I refer to the letter Time we showed our hunger for better by Smita Elena Sharma. Although I am not entirely sure what is the main message of the letter, I understand that the writer is somehow trying to pose questions and speculate on some answers on the use and abuse of religion by Umno.

While I agree with the author on the analysis of the present political economy situation in Malaysia, I cannot entirely agree with all of the points raised in the letter. I also find it difficult to consider or be part of the 'we' as copiously mentioned by the writer in her letter.

The writer states, many Malaysian politicians, or for that matter malaysiakini readers, have skewed views on the issues concerning 'women's rights, Orang Asli/Asal concerns, and religious and civil liberties'. I don't think this view is an accurate reflection as claimed by the writer.

I find that most articles and letters in malaysiakini reflect reactive and proactive viewpoints on most issues concerning Malaysians. I also find the articles published in malaysiakini to be stimulating, thought-provoking, critical and attempt to offer different angles through which problems such as race, religion and civil liberties can be viewed.

I am sure the author will agree with me that such innovative viewpoints are not available in the mainstream media. Therefore to claim malaysiakini readers or writers think in a skewed manner is incorrect.

Further, the writer also argues that Malaysian politicians think and subscribe to skewed viewpoints, particularly on issues mentioned above. While I agree that most politicians within the ruling party in Malaysia do often propose half baked and lopsided views and arguments to justify their actions and policies, there is also the opposition, which is largely represented by the DAP, which continues to hold the government to accountability on issues the writer was distressed about.

While it's easy to dismiss the strength of the opposition in holding the government to accountability, it's precisely because of the opposition parties that the BN government is more careful not to continually tread the 'skewed' path as expressed by the writer.

If it's not for the opposition front, the Broga incinerator project would not have been scrapped, the issue of Cheras toll would not have come to the attention of the public, the debate over religious rights would not have been reported and the crisis over crime and rape would not have come to light in the public domain.

These are some of the more recent achievements of the politicians, particularly by the opposition parties in using the democratic mechanism in Malaysia. I do no see these achievements as regressive but take them as small achievements against the dominant powers of Umno and others.

I agree with the writer that the court complex (in Putrajaya) and other grandiose infrastructures in Malaysia are only meaningful and worthwhile depending on what the government and the people of Malaysia put inside them. The success of these projects should be assessed on how they are used as a means to achieving something more grandeur in terms of our values and principles as Malaysians.

Finally, I disagree with the writer that the debates over whether we are Islamic or secular should be put aside in pursuit of betterment of the country and development. While this may appear to be two separate aspects, in fact it's part of the pursuit.

Debates, criticism, dissent and the tradition of argument are part and parcel of the process of development within a country. Therefore there is no need for a trade-off between debates (over any issue) and the pursuit of economic development.