This is in furtherance to what Raymond Cheong raised in 'Don't let Keadilan go down' (Oct 20).

For Keadilan to remain credible, it must be principled - just the opposite of what it accuses its political opponent Barisan Nasional of. In my view, Keadilan has not given a good discharge of its principles in the following instances:

1) Professing to be multi-racial, it contradicted itself by insisting on a Malay candidate in the Lunas by-election.

2) When PAS declared its intent to form the Islamic state, contrary to the BA common manifesto, and conflicted with DAP, Keadilan prevaricated in its support of DAP. Indeed the impression is that Keadilan sides with PAS on this issue. Keadilan did not take a clear position on which side it stood on this issue at all at the time DAP broke from BA.

3) When the suicide bombers crashed their hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Keadilan's official condemnation of these acts of terrorism was not unequivocal but qualified in question of American foreign policies. This is notwithstanding the unstinting support hitherto given by the Clinton Administration to Keadilan's president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

4) If PAS appears overzealous to many for organising a demonstration in front of the US embassy and supporting Osama bin Laden's or the Taliban's call for jihad in response to the American-led attack on Afghanistan, it will be recollected in favour of PAS that it is consistent with its brand of fundamental religiosity. Keadilan, however, never took a position, not even a word about the inadvisability of such a stance taken by its main coalition partner (PAS) that is diametrically opposed to the unreserved and unequivocal condemnation by its adviser Anwar Ibrahim in his essay in Time against the terrorists and their patrons. Worse still, according to mainstream news report (which may be factual or biased in this instance), it appears that Abim members sympathetic to PAS are gaining prominence in Keadilan.

5) Besides factional squabbles (the most prominent was the fallout between Dr Chandra Muzaffar and Marina Yusoff), Keadilan also suffers by the popular perception that its has no concrete agenda except for the freeing of Anwar from prison.

6) In general, Keadilan has not acted in any way to show that it is prepared to stand up for those high principles of social justice upon which it was founded but has been overly concerned about the sentiments of its primarily Malay-based constituency based on realpolitik like the BN. (Realpolitik, as used here, is a reference to politics based on practical situations and utilitarian needs rather than lofty abstract moral principles.) As a result, instead of leading and guiding its supporters, it appears to be led by them instead.

Within the coalition, Keadilan cannot understand that it just cannot afford to play second fiddle to PAS all the time and in time appear to be a chip of the block. Any negative political repercussions arising from PAS' inadvised policies will tarnish Keadilan with the same brush.

In my humble view then, in Keadilan's (together with PRM's) refusal to ally with the DAP against PAS on the latter's objective of an Islamic state, and also their reluctance to form an alternative coalition without PAS, have deprived Malaysians of a viable opposition coalition that can truly present a practical, middle-of-the-road and effective counterweight against the ruling party's dominance in national politics.