Your report, 'DAP slams Wan Azizah for 'Islamic state' remarks' (June 26), sounds a familiar refrain of DAP's recent slamming of PAS's Abdul Hadi Awang's suggestion to close down the Genting casino ('Can't fight moral absolutism based on faith', June 19).

DAP is not only an opposition to the government but judging from recent trends, an opposition to or within the Opposition as well as far as Barisan Alternatif's components - PAS, Keadilan and PRM - are concerned.

Indeed DAP's vociferous protests of PAS or Keadilan's position, and criticism of PRM's silence, in relation to the 'Islamic state', are equal if not surpassing that of even the MCA.

For once DAP is doing the gratuitous job for MCA, and by extension the Barisan Nasional, of attacking and opposing PAS and Keadilan. (It will be recollected in BN's favour that none of its component parties attack the other in such public manner).

The truth is that a wider gulf of ideological differences yawn between DAP and PAS/Keadilan than even between DAP and MCA.

At least the DAP has a common ground with the faction of MCA in opposing the Nanyang Press Holdings takeover by MCA, and if this faction becomes a splinter group, the chances of DAP joining it are at least as good as that of DAP leaving PAS and Keadilan in the BA coalition.

Or judging from DAP national chairperson Lim Kit Siang's deafening silence on the issue as compared to his deputy Karpal Singh's protests, in voice stentorian, it may well be the other way around - a splinter group from DAP joining the MCA or a sphincter group of MCA!

In comparison, ideology is not a vexed problem between the other component parties of the BA. Being Malay, and therefore Muslim-based, they all share common perspectives rooted in religion.

The PAS/Keadilan connection is plain to see. PAS's platform has all along been the creation of the Islamic state, and Keadilan's platform, (so it has been said) the freeing of Anwar Ibrahim.

But what is the common denominator and what is Anwar best identified with?

When the Islamic Revivalist movement began in the 1970s, ABIM under the stewardship of Anwar played a major role to shape Malay thinking culture and identity.

In the early 1980s Anwar travelled to Teheran to meet with Iran's newly installed leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. He set about forging links with Islamic movements in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. He was co-opted by the prime minister into government precisely to give it Islamic credentials to counteract the more extremist fringes of Islamic Revival like Al-Arqam. His choice of Kuala Lumpur's mosques as a venue from which to launch his reformasi campaign was perhaps not coincidental.

Reformasi's call for transparency in governance and corruption-free government is viewed by PAS, Keadilan and PRM through the prism of religious tenets whilst the DAP supports it on the basis of western democratic and secular principles.

The acid test is whether had it not been Anwar but some other minister (without similarly high Islamic credentials) that had been placed in similar predicament, would the outrage be as widespread and would the reformasi movement (opposed to cronyism, abuse of power and the country's resources) have been born?

Just for a chance to dislodge the BN and share power, the DAP has downplayed the irreconcilable ideological differences it has with its other partners. I believe that it is a collaboration that - it is only a matter of time - is destined to fail.

On this, the traditional constituencies of DAP had greater clarity of insight than its leaders, and in the last election, deserted them in droves. Their decision is vindicated by subsequent increasing dissension between DAP and its other ideologically different coalition partners on the issue of the 'Islamic state'.

Concerning Karpal Singh's point that there were clear provisions in the Federal Constitution prohibiting the formation of the Islamic state, it must be noted these constitutional provisions could be amended if the proponents of such a state could command the requisite parliamentary majority in an election victory.

Will the DAP lend its support to such a victory then?

If not, wouldn't it be more principled for DAP to leave the BA coalition now (to the obvious delight of BN)? Again, this will depend on which - the theocratic state as envisioned and secretly aspired to by its coalition partners or BN's policies - that DAP is more opposed against. Therein lies the DAP's dilemma.