I refer to the Aliran interview with Keadilan president, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, 'We represent the future'.

It is noteworthy that, when asked whether the newly merged party would oppose PAS' notion of an Islamic state, her response, as in earlier case of PAS enactment of hudud in Terengganu, was evasive and equivocal.

She extolled the virtues of "healthy contest of ideas and pluralism" without reference to whether PAS' Islamic-state blueprint is conducive towards that.

She next sought to demonstrate BA's greater climate of openness by arguing that "PAS members, for instance, did not condemn or declare a jihad on the DAP because of the DAP's criticism of Islamic state", as compared to "Umno's reaction to anything that remotely touches on Malay rights".

But is this 'openness' of PAS in declaring jihad proven? We know that until PAS has been voted into power and syariah established as supreme over the secular constitution, such a call will neither be protected by law nor consistent with pretences of 'healthy contest of ideas and pluralism' alongside Keadilan and PRM.

On the Islamic state, she added that "the time-space manifestation of the concept still needs to be worked out" and Keadilan would not oppose something "in formative stage" and still subject to be "shaped by a process of open dialogue".

The 'buying time' response is a fine example of prevarication and equivocation. It offers no principled position on the issue.

By not opposing the concept of the Islamic state whilst it is at the 'formative stage', Keadilan reserves both options of opposing as well as supporting it at the later stage, and hence will not for the moment alienate electoral support of detractors and supporters of the Islamic state alike.

PAS has already announced its blueprint. Though details are not fully disclosed, its fundamental premise has been stated as the supremacy of syariah, superseding the secular Federal Constitution. This is non-negotiable.

It behooves a major opposition party championing the contest of ideas within pluralistic democracy to take a stand on this important premise of PAS' blueprint. The DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang has already spoken. How long more is Wan Azizah going to equivocate?

A large part of the section of the electorate that supported BA over BN in the 1999 general elections did so upon principle. Many did so because they were fed up with the opportunistic policies of BN based on realpolitik than democratic principles.

For the BA to maintain credibility, the merged party of Keadilan-PRM has to demonstrate more than just behave opportunistically like the ruling coalition.

Non-Muslim minorities in both East and West Malaysia, making up nearly half of the population, will want to know where Keadilan-PRM unequivocally stand on the Islamic state issue in the coming elections.

Already there are concerns regarding the twists and turns of political career of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, the de facto leader of BA's reformasi movement. Anwar was first noticed for his Islamist credentials through his work with Abim from which PAS' leaders, the late Fadzil Noor and Acting President Abdul Hadi Awang, also hailed.

He was co-opted into Umno precisely because he could facilitate a detente between the ruling party and the Islamist opposition. He played a major role in the government's vigorous Islamisation programme of the last two decades.

There is always a strong historical-ideological link between PAS and Anwar - and by extension his party, Keadilan. That is why in the ensuing power struggle, his Islamic credentials were attacked by the sodomy charge.

It was the humiliation of a Muslim leader whose credentials were not successfully impeached at trail that led to a substantial shift of support to PAS in the 1999 general election.

In spite of this historic-ideological link, Keadilan-PRM still pitch their fight under the banner of social justice, 'healthy contest of ideas and pluralism' in order to secure important non-Muslim votes.

Could Keadilan then explain in plain and unequivocal language how PAS' blueprint of an Islamic state is reconcilable with its manifesto of 'healthy contest of ideas and pluralism', and whether the ideas of its powerful ulamak or religious scholars are contestable?

If the Islamic-state blueprint cannot be reconciled with 'healthy contest of ideas and pluralism', will Keadilan-PRM take a position?

On both counts, the answer is a likely no. The evasive answer to the Aliran interviewer's question is an example. It is consistent with the opportunistic pattern of retaining all available options to get the votes of those who oppose as well as support PAS' Islamic state. The overriding object is to win power.

Now I have no beef against any political party pursuing realpolitik ,

but be honest about it and don't try to win my vote by 'forked' tongues that tell me one thing and mean another.

If that happens, then Keadilan would be no better than the BN in the politics of lying, whose legitimacy of rule it now challenges, albeit with no more commendable credentials.