In reply to Rohana Hashim's letter 'Dismayed by Kit Siang's statement' (Dec 3), I'm equally dismayed that as a school teacher, she simply couldn't understand the very simple point that Kit Siang was making.

Firstly, Kit Siang did not support the so called 'sins', of investing in tobacco, liquor or gambling companies. In fact, like any other rational leader, he would definitely oppose any unhealthy activities. Kit Siang simply used this issue to urge the government to make a clear stand on the Islamic state declaration. Like PAS, BN's declaration on the Islamic state model is vague.

Secondly, isn't our secular constitution and rakyat rights being violated as well? Don't you think the rights of the non-Muslim should be protected? Who can guarantee that social ills could be solved by not having these companies here? Take for instance, domestic violence. The Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcohol, yet the highest number of domestic violence cases involve them. Another example - is Shah Alam crime-free despite its affinity with Islamisation? Even the Taliban regime with their so-called purist Islamic state model was one of the world's largest opium and drugs exporter!

Thirdly, it is still the BN government that issues licenses to these companies, not DAP or Kit Siang.

Please try to understand Kit Siang's will. He is still a very relevant and significant icon in the local political arena. Whatever he did , he has not disappointed us Malaysians. Get him right, always!