YB Kit,

You have got more problems in your hand with your coalition partners, and I don’t just mean PAS.

Axcording to Malaysiakini’s report filed by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz | Apr 5, 08 4:22pm, “PKR vice-president Mohd Azmin Ali claimed today that the party has already persuaded “close to 30” Barisan Nasional members of Parliament to reject the leadership of its chairperson Abdullah Ahmad Badawi…. Their concern is (for) the country, the nation. They want someone who is strong and credible to lead the country,” Azmin told reporters after a thanksgiving gathering in Keramat, Kuala Lumpur. To them, even the non-Malays – the Chinese, Indians, Ibans and Kadazans – accept the fact that the leader has to be a Malay Muslim, but at the same time, that particular person has to be accepted by the other communities…In this context, they feel the best person is Anwar Ibrahim,” said Azmin in reference to PKR’s de facto leader.Reiterating that there was “no money or (other) transaction involved at all in these discussions”, Azmin said these BN MPs, including from Umno and ordinary members at the party’s grassroots level, were “generally dissatisfied with the leadership of Abdullah” .He also disclosed that ‘hopping’ to PKR is not the only option available for these disgruntled parliamentarians. Other than stepping down to make way for a by-election, they may also vote as BN MPs on a motion of no-confidence against Abdullah as BN chairperson, said Azmin.

Do you & DAP support PKR’s initiating by such means a fall of Abdullah Badawi’s government??? Is it good for the stability of the country – will it not incite BN’s leaders and vested interest to react in a manner inimical to the nacent democracy developing after 8th March election???

“….nascent democracy”

When you instigate a motion of no confidence against the existing government and succeeds, there is but only one result, the Agong will have to dissolve parliament to precipitate the 13th Malaysian General Election following just after the 12th on 8th March. You show that what you want???

“Those who fail to appreciate history are bound to repeat the same mistakes” – George Santayana.

“… I only seek cooperation and understanding from all parties so that the opportunity given by the voters on March 8 is not wasted…” – Godfather.

The cooperation was supposedly based on Barisan Rakyat’s Election Manifesto of 2008 excluding the Islamic State. The cooperation was not based on deception, changing the position, after securing electoral victory to reaffirm the establishment of Islamic state which one had represented in the Manifesto to have excluded. Who is not cooperating here? Why do you blame Kit and not PAS???

When a political party takes a position – for the Islamic state or Malaysian Malaysia or secular state – one takes it for the whole country and not argue that Islamic state is ok for Kedah and Kelantan, not OK for Perak or Selangor, may be Ok for Terengganu but not so for Sarwak and Sabah etc – except an Opportunistic political party of course!

“Did the Election Manifesto EXPLICITLY exclude the Islamic state agenda, or was it merely silent on this issue ?” – Godfather.

On an important and controversial issue that has divided DAP & PAS, a Manifesto (upon which their collaboration was forged) has to explicitly state the Islamic state agenda if that was on the cards. If it was not stated, then all reasonable interpretation is that it is excluded.

To deliberately keep silent to open the way for its subsequent reassertion is a deceptive and unprincipled move, indefensible on any score. What transparency are you talking about that you are fighting against BN on when this simple rule of transparency canot be observed?

If it were argued for so long as the Manifesto did not mention explicitly exclusion of Islamic state, it opens the way for its subsequent inclusion, then it will open the way for anything else that is not mentioned Manifesto to be now reasserted, whether you’re talking of a 100% pure secular state or even a communist state!

//You and I may interpret it that way, but others could say that it was left open because there was no consensus. In politics, you can agree to disagree// – Godfather.

The question is whether you and I – and all of us – engaged in a discussion or a debate over an important issue want to interpret reasonably or unreasonably.

What others could say that it was left open because there was no consensus is their business and they are entitled to their opinion.

What we should be concerned is what is right and wrong and whether we ourselves are reasonable in our interpretation and approach in what we say.

Whenever you hear of corruption in Kelantan, it is from anecdotal evidence of friends/businessmen doing business requiring forest or land concession. Nik Abdul Aziz boasted, “none of our state PAS leaders were charged with corruption.” That’s true : that does not prove at all, as what dawsheng said, that PAS’s officials will be immune when in power especially over vast resources. Kelantan is one of the poorest states, without much development, so what projects deserving big % of kickbacks can one farm out there at this moment??? Be that as it may, I am sure at this moment because of greater religiosity or whatevert reason, the hardcore PAS officials running the state are more disciplined than the BN’s lot generally and besides they need to showcase administration in Kelantan as “clean” to win confidence of people in other states to advance their ultimate objective.

