I refer to the letter " Shame on you Dr Lim for asking panel to resign ."

Writer Teh is either naive or faking moral high ground by obscuring the principle that disassociation from evil is far more responsible than continuing to condone evil by keeping it company.

In fact, Teh's letter reads like a formulaic propaganda from a BN apologist, complete with these parts: a personal attack, the insinuation that Dr Lim cannot be fair minded about an outrageously unjust death because he belongs to the opposition party, attempting to shame, relying on self-contradicting arguments, then ending in a quotation of someone respectable but who would be ashamed of the abuse of his words.

It reminds me of the kind of shame that BN apologists were trying to pour on Dr Wan Azizah a few years ago, when her husband the unjustly imprisoned Anwar Ibrahim was seeking overseas treatment for a spinal cord injury. The BN apologists called the request an abuse of prison privilege, disrespect for local medical professionals, and what not, complete with dropping names of Mandela and Gandhi.

The point is Dr Lim has the full right and is wise to advice the MACC advisory members to step down, for their own good, if they find they can no longer push through meaningful changes from within. These are, after all, "advisory" members who are not legally vested with the final decision power to hire, fire, and punish MACC executives.

We are arriving at a crucial juncture: The Cabinet approved a royal commission but restricted it to only investigating MACC's procedure. The narrow terms of reference glaringly exclude investigating the cause of death of Teh Beng Hock. If MACC advisory members do not rise up to demand widening the scope to find the cause of Teo's death, then the loss of their own reputation will be the least of their worries.

More seriously, their conscience will be tortured by the implications that such narrow terms of reference will destroy the credibility of MACC, the government, possibly future royal commissions, and ultimately the rule of law in Malaysia.

If the MACC advisory members tried internally but cannot push through broadening the terms of reference, are they to stick to the lofty-sounding but bankrupt advisory positions, or are they to resign to force the government hand and to deliver to the country a powerful declaration on governance ethics?

Resignation is not exclusively a Japanese culture. It is one universally responsible option for good governance. Resignation is a high form of protest. It is a declaration to the world that evil has no hold on those who resign. In contrast, those who fail to resign even when their internal complaints have failed are often those who are beholden to evil, perhaps held back by the skeletons in their own closets.

To speak up and distance oneself from wrong doing is the first thing a righteous person can do. To continue to muddle on with evil is to condone, concede, share and to lend one's reputation and honour to perpetuate evil.