This in reference to the joint statement by the leaders of Keadilan and PRM, 'Don't misread BA's stand on Islamic state, say leaders' (June 27) that BA's pledge to affirm Islam as a way of life should not be interpreted as a pledge to set up an Islamic state because it sought only to create an Islamic way of life amongst Muslims whilst also pledging to guarantee the rights of non-Muslims to practise their respective religions and beliefs.

I would ask the following questions:-

What is the difference between an Islamic state and one (proclaimed by Keadilan and PRM) that is supposedly not but seeks to create Islam as 'a way of life' for Muslims? Does creating a way of life based on Islam include legislating private morality based on Islamic values? If that were the case, such a state touted by Keadilan and PRM would be perilously close (in substance though not description) to an Islamic state envisaged by PAS!

On the other hand, if there were no legislation on private morality of Muslims, how does such a state promote Islam as a way of life?

The fact that non-Muslims could practise their respective religions does not distinguish Keadilan's and PRM's vision from PAS' vision because under PAS' Islamic state, non-Muslims too have their respective rights to practise their religions and culture.

Indeed Keadilan's and PRM's reference to that part of BA's manifesto affirming Islam as a way of life (ad-deen) relating to Muslims alone was precisely the same part relied upon by PAS earlier to justify its vision of an Islamic state.

Umno is also promoting Islam being the official religion of the country. Can Keadilan's and PRM's leaders explain how their vision of a state under BA promotes Islam as a way of life that is different from Umno's and also PAS'?

The leaders further urged PAS' and DAP's leaders not to make any more media statements that might be used by the mainstream press to discredit them.

The fact is that media statements are discouraged because they will only expose the irreconcilable ideological platforms between PAS and DAP, and underlying prevarication of both Keadilan and PRM's positions in knowing what they are talking about.

Why shirk away from media publicity (unless there is inaccurate misreporting) and transparency unless your positions cannot be defended under close scrutiny?

In saying that Keadilan and PRM do not agree with PAS's Islamic state and DAP's secular pluralistic Malaysian Malaysia, the duo will be taken to imply that they form one ideological platform, DAP another and PAS yet another, meaning that there are three different ideological platforms operating within the BA and each construing the BA manifesto as promoting its own platform!

How could the BA common manifesto 'Towards A Just Malaysia' which all parties agreed to before the 1999 general elections, still represent a good and strong basis for increasing cooperation and strengthening unity among the BA parties, as suggested by them, when the implications of what Keadilan's and PRM's leaders said suggested that there were three conflicting ideological camps subsisting unresolved within the BA now?

This is really hard to understand.

Dr Wan Azizah and Syed Hussein called for calm in the wake of the DAP- PAS confrontation because according to them no party could amend the Federal Constitution without support of two- thirds of the public through a referendum.

This begs the real question because the public is well aware of the two-third requirement to amend the constitution and do not need this assurance to assuage their anxieties.

What is important however in an election for them to exercise their right to an informed vote is an awareness of what is really the true nature of the 'state' as envisioned by Keadilan and PRM, something which is presently unclear.

Whilst PAS' and DAP's positions are relatively clear, Keadilan's and PRM's positions are not at all clear except that they are supposedly different from PAS' and DAP's. But in what way we are not told. And this is unlikely to be clarified if their call against media statements stands.

In light of this kind of prevarication on the part of the other component parties (Keadilan and PRM) I reiterate my call that the DAP should dump the BA.