After all has been said, the people rejection of PAS’s ideology of Islamic theocracy is based on the unsuitability of such a political framework for a multiracial and multi religious country for which a secular inclined framework based on Federal Constitution is thought to work best. People do not reject PAS because it is corrupt (based on record) and the fact that it has a “clean” image does not bear on the equation.

Kelantanese are parochial and generally they are a different from the counterparts in other states. Generally they are thought more hard working and industrious and they are fiercely loyal to one and another (transcending sometimes race). Being parochial they consider BN as outsiders and would not give two hoots on what
they sell ie. bringing development to Kelantan etc.

I don’t believe that in order to bring down the liars, cheats and scums in BN, we have to tolerate the irony of being also cheated and lied to that Islamic state was in the backburner (as stated in the Opposition Manifesto) in order just so to find that, after electoral victory with the help of those opposed to the Islamic theocratic agenda, this agenda will be revived to burn bright and clear to further PAS’s agenda, kept in abeyance temporarily as a deceptive strategy…

We are just debating and arguing issues that amongst us there are differences of opinion.

With due respect Godfather, you would appreciate that saying and labelling those whom you do not agree as belonging to a certain grouping that is right wingers or extremist or should be writing novels (to suggest they are captive of overstimulated imagination than reality) or that they are “Chinaman academician living in UK telling us how we should live our lives and behaving like a Muslim scholar” does not advance one bit or an iota of your position or argument against the other side, and that all these comments look more like a personal attack and negative emotional response against a messenger whose message you don’t like or share than there is anything unsound in their message and anything sounder in your own.

HB Lim says that comments have veered away into a dangerous course and discourse. Let’s see what’s everyone arguing about and whether they have verred. It started because YB Kit has made a public statement in this blog thread. Kit basically made a public statement that the rakyat (both Malays and Non Malays) voted resoundingly for the Opposition on March 8th “ based on mandate for justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for Islamic state and hudud laws”. Kit goes on to say that whilst “DAP’s respects PAS for its ideological position on the Islamic State”, however, DAP must beg to hold a different stand – that it believes that an “Islamic State concept is not a practical or feasible proposition or option for Malaysia which is a “modern, multi-racial and multi-religious society where non-Muslims comprise some 40 per cent of the population, and where it is not only non-Malays but Malays who oppose the establishment of an Islamic State” as well.

Debate & comments started because Godfather took him to task for giving in “to the extremist faction in DAP by openly calling for PAS to concede that its Islamic State concept is not a practical or feasible proposition or option for Malaysia”, and that Kit should have resolved matters behind closed door (so as not to jeopardize Pakatan Rakyat’s collaboration to rid the BN from power).

The debate in this thread emanates from this basic issue – whether Kit should have reaffirmed publicly DAP’s secular premise and rejection of Islamic State concept, and even go further by reciting “the reasons why DAP had to pull out of Barisan Alternative in 2001” which insinuates that if PAS persists in pursuing its agenda via the common opposition front, then it is conceivable that the DAP would stand firm and would be forced to withdraw from the Opposition front as it did in 2001. Godfather questions whether it is right for Kit to “draw the line in the stand” publicly (meaning giving no room for further manoeuverity on this difference in position in jeopardy of the fledging collaboration of PR).

These are the issues debated here – whether Kit should have done what he did.

I am of the view Kit is fully entitled. To recap : if PAS was a party to Manifesto excluding its agenda of Islamic state and have benefited from DAP’s collaboration and also votes in last election from those opposed to Islamic State based on its pre-election representation that this agenda had, by its omission in the Manifesto, being put in backburner, then PAS in the time immediately post election should not have revived publicly this agenda (via statements of its Deputy MB of Kelantan and press secretary to PAS’s President), for to do so is to engage in deceptive misrepresentation of DAP as well as those opposed to Islamic State who voted for its candidates being misled otherwise. PAS should not be rewarded by such behaviour by DAP’s and our keeping quiet – or working behind the scenes (just like the way MCA/Gerakan have to make requests or implorings to UMNO behind closed doors without transparency and disclosure to public).

