Your report entitled 'Keadilan-PRM merger: Action against 'illegal' lobbying, says sec-gen', June 26) revealed two things to me:

1) Keadilan is itself filled with power-hungry politicians (Umo dropouts?), who would sacrifice ethics in order to preserve their personal interests; and

2) Keadilan is not much more democratic than Barisan Nasional. Why should it be 'illegal' to put forward one's point of views, even if this is not done through 'official' channels?

Isn't that kind of restriction one of the weak points of BN? If you think carefully, the reason Anwar was initially arrested under the Internal Security Act was mainly because he did not wait for a chance to have a peaceful discussion with his former colleagues - instead, he allowed his followers to resort to ' rusuhan ' (rioting) - which was rare and unusual at that moment and therefore unacceptable.

Despite being a supporter of BN, I must admit that I'm looking forward to see proof that the opposition is capable of better feats than the current government.

But what we can see so far (squabbles with each component; exploitation of racial issues; exploitation of young, immature minds; 'mob' culture; hypocrisy concerning Islamic State and Malay rights; etc.) are indeed bad omens of what lies ahead.

My question is: Considering the current 'difficult' situation (possibility of neo-colonisation, uncontrolled globalisation and all), can we Malaysians afford to lose one of our biggest assets - political stability? (Regardless of what others might think, I truly believe that this is the major ingredient of Malaysia's rapid growth.)

When a building is damaged, is it judicious to destroy it and build a new one? Wouldn't it be better for us to look for ways to repair the old one?