I refer to Karpal Singh's contention that PAS had misconceived Barisan Alternatif's common manifesto by claiming that it contained provisions for the setting-up of an Islamic state ('Islamic state: PAS has misconceived Barisan's manifesto, says Karpal', July 3).

My point of view is that whether or not PAS misconceives or the DAP misconceives the true meaning of the common manifesto is quite irrelevant.

So what if there was a misconception of the manifesto? Does it mean that either party is now bound by the manifesto that it truly now does not believe in just because it had earlier signed it under a misconception or otherwise?

The relevant question is, what is PAS' present attitude and how it now reads the manifesto, correctly or otherwise, that matters. If PAS reads it as allowing the formation of an Islamic state, as it intends to do, then, that is that, and PAS is taken to have taken that stand, which throws the ball back to DAP's court - what is DAP prepared to do about it?

In resisting PAS' resolve to form the Islamic state, Karpal cited Article 3 of the Federal Constitution ensuring the freedom of religious practice that according to Karpal would be infringed by PAS's Islamic theocratic government.

Again my point of view is that PAS' Islamic state does not prohibit religious minorities from carrying out their respective different religious practices. Arguably, there is no contravention of Article 3 that Karpal sought to rely upon as an argument.

Being a non-Muslim, I hope I will be forgiven if I misinterpret it, but my general and layman's understanding of an Islamic state as espoused by PAS would be something like this:

An Islamic State is one that conducts its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam (as interpreted by ulamak and religious scholars) and accepts the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His laws and which revives and promotes Islamic culture, and devotes all national resources to these ends.

Generally, Islamic Syariah will be the basic legal code to which all other laws in conflict will be rendered null and void. The ethical and moral outlook prescribed for society is that which religion inculcates and hence public alcohol consumption, gambling, will be proscribed.

To me, the contradiction between PAS's Islamic government and the Federal Constitution (agreed by all communities) lies not in the former's contravention of Article 3 or otherwise, as Karpal appears to argue.

The basic contradiction is that our constitution is based on parliamentary democracy that assumes sovereignty of the people who decide by majority votes what laws shall be applicable to govern their lives. Whereas in the case of PAS's Islamic government, it is based on acceptance of Allah's sovereignty and the supremacy of His laws.

(An Islamic state is a theocracy, and the expression 'theocracy' is in turn derived from the word democracy, limited by the word of God.)

Besides the earlier mentioned contradiction between sovereignty of people as contemplated by the Federal Constitution and the sovereignty of God in relation to PAS' government, PAS' theocracy also denies the plurality and diversity of the Malaysian electorate and its heritage - not because it prohibits non-Muslims from practising their own religions and even cultural observances (this I am sure PAS will allow) but because it proposes to subject them to a governance under an administration and laws based on a religious faith and its tenets that they neither belong to nor share. Because government and laws impinge intimately on one's conduct of his life and both public and private affairs, this is the area where the fundamental liberties of non-Muslim Malaysians are most affected.

Lastly, even Barisan Alternatif's common manifesto proceeds on the premise of social justice and equal rights for all, which the BA accuses the Barisan Nasional of denying the people, both Muslims and non-Muslims.

How would PAS reconcile then, in terms of that manifesto, social justice and equal rights in relation to all peoples of this country when PAS' concept of an Islamic state as evinced so far in its policy statements and its administrative acts in Kelantan and Terengganu, asserts different rights for Muslim men, Muslim women and non-Muslims and minorities? (In the case of non-muslims, for example, they cannot even join PAS). This is yet another area that the DAP cannot find common ground to agree on.

Ultimately, PAS conceives itself as carrying out the Almighty's mission of bringing perfect democracy to earth based on His vision whilst the DAP is carrying out man's mission to help bring about a more democratic form of government, piece-meal, and based on trial and error and imperfections of man's judgment.

By reason of their different platforms of discourse and different paradigms of thinking, never shall the twain meet, whether in the secrecy of BA's high-level leadership meetings or public press statements.

For the record, I am not a DAP member and do not speak for the party.