My position stated above does not imply at all DAP to withdraw from the Pakatan Rakyat front or to not help the common cause of dislodging the BN. Like I said before if PAS were the party that had done wrong and had reneged or engaged in deceptive behaviour, why can’t it withdraw- why must it be DAP?

I must just saying that this is a situation (provoked by PAS) and Kit is right and having regard to the circumstances of what Deputy MB of Kelantan and press secretary to PAS’s President provocatively said, even timely for Kit to publicly tell PAS off and reaffirm the stand that DAP will not waver in its view that our secular constitutional premises still apply and will not appease, cooperate or compromise with PAS if it tries to reassert its agenda. Otherwise there is no problem in cooperating for common goals of good governance and democracy.

What I am surprised is the tendency of some commenters here who are blind to the right and wrong of the issues, and fearing the common effort to dislodge the moribund BN may be set back, are prepared to take Kit to task readily rather than PAS that has engaged in deceptive behaviour and by so doing show that they are prepared to subserviently compromise with all blandishment and deceptive behaviour on PAS’s part just so that the common object of ejecting BN is not compromised!

Much as the cooperation between DAP & PAS is desired, there are some practical limitations to this, going forward from what yhsiew said. I would like you all to consider the following realities.

For example, “Abdul Hadi bin Awang, made it clear in today’s China Press that PAS would not raise the issue of Islamic state and Hudud laws” but by actions “Kelantan already had the Islamic laws and Hudud laws passed but the federal government did not accept them” – yhsiew

Now is the DAP going to be neutral or support BN’s federal government’s non acceptance of Islamic laws and Hudud laws passed in Kelantan against its own coalition partner PAS??? Based on DAP’s defense of secular constitution it ought logically to support BN’s federal government’s non acceptance of Islamic laws and Hudud laws passed in Kelantan. Can DAP afford to be silent and ambivalent on such an issue?

The problem lies in Hadi’s approach. He keeps on saying that the strengthening of Islamic concepts and principles for a particular state would depend on the situation in that state – meaning the demographic composition whether majority are muslims.

By his logic, PAS would not rule out bringing gambling under control or extension of hudud among the Muslims in (say) Kedah or even Terengganu (in the event that the latter comes under Opposition’s control).

This is problematic for DAP (in terms of collaboration) because of two reasons.

First even though Hadi does not by words talk about the Islamic state, however by actions and deeds, he does intensify islamisation by curbing gambling, nightlife in the state and introducing hudud in the state controlled by Opposition, and it is actions that count not words, and it is no comfort that he achieves the Islamic state backdoor by action by not describing the action as part of Islamic state initiatives – what is the stand DAP going to take if this becomes a public issue and BN Federal government does not support Hadi’s moves ? Who would DAP side?

Secondly, Hadi’s premise that whether or not PAS would strengthen Islamic concepts and principles (controlling gambling, night life and even promulgating Hudud) for a particular state controlled by Opposition depends on whether that state has Muslims as majority basically misses the point that it is DAP’s position that these initiatives consistent with the Islamic state or inconsistent with the secular premises of our constitution should not be embarked upon in any state – independent of, separate from and irrelevant to the issue of its demographic composition, whether populated by majority Muslims or majority non Muslims.

It is DAP’s position, as I understand it, that such pro Islamic state initiatives like Hudud or curbing of night life etc are not consistent with modern and pluralistic Malaysia and not suitable for all Malaysians including Muslim Malay Malaysians. It has never been DAP’s position that strengthening Islamic concepts and principles al Islamic theocratic style is OK or not OK depending on the demographics of the state concerned whether muslim or non muslim majority.

If Hadi takes this line then it is straining the collaboration because the selective application of PAS ideology (by deeds even if words don’t describe them) on a state by state basis depending on its demographics is NOT something the DAP has agreed to.

And if this becomes a public issue in which BN at Federal level takes a stand contrary to PAS/Hadi, what is DAP to do and whom DAP will have to side? Surely for DAP’s credibility, it cannot keep silent hoping not to be drawn to take a position.

What happens to the Pakatan Rakyat collaboration then if PAS/Hadi proceeds on ‘back door’ efforts to work towards the Islamic state, beginning in selective basis as above discussed???

