What is the difference between Barisan Alternatif (“BA”) and Pakatan Rakyat (“PR”) besides the obvious one that DAP left BA because of ideological differences with PAS in 1999 and collaborates with PAS in PR in 2008 in spite of ideological differences???

Unless one says that in 2008 there are no ideological differences between PAS & DAP which of course even the most naïve would not believe.

Immediately after 8th March Kelantan Deputy Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yaakub’s and press secretary to Pas president Roslan Shahir Mohd Shahir make the statements reaffirming “the values of the Islamic state were already incorporated in the “Negara Berkebajikan” and that “in states where Pas is the dominant party, we will try to set up an Islamic state”; PAS deputy spiritual leader Datuk Dr Haron Din said in Harakah Daily that PAS would amend the constitution and turn Malaysia into an Islamic state if it held control of the federal government.

From here is obvious the first difference is that in PR’s case, the second echelon leaders of PAS reaffirm the Islamic state (the ideological difference) while first echelon PAS leaders reaffirm PR’s common goals of good governance, accountability and dislodgement of common enemy BN. This is of course double-talk except not by same group but different groups (first and second echelons of PAS) within same party.

To say that PAS has dropped the Islamic state agenda is untenable because no first echelon leaders of PAS contradicts what its second echelon leaders – Ahmad Yaakub Roslan Shahir Mohd Shahir Dr Haron Din – said. Their non rebuttal and non contradiction must inexorably infer that PAS first echelon leaders endorse what second echelon leaders said, probably on their behalf. In fact PAS’s president Hadi made it clear that the Islamic state and Hudud will be implemented in PAS controlled state with muslim majority! It is to be deduced that PAS has not dropped its agenda even if it acquiesce with its exclusion in Proposition Manifesto of 2008.

What is more interesting is that PR’s other main component party -Parti Keadilan Rakyat & its defacto leader Anwar- also did not contradict what PAS’s second echelon said.

Only DAP’s LKS & Karpal Singh reaffirmed that DAP’s cooperation with PAS in PR was based on mandate of rakyat (both Malays & Non Malays) on March 8 for accountability, integrity, justice, democracy and good governance and not for Islamic state or hudud laws.

Of course DAP could say that – and keep repeating that – but is there use in this when there is no evidence so far that neither PAS nor PKR publicly agree for the record??? So in substance not much different from BA situation in 1999 is there???

Which brings me to second difference between BA in 1999 and PR in 2008. Now the Opposition parties are like barbarians reaching at the gates of BN’s citadel and fortress and due to the considerable confusion and disarray in the latter, the Opposition “barbarians” stands good chance to breach the walls, enter into the fortress and take over control. Needing the common effort none of the barbarians will talk of their irreconcilable differences, of how they are going to share the spoils and who is going to be dominant to asset its agenda just so not to spoil and weaken the common effort for the final assault.

We can understand the dynamics and logic of all that : but to say that there is peace and prospects of working together after the BN’s citadel is taken control of will be a triumph of hope over logic that imposes on even the most naïve.

In the circumstances it would be better counsel not to harp too much on alleged hypocrisy and double standards of MCA/Gerakan and their connivance with UMNO’s Islamic State especially when by no stretch UMNO’s Islamic state is on all fours (ideologically similar) when compared with that of the Islamic theocratic state espoused by PAS with whom DAP is collaborating under PR.

Sorry Typos – “acquiesced with its exclusion in Opposition Manifesto of 2008″… and “…who is going to be dominant to ASSERT its agenda just so not to spoil…”

“It could well be that the DAP has used Pakatan Rakyat to get to where it is today or it could well be that all the three parties have used each other for their own ends” (Godfather) – that is a fair comment. Equally true is Undergrad2’s comment – “The issue today is not who used who to get to where. The issue now is, having got to where we are, what shall we do? Shall we “seize on the moment which comes round once in a generation or more, to work together for a better future for all Malaysians? Or should we just let it pass?”

Now the three Opposition parties having used each other for their own ends have achieved to arrive at the doorstep of seizing the moment – the power from BN – what is likely to happen next?

There is no question everyone says it works “for a better future for all Malaysians” but the question is whose version of better future for all Malaysians will prevail???

People here behind DAP believe it is in separation of religion from government and governance by man made laws whereas PAS supporters believe in a theocratic state in which religion and government are integrated and governance by Divine Sharia laws.

