With reference to 'DAP keen on exploiting race-based issues' by Khoo Kay Peng, executive director of Gerakan's think-tank, Sedar in malaysiakini, the immediate question that comes to mind is since when has Sedar become an apologist for the Gerakan leadership, especially when Sedar professes to be an independent think-tank?

On the issue of corruption, the DAP national chairman Lim Kit Siang had made it very clear that the thrust of his criticism against Dr S Vijayaratnam was the fact that the latter could be satisfied with Malaysia's 33rd or 34th placing in the Transparency International's (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI), calling it commendable when the prime minister himself had set much higher standards in the battle to eradicate corruption.

How could Malaysia's present ranking be considered commendable when the country's ranking had been on the decline since the CPI was introduced seven years ago? Never mind the fact that Vijayaratnam only touched on the TI index for the first time in seven years and after the prime minister had vowed to make Malaysia the cleanest country in the world. It seems Gerakan only discovered the TI index after Mahathir made reference to it. That says a lot about the party.

Khoo had also attacked Lim on the issue of the Islamic state and DAP's cooperation with PAS by making several baseless and unsubstantiated allegations. Let us put the record straight by stating that the DAP had agreed to cooperate with PAS, Keadilan and PRM as the party leadership saw it as a momentous opportunity in Malaysia's political history to forge a viable multi-racial opposition front that would win the confidence of the rakyat in breaking Barisan Nasional's two-third majority in Parliament and paved the way for greater democratisation in the country.

And such agreement was entered into according to the clear and explicit terms of the Barisan Alternative manifesto and with the assurance by PAS that it would not talk about the setting up of an Islamic state. Should the DAP be blamed then for PAS' reneging of its promise?

The DAP's 'No to 929' and 'Defend Secular Malaysia' campaigns are aimed at creating public awareness about the implications of an Islamic state whether it be one envisioned by Umno or PAS.

The party sees it as its political responsibility to educate the people on what an Islamic state entails and the tectonic shift that would take place if the prime minister's Islamic state declaration were to be accepted. It is the rakyat, whether Malay, Chinese or Indian, who must decide whether they want to accept the '929 Declaration' which has grave legal and political implications.

The same, however, cannot be said about the Gerakan leadership, which did not have the courage to reject Mahathir's '929 Declaration' especially when the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikkhism (MCCBCHS), which represents the Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, had made a clear stand that Malaysia's secular constitutional nature should not be tampered with.

Gerakan's contention that the Muslims and non-Muslims are free to call Malaysia an Islamic state or secular state is no different from the MCA's oxymoronic argument that Malaysia is a "secular Islamic state". If we truly want to forge a united Malaysian race, should we not collectively agree on how we view the character of our nation?

Otherwise, how can Vision 2020 be a reality if Muslims and non-Muslims were to see the country differently? Is this not creating another divide that we can do without?

On seat negotiation between DAP and Keadilan, Khoo should be clear on his facts as DAP had never insisted that the party would contest in all Chinese majority seats. We do not understand why Khoo chooses to accuse the DAP for lacking political principle when the reason for the stalled negotiation process was the party's contention that Keadilan leaders had unfairly leaked out details to the press which had put in jeopardy the entire talks.

Finally, on Lim's criticism of Gerakan leader Dr Lim Keng Yaik on teaching maths and science in English, let us say that Lim was in fact impressed with the arguments put forth by the latter but was however gravely disappointed by Gerakan's abandonment of the educational principles and practices advocated by the party when the issue was raised in the cabinet.

In case Khoo thinks that the DAP had never given any constructive proposals, let us remind him about the party's 1-2-3 proposal which is aimed at enhancing English proficiency, maintaining traditional high standards of mathematics and science and preserving the character of mother-tongue education.

On this note, one can only conclude that Khoo's criticisms against the DAP national chairman were more of a malicious than constructive nature. Khoo should also name the DAP leaders which he had dialogue with so that his allegation that the party is inclined to play the racial card can be verified.