I think it will impose a tremendous strain on the Opposition’s collaboration.

Not that I want to dwell with “what ifs” for their own sake but not too long down the road it is well nigh possible that the following situation could happen – supposing Hadi/PAS continue(s) to say, no Islamic state (unless the people in Malaysia democratically want it) but meanwhile for a muslim majority state like Kedah controlled by Opposition, in which state exco is predominantly PAS’s representatives, we (PAS) would like to consider implementing the following Islamic concepts and principles for Muslims in the state only:-
1. imposition of hudud (whether or not BN’s Federal government supports);
2. social justice like that once proposed by Nik Aziz that “less beautiful” women should be hired as civil servants, since a beautiful woman has been blessed to be able to get a rich husband”;
3. sex-segregated queues sexes in supermarket or in movies, segregation of audiences into different cinema halls for different sexes;
4. form morality auxiliary police to scour the parks for khalwat amongst muslim persons.

Just a simple hypothetical case, if this happens, what ought to be DAP’s appropriate response within the framework of Pakatan Rakyat collaboration ? (To oppose or to go along or to keep quiet???)

HB Lim,

Thanks for you very good and challenging questions posted by you at 01:10.52 to test the consistencies of what I earlier said. :) Let’s take a look if what I earlier said could still stand….

Kelantan is different from Kedah, the difference being their status quo before 8th March. Kelantan (unlike Kedah) was prior to 8th March one that already had PAS’s policies (hudud, sex-segregated queues sexes in supermarket or in movies etc) in place. There should therefore be no change of status quo in Kelantan post 8th March.

You will recall I said that “rakyat’s mandate of the March 8th election is for the Pakatan Rakyat to change the status quo as far as BN policies are concerned in so far as these policies are not consistent with “justice, freedom, democracy and good governance” – the operative words being “change the status quo as far as BN policies are concerned in so far as these policies are not consistent with “justice, freedom, democracy and good governance”.

The rakyat mandate was not to change the status quo AS FAR AS PAS’s POLICIES are concerned in so far as these policies (already in place before 8th March) are not consistent with “justice, freedom, democracy and good governance”.

Although after collaboration of Pakatan Rakyat, PAS did improve even further its performance in Kelantan, I however basically consider Kelantan a PAS state because all along, before the political Tsunami of 8th March, Kelantan had been one (for some time).

The people of Kelantan had chosen PAS on the merits of its theocratic agenda even before Pakatan Rakyat joint collaboration in 12th G election and likely would have done so even if there were no such collaboration based on common manifesto on March 8th.

It would not be fair then to PAS to say that post 8th March, PAS has to put an end to its theocratic agenda in Kelantan.

You will recall that I earlier said “nobody stops PAS from its right to pursue all these measures on its own as part of its agenda but they should not be pursued by PAS via the common platform of Pakatan Rakyat and implemented in states won through the collaborative effort of Pakatan Rakyat”.

I guess I consider Kelantan as won more by PAS than the “collaborative effort of Pakatan Rakyat” since Kelantan had all the while before 8th March been with PAS.

For DAP/PKR to interfere with what PAS is doing and has all along been doing in Kelantan (the status quo) is to cross the line and interfere with PAS’s right to its own agenda.

PAS has won over Kelantanese with its theocratic agenda all this while (even before 8th March). It is not like other Pakatan Rakyat states recently won (Kedah, Selangor or Perak) in which victories and acceptance of the Opposition by their electorates were purchased on the back of a manifesto jointly endorsed by all 3 Opposition parties to the exclusion of Islamic state in the manifesto. I don’t therefore treat Kelantan as same position as the other 3 Pakatan Rakyat’s newly won states.

So how does that sound??? :)

So HB, in the premises above and in answer to your questions:
I. Islamic policies already implemented in the administration of Kelantan are not, in my view, the policies of the Pakatan Rakyat (“PR”);
II. Hence Islamic policies and practices in Kelantan should not be dismantled by PR; and
III. DAP has right to be bothered about the Islamisation of Kedah because it was won by joint collaboration with DAP based on manifesto excluding Islamic state, where status quo of Kedah pre 8th March was one free of Islamic policies and practices of a nature imposed by PAS in Kelantan.