With reference to Tai Lo Chin's argument in Between undemocratic BN and theocratic PAS that there is no choice except to re-elect the 'old devil' that you know, it is obvious that the writer is trying to propagate a cursory, shopping attitude to politics.

If there are only two unsatisfactory brands of goods on the shelf — A and B, then he must choose the 'lesser evil' — that is the tragedy for such political 'consumers'!

Whatever happened to imagination? What of the saying that "politics is the art of the possible"? Don't we believe we have partial or proactive input to the political situation?

To illustrate: If the autocratic BN is not defeated, then how could Malaysians have the chance to debate openly the political options open to them and serve their best interests? Is the 'option' visible under the current repressive conditions the only options there are in the hearts, minds and imaginations of the people?

If a regime makes repression the only goods allowed for sale is there any wonder that only those which depend on other worldly, transcendental power (which puts itself beyond the reach of repression) can stand up in its realm of power?

If the regime disallows any critical inquiries about its operation — by total domination of the media and other channels of knowledge production, then how can any option which depends on such free exercise of the human intellect be around? Is it any wonder then that only those options which depend on equally unthinking blind faith are around to match (and copy) the standards set by the powers that be?

The ultimate perversion of a repressive regime is that the citizens are conditioned by a dominated media to think that the 'known devil' is the least of devils there are! Any alternative is unthinkable or so vilified that they cannot stay respectable or comparable to the present powers that be!

That is true if you believe in the picture and options painted by the autocratic regime. That's what Tai Lo Chin chooses to believe and want others to believe.

If we are presented with Brand A and — equally unacceptable — Brand B, why can't we create a Brand C — after all, it is our own society for which we are making the choice?

We have yet to hear the real verdict of the people as to what they really want as their future leader or political option — don't sell your narrow-mindedness which is no option at all!