In his letter to malaysiakini, John Chung wasted an opportunity to present a cogent argument and to say something useful to prove why his party, DAP, should not be condemned as an opportunist and a sinner of inconsistency.

Apart from his criticism of my response to Lim Kit Siang as "muddled thinking" and a "veiled and ill-conceived attempt to propagate falsehoods and half-truths", his whole argument rested on a singular premise as an attempt to explain the purpose of DAP's "Defend Secular Malaysia" campaign which is "nothing more than to call on all Malaysians to uphold and reaffirm the secular nature of our polity which was never in dispute until Dr Mahathir's unilateral and unconstitutional Islamic state declaration." If this premise is not "ill-conceived," then it should be misleading.

Although Mahathir was a charismatic prime minister whose words veiled considerable influence on many public policies, he was no sorcerer whose words read like a magical spell which could effect a change almost immediately. The truth is the secular nature of our national politics was not in dispute just because of his declaration at the Gerakan conference.

Islam has always been one of the forces engaging our national politics since the pre-independence period. The political Islam movement, heavily influenced by the Islamic revolution in the Middle East, can be traced back to early twentieth-century through several initiatives led by Syed Sheikh Al-Hadi. His most notable contribution to political Islam was the spread of Islamic reforms which influenced many Muslim intellectuals' thinking at that time.

The spirit of the Islamic reformism eventually led to the formation of the Muslim Malay political movements which included Umno and PAS. The fact that Islam was recognized as an official religion in the Malaysian Constitution did not happen by chance. It was a conscious action to reserve a special place for Islam within the social milieu of our nation.

In the 80's, when the development of political Islam was beginning to take centrestage throughout Southeast Asia especially in Malaysia and Indonesia, Dr Mahathir roped in Anwar Ibrahim, then the president of Abim, to help check on the situation and also to enhance Umno's Islamic foundation and image vis--vis PAS which was a serious competitor in the making.

The turning point of the Islamic force into a major political battleground was when PAS successfully captured Kelantan from the BN government with a landslide victory in the 1990 general election.

There are two parts in the DAP's argument that worries me. First, the position which attributed the declaration made by Dr Mahathir in September 2001 "Malaysia is already an Islamic country" - as the starting block of the Islamisation process which then put the "secular nature of our polity which was never in dispute" in jeopardy and blamed Gerakan for lending its platform to help making it possible is the worst any argument can get.

I would argue that the greatest sin the DAP leaders have committed is to ignore reality and to distort it when convenient to soothe their guilty conscience.

Even Umno was unable to avoid being engulfed into the "holier than thou" contestations and Gerakan, like other political parties in the ruling coalition felt the same. The party had to choose to support and collaborate with the more moderate force.

It is obvious that Umno has manifested the moderation sought and most of its top echelons are filled with leaders who are sensitive to the needs and interests of our plural society. It has also shown remarkable restraint in many ways although like all human created organizations, it is far from being perfect.

Gerakan acknowledges that to deny the existence of the Islamic force would be politically nave and hence, the force ought to be engaged and initiative must be taken to create a balance so that not only the good values of Islam which are universal but also others as well, are benefiting the society.

This brings us to the bewilderment of the reason that drove a party whose campaign slogan reads "Defend Secular Malaysia" to work with another party which proclaims the total extreme of installing an Islamic state and hudud law apart from calling for women endowed with physical beauty to be overlooked in employment opportunities because they can always find a man to fend for their living.

It is easy to brand an argument as a "falsehood" or "malicious" but it is difficult to prove that it really is. Chung has yet to prove which part of my previous argument was propaganda which contained lies and half-truths.

Another critique by Praba Ganeson committed the same line of error as the DAP. First, if Dr Mahathir had wanted to make Malaysia more Islamic than what PAS conceived, he would not have declared that Malaysia was already an Islamic country. I would use an analogy to illustrate this point - if a person wants more food, he would not announce that he is already full.

Praba is also confused with the terms 'legal' and 'ethic' and their relation. In most instances, what is legal is also ethical from the society's standpoint. For example, the criminal law forbids robbery, murder, extortion et cetera because violent acts are not an ethical way of life.

I would also see it necessary to legalize our commonly accepted set of ethics so that in the event of any dispute, a case can be put forth to a formal arbitration to be decided by an autonomous institution the judiciary.

The constitution remains the most important shield that protects the interests and rights of the people including those of the minorities so that the dominant group with means and facilities exclusive to itself does not seek to flex its dominance over the former. I would encourage Praba to appreciate the significance of this legal instrument.

In this regard, I truly believe that the societal framework of diverse nationalities co-existing within a state which observes the supremacy of the constitution, is both practical and possible. Muslims who feel that the country is run in accordance to the proper, universal and good Islamic values would find the country fits the definition of an Islamic country but what is more important is that behind this definition is the conscious and sensitivity that the country also belongs to other non-Muslims who would also call their home by their own lingo and definition which sounds dear to their heart.

Beyond that we should also learn to appreciate, understand and celebrate our differences. No one says that this will be easy.

I am a non-believer in any ethno-religious dichotomy created either by DAP or any political party. Conversely, I believe that Malaysia is big enough to accommodate everyone if we do not let our heart do the thinking.

Call me an idealist if you wish because to quote Oscar Wilde, "A world (Malaysia) map without Utopia is not even worth looking at."