I agree with Glenn Lim's 'DAP should stand on its own' and disagree with Abdul Razak's 'DAP's fear of non existing demons' both of July 14.

Abdul Razak asked the DAP to accommodate PAS' platform of Islamic state and justice in the interest of BA's unity to defeat the ruling coalition BN.

I ask the other way around: Why can't PAS for the same common purpose and good, accommodate the DAP's and the other component parties' platform of democratic social justice (without a religious and Islamic state)?

Wasn't this platform (democratic social justice without a religious and Islamic state) agreed to by all component parties in the beginning when they came out with the BA common manifesto? So why does PAS want to change horses midstream in relation to what had been agreed on before?

The writer said, and I quote, "Islamic justice does not allow free-for-all cronyism, plunder of state's riches, corruption, repression of basic human rights issue to dissent. These are the universal values that both DAP and PAS aspire to."

I say with equal conviction that DAP's secular pluralistic social democracy ideology also does not allow free-for-all cronyism, plunder of state's riches, etc., the difference being that the DAP has a track record fighting against all these for all Malaysians in the last 30 years!

So, back to my original question: Can there not be democratic social justice and good governance, democracy, without cronyism or corruption - unless it is only under PAS' Islamic theocratic state?

Social justice in the BA manifesto agreed to by all its component parties means just that, there being a difference between social justice and Islamic justice.

Even on the point of Islamic justice, is it 'just' to apply Islamic justice to non-Muslims?

Whilst PAS' theocratic agenda is all right for some muslims, yet for others, they may prefer religion being kept a private observance rather than a public law.

The problem about PAS' vision is that it is exclusionist (that is, one cannot be in the PAS central working committee unless he is a Muslim) and exclusivist (that is, it is intolerant and does not allow other view points except through its own religious angle).

Is PAS' exclusivist and exclusionist ideology compatible with democracy in a pluralistic society? How many theocracies elsewhere in the world are democratic?

To non-Muslims of a different faith and personal and cultural habits, on whom such moral rules and laws presently do not apply (for now), there is no reason why they will agree to subject to such governance under PAS.

The writer said that "Terengganu and Kelantan is a small taste of what Islamic governance is all about" and asked us to look at it.

No doubt, according to PAS leaders:

1) Chinese community would be given more seats in various municipal and district councils;

2) pig-rearing and slaughtering, banned in Terengganu for the past 10 years, would be allowed again; and

3) the state government would favorably consider applications by non-Muslims to build new temples and churches.

These are mere concessions to win non-Malay, especially Chinese, support.

They are not enough to convince me that PAS' agenda is democratic.

Then again, the main problem is the meaning of democracy and the nature of it that Malaysians of whatever persuasion, race, religion or culture determine it to be by majority.

To me, democracy carries some but not all of the following assumptions, values and features:

1) Democracy assumes the possibility of man's self-responsibility and maturity to determine his secular affairs undirected by the state/government;

2) Man's destiny and salvation in the hereafter are matters best left to religion and outside the purview of the state/government and public law and governance that are kept separate from religion;

3) Meanwhile, plurality and contrariety of opinions are to be carried in the media on the basis of press freedom and encouraged on the assumption that it is only from the clash of different ideas, will the truth be gleaned, and maturity and understanding of the people deepened;

4) Only when the people have maturity and understanding can they vote wisely and be responsible for their choice of government and leaders; and

5) Hence the prerequisites of civil liberties such as freedom of speech and access to free press to help deepen maturity and better the chances of an informed casting of vote - subject, of course, to free, fair, and regular elections, and constitutionally protected freedom from arbitrary arrest supported by right to legal counsel to prevent abuse of powers by government.

Does the writer now understand the difference between DAP's understanding of democracy and that of PAS? Which version of democracy would the majority of Malaysians prefer for themselves and their children?