In such a competition for the future for all Malaysians, which agenda – between secular and a theocratic one – after a certain point ie. the point of taking over power from the BN has the better chance to succeed taking into consideration our cultural milieu, racial composition etc???

So it is correct that “the issue today is not who used who to get to where” but rather after getting to where everyone wanted, who will, from that point onwards, stand to reap greater mileage to make its agenda prevail over the other, having regard to existing parameters of our cultural milieu, racial composition and existing laws and the nature of majority of politicians on both sides of the fence. This is the other question that we should all ask.

Killer,

Thanks for elucidation to readers here Wahabbi style political Islam of PAS as in large swathes of other Middle Eastern Countries. Many have direct experience the oppressive policies of BN/UMNO and none, much of Islamo-facism so perhaps one can understand why the imperative of getting rid of BN, even in the process of collaborating with or strengthening PAS’s agenda is deemed quite acceptable when weighing cost and benefit. Hence the attitude “Life is about taking risk anyway” by leeann.

Kelantan is always used as point of reference why PAS is moderate and that rejection of PAS by detractors is branded as irrational ‘Islamophobia’. This approach does not take into consideration that Kelantan is a special ‘show case’ to sell PAS’s agenda to rest of Multiracial Malysia. Just like the way the ‘show house’ (with renovation costing more than construction cost of the unit) is used in developer’s launch to sell their houses….UMNO’s racial or corrupt policies may or may not be reversible : their underlying drive is power and capitalistic. If they need to ameliorate and change their packaging for the market (voters) to accept, they may re-invent for the better since their main goal is retain power and make money like other political parties/politicians in the more modern so called first world countries. The difference in PAS’s case is that its agenda is ultimately not subject to re-invention, compromise or reversal for the simple reason that, to believers, the formation of the Almighty’s state as near to the original one as possible is a sacred mission that is immutable and unchanging and cannot be subject to compromise. All compromises are but temporary to serve and work towards the ultimate goal.

If (Lee Wang Yen’s options were to apply), it is PAS and not DAP that should stay away from coalition since agendas “Y” (Islamic State) are not part of the common policies/agendas of that coalition, if the Opposition’s Manifesto of 2008 mentioned by Godfather were the reference.

This is because common policies/agendas of that coalition expressed in the “People’s Declaration” as common Opposition Manifesto (to which PAS was party) are entirely consistent with DAP’s secular state and pluralistic Malaysia – and not PAS’s Islamic state!

“Is any one really believe PAS will go for Hudud law? Will there get sufficient Is any one really believe PAS will go for Hudud law? Will there get sufficient 2/3 votes in Parliament to pass the Law? the Law?” – ALLAN THAM

PAS does not need 2/3 majority votes in Parliament to pass Hudud.

This is because Hudud governing creation and punishment of offences by Muslims (like Khalwat) is Islamic law authorized by Federal Constitution to be promulgated by state government/state legislative assemblies as per 9th Schedule State List II – and not by Parliament ie legislative assembly at Federal level.

So if state government or state legislative assembly is controlled by PAS majority it can pass Hudud as law (as it did in Kelantan & Terengganu when latter was under its control). Such a law though passed is not enforced because BN Federal Government does not support enforcement on grounds that it conflicts with secular Penal Code applicable to both Muslims and non muslims. Federal Govt does not oppose enforcement of other syariah offences like Khalwat made by the State governments and so these are enforced though not uniformly as regards how active or inactive the enforcement.

///What PAS is doing is injecting the great wise souls, so that all Malays can enjoy it/// – lakilompat. What about Non Muslim/Non Malays, what do they enjoy? :)

///I have to be frank, I get turned on when I see “mei mei” wearing less, may I know what’s wrong with that?/// – dawsheng

What’s wrong with that is that “mei mei” should be protected from your lustful ogling. If it is any consolation it is Ok for a man like you, wearing less, to catch the eye of a woman. That is because women are by nature less lustful as compared to you as a man. Don’t tell me you think that lust or your lustful thoughts are a good thing or that women don’t need protection from acts emanating from lust including ogling? :)

Malaysiakini 14th March reported -I understand that YB just signed with PKR leaders Dr Wan Azizah Ismail and Anwar Ibrahim and PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang a joint statement ordering PR’s members to stop airing personal views that are contradictory to those agreed by the opposition coalition…ie to “create a prosperous society irrespective of ethnicity, religion and culture and uphold human rights” and that PR also said that it would soon announce a “general declaration of principles” mutually agreed by the three opposition parties. “These will also be adopted by all PR members of parliament when Parliament is in session.”

