I refer to the debate suggesting that Islamic law will not apply to non-Muslims. While it is true that the current Islamic laws already in force, dealing with family and inheritance matters, have minimal impact on Muslims, it is arrant nonsense to suggest that further implementation of Islamic laws, particularly Islamic rules of evidence, would not greatly discriminate against non-Muslims.

The rub of Islamic evidentiary rules is that the evidence of women and of unbelievers bears less evidential value than that of Muslim men.

So what happens in an Islamic court if, for example, three Indonesians break into my house and rape my wife in front of me? Well, being Muslims, they must be tired in an Islamic and not a common law court. And their evidence, as believers, must be believed and that of my wife and I, as non-believers, rejected.

What happens if I enter into an oral contract with a Muslim, and he breaks it? Well, if it's merely his word against mine, in an Islamic court, his evidence must be believed and mine must be rejected!

So this nonsense about the non-Muslims having the protection of the common law will only apply if I have the 'good' fortune to be assaulted or cheated by a non-Muslim. To ensure that, I would have to live in a community surrounded only by non-Muslims, which I believe is the origin of the ghetto.

As to the theory that in an Islamic state, the rulers will not be able to manipulate the laws, I suggest that you study the history of the last 1,000 years. Check out the Turkish caliphate, the Mughal empire, or even modern Iran. Whatever the system of law, the people in power will manipulate it. The way to control leaders is not so much the system of law, as the implementation of the proper checks and balances such as, most importantly, the freedom of the press.

I have always voted for the opposition. I was particularly enthused in the last election when the opposition campaigned on a united front for free speech, democracy, and constitutional rights.

This election, I have seen with my own eyes banners carried by PAS on nomination day: 'Islam for all.' And this in a urban constituency where 50% of the voters are non-Muslims!

As to free speech, Nik Aziz, whom I once thought was a decent and fair-minded man, has shown by his attack on 'former socialist' Syed Husin Ali - a man for whom I have great respect - that freedom of speech, to him, means only the freedom to espouse views identical to his. Taliban rule OK, others keep quiet!

Barisan is no angel. Living in the corporate environment, the stink of their corruption has sickened me for the last two decades. But they leave me some hope of protection under the common law; some hope that I will be treated equally with everyone else in court. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi holds out some (very little, I admit) hope for the future.

Take the irreversible step of implementing Islamic law, and a thousand pledges by the likes of Mohd Rafiz to reverse it if it discriminates against non-Muslims, will not turn the clock back.

That is why, for the first time in my life, and not without a heavy heart, I will tomorrow be voting for the ruling party.