In response to the letter by Adrian Lee, I wish to clarify that oft-quoted excuse for not working for democratic change in Malaysia as opposition parties are not inspiring enough.

If we look around at countries which have undergone democratic change - Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea - we'll see that none of them are ruled by opposition parties which operated under their previous regimes.

So the issue of having to choose from among opposition parties one that is acceptable to a ruling pre-democratic regimes does not arise.

When there is democratic freedom to organise political parties freely, many can spring up almost overnight. This is no fairy tale - tens and even hundreds of political parties sprang up after the democratisation process in some of the above countries. And new leadership normally came from among these newcomers to the political scene.

From this empirical observation, it become obvious that worrying about which opposition party to choose is meaningless when not all are allowed to show their face openly or legally.

Malaysia is not without political parties which are not allowed legal recognition. Without the freedom of association and free and fair elections - which come from democratisation - it is not really meaningful to discuss what the alternatives are.

It is in the interests of voters across the democratic spectrum that there should first be democratisation for then only can meaningful, free and fair elections happen. Tell us if there is one country where the reverse happened.

Without opposition parties -and without them being able to assume legitimate power - Malaysian 'democracy' is missing some of its essential ingredients. This makes Malaysians poorer in their democratic rights when compared to other countries which have undergone democratic reform.

Hopefully the message can be understood that while we may not be opposition partisans we should be pro-democracy partisans.