The Sun Daily 14th April however reported – PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said that he was convinced that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) would eventually accept the Islamic state ideology: see – http://news.jongo.com/articles/08/0414/121443/MTIxNDQzkJC1shrh.html

1. Can you now ask PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang how shall PR and PAS deal with PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan MB Nik Aziz for his statement????

2. Why is the need for a further “general declaration of principles”, unless they are a revision of the 5 point PR Manifesto earlier outlined by Dr Wan Azizah Ismail?? See: http://justice4allkuantan.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/malaysiakiniopposition-leader-wan-azizah-unveils-bold-agenda/

3. if so, can we prior debate in this blog “general declaration of principles” to be “adopted by all PR members of parliament when Parliament is in session”?

4. Just like the BN’s Whip, is PR going to discipline its members if they speak contrary to general declaration of principles, are there any exceptions to instances when you can speak contrary (as when it concern important national issues and consistent with individual parties’ principles) and, in any case, how to impose discipline?

More specifically in relation to 4., if the BN introduces a bill in parliament making it compulsory for non-Muslims to inform their family before converting to Islam, what will be PR’s position, and if PAS’s MPs vote against it (following Nik Aziz’s view that it was not necessary for non-Muslims to inform their family of their wish to embrace Islam), will or can DAP’s MPS vote for and in support of BN’s bill?

I am seeking clarification on the boundaries – and limits – if any regarding PR’s whip : should there be a whip (like BN’s) on important issues like this, can PR’s MPs vote according to their respective parties’ agenda albeit in conflict with each other, and support BN on specific issues like this???

Wild wild west type shootout? Sorry, I thought the discussion was about airport heists and airport security, making no difference between the robbers that wielded their firearms actually discharged them wounding people or did not have to do so as the threat was sufficient to achieve their aims of robbery in the airports. Must be my misunderstanding of the issue then.

I have never said “Pakatan should not seize on the opportunity to make changes at the federal level that would ensure that future generations are not victimised or denied justice” And also I have not said that DAP has to leave Pakatan.

You assumed I said.

I merely said there was greater reason for PAS rather than DAP to leave Pakatan if PAS did not subscribe to Pakatan’s common principles that have excluded the Islamic State.

I said if PAS could not (with PKR’s connivance) be made to leave Pakatan, then even if it were part of Pakatan, the DAP should engage, contradict and dispute and vote against it on this issue whenever PAS tries to assert it because it is contrary to common principles of Pakatan.

I said this in my last post and enquired Kit earlier how did the Pakatan whip system work in this context of ideological disagreement between Pakatan component parties.

Typo: “…there is no ideal situation….”

I don’t think anyone wants to spurn any opportunity but where principles conflict, the principle for plural Malaysia against the Islamic state – or its furtherance in any context – ought in DAP’s case to prevail over all other competing imperatives and priorities.

Politics is art of the possible. It is whether one is brave enough to think and forge new directions and think of new combinations of alliances. Ultimately it is quest of power. It is only a question whether the exercise of that power, after it is seized, is done with some welfare of rakyat at heart or just for self aggrandizement and enrichment. That quest is the constant and consistent drive – all other inconsistencies can be tolerated in politics in the meanwhile as long as any of it (inconsistencies) helps consistently in furtherance or realisation of that ultimate goal, whether for the rakyat’s well being or selfish reasons. This is something we can learn from PAS – and of course the other master Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his nesmesis, Tun Dr Mahathir.

///Is there any law that bans a new general election from being held less than a certain amount of time after a general election?///

Not that I am aware of. I know that the constitutional prequisite of the person heading the government must command confidence of majority of the Dewan Rakyat. Otherwise no go. He & cabinet must resign, the inevitable consequence of which is that parliament must be dissolved for fresh election.

There is no law that I am aware of – requiring a certain time from last election to pass before the next. The only law is that the person heading the government must command confidence of majority of the Dewan Rakyat. Otherwise he & cabinet must resign, the inevitable consequence of which is that parliament must be dissolved for fresh election.

