Cardinal Jamie Sin of the 'people's power' in the Philippines recently passed away. His role in toppling former dictator Ferdinand Marcos (and also former president Joseph Estrada) is a positive role model for Asian democratisation, a role which emphasises religious beliefs as well as democratic practices.

PAS would do well to learn from Sin. The late cardinal did insist on instilling Christian values in politics and the results are there for all to see - conservative social policies existing along a democratic framework. How does that compare with PAS' Islamic state?

In a country where there is an undisputable religious majority, Sin did not call for a 'Catholic state' where power is exclusively kept in Catholics' hands with the rest excluded as `non- believers'.

Compare that with PAS which wants its political ideas (profusely labeled Islamic to be accepted as 'religious edicts' which cannot be disputed). A good example was the party's Islamic state document.

Sin, on the other hand didn't bring the name of God in to sanction his church-inspired political propositions eg, the removal of Marcos. He had to fight for popular support like any other political party. When in politics do as politicians do.

Here, PAS tries to have it both ways. When in politics, they try to get away from debates by pretending they are doing the divine job of spreading their 'gospel'. When in religion, they make use of their political office to spread their sermons.

PAS has openly defended their dual political and religious role without knowing that they are corrupting both. Their doctrine 'politics and Islam' cannot be separated in Islam is a clear case of corruption of power. Their idea of a 'leadership by the clerics' (kepimpinan ulama) is to keep clerics in the top political role with a promise to members to advance perceived religious interests.

There is the possibility of such clerics abusing their political office in the name of religion. Such abuses can be better controlled through a surveillance of the people (as provided under a democracy) than by the surveillance of God (as provided by a theocracy).

Sin may thus be described as a sterling Christian Democrat - one who is an uncompromising Christian in his belief but a democratic 'politician' in his practice.

PAS, therefore may want democratic rights to preach their understanding of Islam. Fine, but would it uphold democratic rights as a value and practice in Malaysia for all Malaysians? PAS can build up its democratic credentials by making appropriate distinctions between the political from the religious.

Shortcutting democratic consultation by invoking the name of religion is unacceptable in politics even if they command higher voting powers. This does not amount to asking PAS to forget or jettison their religious understanding. Sin was still preaching his church teachings but from the church's pulpit, not from a political office.

An 'Islamic state' which differentiates citizens on religious ground and accords rights differently on this ground amounts to religious discriminations - something as obnoxious as the racial discrimination being practised by the Umno/BN.

An 'Islamic state' where Muslims are the ruling class with select clerics at the top of a feudalistic hierarchy (a theocracy) must therefore be separated from a country which practices Islamic spiritual values - values like 'justice', 'equality' and 'compassion' which are universal and more in line with democratic rule.

PAS need to take its democratic credentials seriously to attract more non-Muslim support. Religious discriminations is like a knife that cut both ways. There is no looking back if PAS wants to turn democratic and keep its religious understanding.

PAS has a ready-made and successful role model in a late Catholic leader of a neighbouring country.