In reply to Kim Quek's ( Fear of PAS to justify BN's evil?

of Aug 23), middle-ground folks have every reason to commit the alleged two 'fallacies' of equating the opposition with PAS and assuming next that if BN loses, Malaysia will be ruled by PAS when the following are considered:

As far as Malay-based parties within BA Front goes, Keadilan is a political lightweight, and PRM, in the process of merging with it, a "small fry". PAS is the main Malay-based party, having 27 parliamentary seats, with Keadilan having only five. Even in the scenario of BN's losing, according to the writer's own table of projection, PAS will have twice more parliamentary seats of 40 over Keadilan's 20, with DAP having 27.

If BA forms the government, it is reasonable to conclude that PAS will lead, being the dominant party within the BA coalition, as Umno has been doing within Barisan Nasional for last two decades, in spite of the existence of 13 other component parties. Already PAS' acting president is the Opposition Leader in government, and in the event of the BA's winning the election, in all probability, the position of prime minister as well.

Being the main party forming the government with its leader being the head of government in the position to award patronage of ministerial positions, PAS will be in the position to make other leaders of component parties toe its line and policies — again as Umno in BN coalition does. This is political reality. In the awarding of patronage and positions by the leader of the dominant party as prime minister, why should he assume other BA component parties to react any differently from those of BN when BA forms the government?

The writer contended that if middle-ground folk came out "in full force to support the middle-ground parties like DAP and Keadilan" this could "in fact help to prevent an Islamic scenario" sought by PAS.

This contention is unconvincing because taking DAP first, even if it wins more parliamentary seats, it will still defer to the principal Malay-based party leading the coalition, much like the way Chinese-based MCA and Gerakan play second fiddle to Umno within the BN. This is again political reality.

One of the most basic reasons why the DAP joined the BA in the first instance, in spite of its diametrically opposed political ideology in relation to PAS, is its fundamental belief in the political reality of this country that no coalition could hope to form an alternative government without a strong Malay-based party at the helm, that happens, at this moment to be PAS and not lightweight Keadilan together with PRM.

If DAP does not agree with PAS' theocratic policies, it is DAP and not PAS that will have to leave the BA coalition, whether the coalition is in the opposition or government.

Next, what about the scenario of middle ground giving more support to Keadilan so that it could, within the BA, overshadow PAS and prevent it from implementing its theocratic agenda?

My response to that is that before middle-ground folk need come out in full force to support Keadilan upon its claims to be a middle-ground party, Keadilan, must first demonstrate by deed and action — and not mere slogans — that it is indeed a middle-ground party in the first place with no leanings in support of PAS' policies.

Has Keadilan done this to shore up its credibility as a middle ground? I don't think so.

At least, the DAP has evinced credibility by publicly criticising PAS' Islamic agenda. What Keadilan has done was to hem and haw and prevaricate.

Which is the reason why DAP, finding no support from Keadilan and PRM, left the BA. When DAP did so, did Keadilan and PRM follow? No — they criticised the DAP instead for acting as an opposition within the opposition.

If Keadilan is not against PAS, then it has to be taken to be for. Any other shade and permutation is opportunistic, which is just as bad. On an important issue like installation of an Islamic state that subverts the social contract of all communities enshrined in the Federal Constitution, there is no credibility in any political party that is unwilling, in sacrifice of expedience, to place itself on the line for principle, whether for or against!

In the second time around, when PAS moved its Islamic agenda forward by promulgating Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment Bill (now enactment) in Terengganu, did either Keadilan or BA Presidential Council come out in public opposition of it? I don't recall they did, which shows clearly who runs the opposition show!

In fact, DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang himself declared in a media conference statement

on June 6 this year that "I was very surprised to read the malaysiakini report on Thursday where the Parti Keadilan Nasional supreme council member, Dr Lee Boon Chye, as good as declared support for the Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment Bill, except for 'more dialogues between PAS and various groups on the issue' on the ground that it is 'very difficult for Muslims to reject the Islamic state or hudud law'".

The other reason (besides Keadilan's actions or rather non-actions) why Malaysians at the centre are suspicious of Keadilan's sympathy with PAS' Islamic agenda within the BA is that the Islamist credentials of Keadilan de facto leader and patron, ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim are consistent with it.

According to reports (uncontradicted), Anwar's political history began as a student activist at the University of Malaya in the 1960s where he began to make fiery speeches about Islam. Later upon graduation, Anwar played a leading role to found in 1971 the Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (Abim), the fundamentalist Islamic youth movement, which aimed to generate an Islamic movement as a path to Islamic revival in Malaysia. Anwar also travelled to Iran to meet with Ayatollah Khomeini who led Iran's Islamic revolution. When sacked by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar's immediate attempt to rally support was at the mosques.

Coming back then to the "great political issue of the day" as the writer summed it: is it a simple choice between a corrupted and undemocratic BN and that of an honest but theocratic PAS with which the opposition front is synonymous?

In the light of the above discussions, I regret to conclude that, so far, based on felt experience and reality, it still is!