-no,cant do that,…- allasstra said Today at 02: 14.38 (4 hours ago)

I think what allasstra means – correct me otherwise- is to leverage on nuance without (to borrow a leaf from PAS’s style – the ultimate objective.

It is easier to get PAS to agree to support at this point of time the proposed enlarged entity of “Barisan Rakyat” if there were no change to BR’s professed “common principles” from that of its progenitor, Pakatan Rakyat that PAS had already agreed to. (All we have to be certain about is that present Pakatan Rakyat’s common principles subscribed to by DAP, PKR & PAS, to be extended to the larger BR exclude clearly PAS’s Islamic state. If so, the existing agreed common principles suffice for extension to the larger entity. To assert “secular pluralist democracy” into enlarged BR’s manifesto that Pakatan Rakyat’s manifesto never had, is to guarantee, at this point of time, PAS rejection of the proposed scheme….which will become still-born and will not help to evolve Pakatan Rakyat further to the larger entity of Barisan Rakyat incorporating other “pluralistic elements and parties” forming precisely the counterweight not only to push the old BN out forever but also to trigger the necessary critical mass by which PAS will be marginalized and moderated in its Islamic state agenda by the greater other entity.

We should not go for overkill and in the process defeat our overall objective.

I have nothing against PAS’s pursuit of the Islamic state because in a democracy its believers are entitled to that right. So are many of us entitled as of democratic right to fight for so called DAP’s secular pluralistic democracy” which is anathemic to PAS and to oppose and to thwart PAS for that reason of our view of greater good of the nation and the pluralistic rakyat. We have to start and continue to do that whilst we still can leveraging on what Bigjoe said about mainstream Malaysia’s common sense and rationality opposed to PAS’s agenda, which if true, will be reflected by the stand of all component parties joining the enlarged Barisan Rakyat winning the next general election.

Why the enlarged BR could open its doors to acceptable reform inclined elements from present BN is basically this:-

1. without a major shift from this quarter, Opposition with slim majority from isolated cross overs of disparate BN opportunists making the numbers can no more rule than BN in a stalemate…..That’s practical reality.

2. The real malaise in this country is not the depredations of all members of BN fraternity per se. (There are not so bad characters like say Zaid & Shahrir – and even Pak Lah. They are no angels but not exactly TDM’s kind ).

The malaise is the culture of such elements within BN forming majority within BN that are set in the old ways epitomized by TDM’s rule of playing on racial and religious card to perpetuate power for self aggrandizement and enrichment without regard for rakyat’s due and nation’s interest.

Today the fight is for reform basically to undo the depredations of TDM’s era and legacy that is the malaise. Before his rein the country was better in “intangible” terms. His rein brought material and infrastructure development and benefit at a huge intangible costs.

TDM, after retirement, still extends his long reach to foment BN members to preserve structure of his maligned legacy : he wants to unseat present incumbent because the latter unwittingly evinces promise to undo that legacy, which if unraveled will not only upset the ego but withdraw his and his posterity’s immunity from accountability.

The agenda of the Opposition for the good of the country is not to finish off all BN’s MPs and members.

It is to reform and cure its ills, the first prerequisite of which is to roll back the depredations of his political legacy and sever and leave behind all BN elements that support TDM’s legacy and answer his call to depose present incumbent.

It is trite logic is that if you oppose and blame present PM for March 8th debacle, it means you don’t blame your own ways as having caused rakyat’s rejection on that date and it also means you will not support much needed reforms to eliminate the bad intangible part of that legacy whilst retaining the good part of it.

The greater and immediate urgency is for Opposition to cooperate and rule to unravel that political legacy without in the process help push PAS agenda (worser in my opinion than that legacy) to the forefront of fruition. To balance the competing imperatives, we have to go the general direction outlined in the postings above.

“Parked” for time being only if during time being, PAS does not, even during this time, make manouevres or statements advancing or preaching its agenda not agreed and contradictory to and excluded in Pakatan Rakyat’s common principles for good governance, accountability, judiciary’s independence, equal welfare regardless of race and religion etc. If it does, it will be contested and resisted by DAP – even to the point of voting alongside BN against PAS – and ought to be contested & resisted by Anwar/PKR at every juncture during this time of collaboration in overarching priority over the other imperative of being seen united and cooperative within United Front. You can start a relationship – and give it a try but it must be subject to close monitoring and review that every one adheres to principles agreed – but never be afraid to end it, if it must be, if it cannot work. No one can blame you for not trying. They would however if you compromise your principles for expedience of other objectives not matter how urgent. DAP as Killer cannot afford that. It is also not good for all of us in longer run. From my personal standpoint the Theocratic state for our country is not aceptable nor negotiable (half way or quarter or fractional way). There is no need to appease PAS, it has even less parliamentary or state seats than DAP. Besides most important if it pushes its agenda it manifestly breaches the very accord and principles by which all 3 parties agree to cooperate in the first place and that is not exculpable or condonable and to take action against it, much more resist it is justified. Period.

