing to do with PAS. What has Gerakan done within BN about it?

We are dealing with an extreme end of the spectrum versus a more moderate end. The onslaught from the extreme end is coming on strongly. If we don't work with the moderate, we would be overwhelmed.

Sometimes, it is a matter of survival. We cannot have a purely secular state so the only way is to work with the moderate Muslims. Only by working with them and making them feel comfortable that we are able to check extreme policies. We don't have a choice.

How would your party respond to (DAP chairperson) Lim Kit Siang's challenge to debate with Gerakan president, Dr Lim Keng Yaik on this issue?

I don't think we should fall into the trap (set by) Kit Siang. He is taking it to a very personal level. We don't want to see it as a Kit Siang versus Keng Yaik issue. We would give too much credit to Kit Siang. We would prefer to rationally and truthfully explain the issues to the people.

It has been said that Gerakan's role in Barisan Nasional (BN) is to act as the 'conscience of the BN'. Penang leaders such as Dr Toh Kin Woon have spoken out against the Internal Security Act (ISA). How successful has Gerakan been in playing this role?

We have not changed on that and it is manifested at different levels. We have a bigger space for democratic dissent - we allow members to have differing views. However, we would also like to be a disciplined party. Once a decision has been made by the party, we want to see our members abiding by it. If no decision has been made, then we do allow members to have differing views.

The issue of rights is often seen as an opposition issue. There is a need for a party in the government to speak on rights but it hasn't always been this way. Why has Gerakan not been more outspoken on the ISA issue, for instance?

It is a misconception and we should not assume that government parties have surrendered the right to speak on rights issues. I don't think we have surrendered that right. We will continue to speak out, maybe more at the individual level. At the leadership level, BN has its own discipline. Even though parties may have different stands, once the BN make its stand known, we as a component party have to follow it.

What is the general sentiment of the leaders in your party on the state of our country's political development in the post-Mahathir period?

I cannot speak for the other leaders and it is also too early to tell. We do not expect to see much changes in the government or BN.

The system we have is a permanent coalition system and all parties have equal representation in the BN supreme council. Aside from that there is the cabinet, so collective responsibility and decision-making has always been there.

No one can deny that Mahathir has a very strong character and (has been) very forceful, but the cabinet system still allows ministers a lot of power.

Political styles and relationships are different from one person to another. Experience and length of leadership definitely make a lot of difference, so we have to be fair to the new PM.

Is the Malaysian public mature enough to decide for itself on issues without continuous government censorship (e.g. Instant Caf Theatre's (ICT) Bolehwood controversy, raid on malaysiakini )? If the public voted the government in and the government considers the public immature, how would this reflect on the government?

Malaysia is one of the most sensitive countries in the world with regard to religion, culture and values. I still think self-restraint is best but this calls for understanding of each other's culture and values. If we have that, then we can allow freedom for people to do what they like.

The question here is whether you would prefer to resolve conflicts or impose restraint and some guidelines to prevent clashes from happening. In this respect, I would say there is no (single) fixed way of doing things and we need to evolve over time.

The (Energy, Communications and Multimedia Ministry) is only responsible for material on electronic media such as television and radio. We do not (touch) even the Internet. The decision on the ICT show was made by the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur.

We should not make rulings that are too restrictive. Secondly, we must also be sensitive to people's feelings. Yes, (artistes) can criticise or make fun of political figures, but hopefully there is no malicious intent.

More importantly, everyone has a legal recourse to sue for slander or libel. The party concerned should also not go under the cover of freedom of speech but be subject to all laws of the country. If those are the rules of the game, then yes, there should be more freedom.