This bears reference to Kim Quek's discourse Safe to vote against BN based, by his own admission, on an "imaginary and highly improbable scenario of BN losing the majority in the imminent election".

Foremost, if Barisan Nasional, with its support in Sabah and Sarawak, cannot lose, what is the point of an opposition for the mere sake of just obstructing the government but itself cannot form an alternative government? Since DAP's and PAS' political principles are irreconcilable, what is the point of supporting an opposition that is squabbling and out to cut each other's throats?

Or an opposition that offers so far no higher principles than the government it opposes since Kim Quek himself conceded on Keadilan's "oscillation of policy thinking" on PAS' hudud issue?

Kim Quek's apology for Keadilan's weakness, that it was caused by Mahathir's incarceration of Keadilan's leaders including its "supreme leader and founder of the reformasi movement, Anwar Ibrahim", is unpersuasive.

This is because it deliberately fails to underscore the fact that Anwar is still the directing will behind Keadilan, influencing policies all the way from Sungai Buloh prison. This leads to the inference that if Keadilan oscillates, it is because its supreme de facto leader Anwar oscillates.

In further reference to "Anwar's image as an Islamic activist accrued in his younger days", Kim Quek further defended Anwar by saying "we should judge a leader as he is, not what he was". A convicted felon is what he is. If he were a prisoner of conscience, this conscience was certainly not manifested in his decade-long service within Umno in various ministerial positions, until he was sacked.

By way of analogy, Kim Quek argued that "if the behaviour of yesteryears can be used as a criterion to judge the fitness of a present leader, then Mahathir should be the first one to be condemned as an unfit national leader now, considering his firebrand days as an ultra-Malay nationalist when he unleashed some of the most racialist and vitriolic anti-Chinese rhetoric before and after the May 13 riot in 1969".

But surely Kim Quek's strong support for Keadilan, Anwar and the opposition is because of the depredations of leadership for which Mahathir is held responsible by him. So maybe with benefit of hindsight, the writer should look at the record of yesteryear behaviour as a measure of supporting our future leaders, and, by this standard (as well as Anwar's record in Umno), Anwar, and by extension his reformasi party will not be eligible.

Kim Quek praised the "soundness of the democratic and humanistic values expounded in the Permatang Pauh Declaration" and Anwar's book The Asian Renaissance .

He was of the view that taking in totality, "the reformasi movement is the best thing that ever happened to this country".

I wish to remind the writer that credibility and trust are earned by actions and consistency of positions and not mere words, no matter how eloquent in the Permatang Pauh Declaration and Anwar's The Asian Renaissance .

So far the deeds and actions loudest were demonstrations à la Indonesia or Philippines on the busy streets of Kuala Lumpur which one of Keadilan leaders even said that if the constituted government be toppled in the process, so be it.

So far also, the deeds and actions have been to accommodate PAS' extreme hudud policies, and Keadilan has not given an iota of support to DAP in spite of (in the writer's description) "the sacrifices put up by DAP in opposing the Islamic state".

It is also a fatuous argument that "speaking of Anwar's honesty, perhaps the most eloquent statement is the fact that in spite of the full might of the entire BN government machinery being employed to prosecute him, the government has not uncovered an iota of evidence to charge Anwar of personal dishonesty with regards to acquisition of wealth. No other Umno leader can stand up to this kind of scrutiny".

Perhaps it is precisely because no other Umno leader could stand up to this kind of scrutiny on acquisition of wealth that they chose not to enquire in that direction of any other person, Anwar included. That leaves this question of Anwar's "honesty" open, and cannot be prejudged either way, though it certainly cannot be concluded by the manner of argument that the writer put forth.

The old adage that there must be honour even among thieves, and those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, is perhaps wisely followed by the alleged Umno "conspirators". It is equally possible to speculate that they went for Anwar because he violated this code of honour by being a whistler of the system of which he is part of.

Even then, this "thieves' honour" was scrupulously adhered to by "conspirators" when prosecution proceeded strictly on improbable basis of sodomy and abuse of power, steering completely away from anything that remotely suggested the acquisition of wealth.

Ultimately it is for Keadilan that claims "middle ground" to prove first that it is a moderate and principled party, and not a mere appendage to and abettor of PAS' theocratic ambitions. Keadilan cannot expect us to give middle ground support to it first and only thereafter in victory, show how middle ground, moderate and principled it is or could become.

In simple terms, you prove yourself principled first and then only you get my vote. You don't expect me to give my vote first so that you could be strong in relation to PAS to vindicate my trust. What happens if you don't?

Kim Quek's argument is therefore premised upon an inverse order of priority and it is unreasonable to expect the Malaysian electorate to buy it.

When Malaysians vote against BN, it will be because of its unprincipled positions in various areas. We cannot support an opposition for anything less than its principled positions on various issues. Or else it is not better than the government to deserve our attention.