Electorate voted for DAP, PKR and PAS in full cognisance that they are strange bedfellows so expectations that they work in unity and harmony are welcomed but bottom line not expected and hence discounted, so don’t be afraid to fight for what is right.

Remember it is more a protest against BN’s ways, they even forgot about race and religion in this protest, and if they would vote for and give chance to a monkey standing opposite a BN candidate, you mean that they would mind monkeys (just an analogy no disrespect intended for anyone) bickering amongst themselves after that?? It is only expected – and discounted. They’re all working under constraints – not ideal but only way so far.

Where I differ from Godfather is that I take position that whilst DAP could work with PAS on common goals, DAP must, in every breach or deviation by PAS of or from common agreed goals, draw a line in the sand (words of Godfather), stand by it, fight against such breaches, no matter what the costs and repercussions….confident in the knowledge that PAS would no more want more than DAP to have a deal breaker at this juncture especialy when it is the party in breach, and DAP is the innocent party aggrieved by PAS’s default and hence in moral vantage position, in public eyes, to resist, thwart and frustrate PAS’s moves.

///The only bone of contention is that whilst you keep referring to PAS as the guilty or defaulting party, and DAP as the aggrieved party, I still think that both are guilty of manipulating the electorate for their own ends. My view is that both parties are equally guilty, and that therefore the pot should not call the kettle black/// – Godfather.

My response:-

1. Where PAS and DAP agreed to collaborate under parameters of Pakatan common principles excluding PAS’s Islamic state agenda, then the reassertion by PAS of that excluded agenda constitutes a serious infraction in respect to which PAS is the guilty or defaulting party, and DAP and PKR are the aggrieved party. The pot calling kettle black is of no application here.

2. However the pot calling kettle black is of application between DAP on one hand and MCA/Gerakan on the other when DAP accuses MCA/Gerakan of conniving in and acquiescing with in UMNO’s “Islamic State” which though undesirable on standalone basis is however, on comparative basis, a different kettle of fish from PAS’s theocratic Islamic state thereby not providing similar parameters for valid criticisms.

3. Regarding manipulating electorate for own ends, that is always agreed, as I have said earlier that generally politicians will always manipulate electorate for the ends of power/positions and “promise to build a bridge even when there’s no river” ( Nikita Krushchev ).

Be that as it may, politicians like lawyers are necessary evils in sense we have to put up with them and choose one over the other or one section over the other in the hope that those elected/chosen will, despite their ingrained customary manipulation, repackage their political product and bring us a notch higher in advancement from the level the last batch left us.

Language is not an instrument of mathematical precision as to confer absolute certainty. The nearest to absolute certainty is when one inserts in the common principles “No Islamic State” or something to the effect that PAS renounces it. I don’t expect such explicit statement to be pragmatic. No way PAS’s leaders will ink it. Supporters won’t allow such when Islamic state is its raison de etre. It is as good as telling PAS not to join in the widened coalition of Barisan Rakyat at the outset. That too is OK, if it is otherwise feasible but is it???

What I mean by “certainty” is that the language of “common principles” – eg. good governance, accountability, judicial independence, war against corruption and abuse of power – must be such that according to their ordinary grammatical meaning when read and understood by reasonable persons – must be certain or explicit enough for those reasonable persons to say, “of course, all these exclude the Islamic theocratic state espoused by PAS”.

But precisely because language is not an instrument of mathematical precision, there may well be majority or all of PAS’s leaders or supporters who will (between themselves) agree and assert that “of course, common principles of good governance, accountability, judicial independence, war against corruption and abuse of power are consistent with the governance of the Islamic Theocratic state, and therefore it is not precluded”.

Nobody can stop anyone else who wants to stretch and strain language to the point of incredulity for his or her especial agenda, if they want to do that, nobody can stop them, but I am not going to sweat over something that the other side is obviously unreasonable.

I say “unreasonable” because knowing that the significant others –DAP & PKR’s – ideological platform exclude the Islamic Theocratic state, the onus would reasonably have to fall on PAS’s part to insist on explicit mention of the Islamic Theocratic state if it still wants to pursue it at the collaborative level with others failing which it has to be taken that it forgoes such pursuit again at the coalition collaborative level.

It is unrealistic as well as unreasonable to give words such as “good governance, accountability, judicial independence, war against corruption and abuse of power” a special meaning of incorporating implicitly the Islamic Theocratic state that only PAS itself alone could make it out to be that, whilst the rest of the world, whether DAP, PKR, or (say) Gerakan or East Malaysian parties joining the enlarged BR think or construe otherwise…..

As I take this position, it means that “good governance, accountability, judicial independence, war against corruption and abuse of power” if stated so in Pakatan Rakyat’s original common principles already agreed to by PAS should be good enough to be continued for the larger Barisan Rakyat entity to come. It means they are “clear enough” to exclude PAS’s agenda from any reasonable man’s point of view. That there are supporters amongst PAS who would think otherwise is not matter I can control or bother about. Whatever PAS may construe, the rest will join on basis that the common principles based on their ordinary meaning exclude PAS’s special agenda : otherwise who would join???

I agree this may represent a shift of what I said in my posting at 01: 07.22 which I revised as an afterthought in second one at 01.18.57.

Having regard to our Federal Constitution the onus is not on us to put exlicitly “secular pluralist democracy” in common principles. It may be an aspiration for DAP or our common aspiration but, apart from the fact that its articulation is an effrontery to PAS, the realistic fact is that our country is not and unlikely to be a “secular pluralist democracy” in the strict sense of that word having regard that majority of our peoples are Muslims and we don’t have a 100% secular Federal Constitution like that in the S’pore or (I assume) US or even Turkey’s promulgated by Kamal Ataturk. Even PKR won’t agree to this inclusion of “secular pluralist democracy”. This is not strictly a secular country – neither is it entirely and fully an Islamic one in UMNO’s sense or ought to be a Islamic theocracy in PAS’s sense. We have our own unique special blend and rojak of heavy Islamic features with some secular leanings, and it suffices we pursue and broaden democratic applications suitable for our plural and diverse peoples so that all have a place under the Malaysian Sun.

If “secular pluralist democracy” is by agreement of all 3 parties not in common principles of original Pakatan Rakyat, I don’t foresee that there would be agreement to include it at the wider level of collaboration under a bigger coalition of Barisan Rakyat. (same argument if Islamic state is not included in PR’s common principles, then it cannot be introduced at the next BR’s level). If DAP insists on that, it will likely have to proceed alone without PKR & PAS to try to form an alternative coalition.Can it?

Because to make an unreasonable interpretation of a set of principles referencing “secular pluralist democracy” as compatible with Islamic state is so much harder for PAS to make – “secular pluralist democracy” is almost, what you call it an oxymoron of Islamic state ? – than the former ie. the unreasonable interpretation of Islamic state inclusion within a set of principles that are so clear in their ordinary grammatical meaning excluding Islamic state.

People choose easier than a harder course in their machination but why should we bother when either cases they are “unreasonable interpretations”?

On the earlier but related issue – what “ought” to be the case is not what “is” the case.

In relation specifically to these two issues –

(1) the nature and character of our founding Constitutional document (Federal constitution) and
(2) the fact of life in Malaysia,

on both counts, I feel that ’secular pluralist democracy’ serves best and therefore to me and you and many others “ought” to be the case but at the level of what really “is” the case, the assertion of ’secular pluralist democracy’ as a fact is highly debatable and contentious on both counts even factoring in the promise made to Sabah and Sarawak…We will find people arguing against ‘secular pluralist democracy’ not just PAS’s supporters but scholars of constitution and sociology.

These issues require wide range of detailed discussions on both constitution and nation that this forum is not appropriate, so I won’t go further.

Suffice to say whether we’re talking of “secular pluralist democracy” (what, to me, “ought” to be the case) or hybrid, rojak pluralist democracy (what “is” the case), I agree that it is a “default position to be defended” with a need of a programme to defend it from “Islamisation and the agenda of Islamic state”.

Apologies to all for Islamic state fatique.