“I cannot understand PAS leaders and their need for an ideological approach to issues” – Undergrad2

Terengganu State Government (when it was under PAS) already passed the Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) Terengganu Bill in 2002 over the heads of protest from other Opposition parties, NGOs and civil society. Even the BN Federal governnment refused to enforce it.

So PAS (through Husam) now thinks that this Kuala Terengganu parliamentary by-election is opportune time to revive this issue.

It is really in bad taste. Not just because it enables OKT/MCA & MSM/The Star to play up the Islamic state issue against PR.

It is because this Kuala Terengganu parliamentary by-election is important to signal the mood/momentum of where the rakyat are turning. PAS should concentrate on issues of governance whether they be Monsoon Cup or Oil Royalties. However it does not. It rather campaigns on a divisive issue about which none of the PR members including PAS have signed and endorsed when they agreed to collaborate under Pakatan Rakyat.

PAS’s approach has then sent out three unacceptable signals:-

The first is : it places its coalition partners esp DAP in a quandary. It is sending a message that DAP’s support of PAS candidate to ensure Kuala Terengannu’s victory will lead to, whether DAP likes it or not, a victory, albeit by marginal advance, of its Islamic theocratic state agenda that D AP has all along opposed.

Yes Kit could clarify but MSM/the Star is not reporting it but more important is the thrust of OKT’s frontal attack – what is the point of words if unmatched with deeds doing the opposite?

The second signal is that the sentiments of none Malays/Muslims voters on Hudud are of no pivotal concern or part to play in Kuala Terengannu’s by election. It is a battle defined by only PAS & UMNO on a competition based on race and religion and who is the better champion, a line that Pakatan Rakyat as a whole has been trying a steer away.

And the third signal – is that PAS could say what it wants with impunity – never mind it constitutes a flagrant breach of or deviation from the understanding amongst all PR coalition partners in their founding electoral pact – which subtly implies it is the dominant player that the rest have to put up with, whether they like it or not, if they want a whiff of a chance at power by defeating BN in the longer run.

It is not MCA/OKT that have tarnished DAP’s stand as a principled party. They merely exploited the situtation.

It is PAS that has put the DAP in a dilemma by this unnecessary and unproductive late hour statement from Husam. (Subsequent qualifications that it cannot be done without the 2 approval cannot so easily repair the damage as the ultimate intent of the thocratic agenda is reaffirmed). Such statement is not the first nor will it be the last.
“I cannot understand PAS leaders and their need for an ideological approach to issues” – Undergrad2
Terengganu State Government (when it was under PAS) passed the Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) Terengganu Bill in 2002. Federal governnment refused to enforce it. So PAS (through Husam) thinks that this Kuala Terengganu parliamentary by-election is opportune time to revive this issue. It is really in bad taste. Not just because it enables OKT/MCA & MSM/The Star to play up the Islamic state issue against PR. It is because this Kuala Terengganu parliamentary by-election is important to signal the mood/momentum of where the rakyat are turning. PAS should concentrate on issues of governance whether they be Monsoon Cup or Oil Royalties. However it does not. It campaigns on a divisive issue about which none of the PR members including PAS have signed and agreed when they agreed to collaborate under Pakatan Rakyat. PAS’s approach has sent out three unacceptable signals.

The first is : it places its coalition partners esp DAP in a quandary. It is sending a message that DAP’s support of PAS candidate to ensure Kuala Terengannu’s victory will lead to, whether DAP likes it or not, a victory, albeit by marginal advance, of its Islamic theocratic state agenda that D AP has all along opposed. Yes Kit could clarify but MSM/the Star is not reporting it but more important is the thrust of OKT’s attack – what is the point of words if unmatched with deeds doing the opposite?

The second signal is that the sentiments of none Malays/Muslims voters on Hudud are of no pivotal concern or part to play in Kuala Terengannu’s by election.

And the third signal – is that PAS could say what it wants with impunity, never mind it constitutes a flagrant breach of or deviation from the understanding amongst all PR coalition partners in their founding electoral pact – which subtly implies it is the dominant player that the r est h ave to put up, whether they like it or not, if they want a chance at the whiff of power defeating BN in the longer run brings.

It is not MCA/OKT that have tarnished DAP’s stand as a principled party. They merely exploited the situtation. It is PAS that has put the DAP in a dilemma by this unnecsary and unproductive late hour statement from Husam. (Subsequent qalifications that it cannot be done without the 2 approval cannot so easily repair the damage as the ultimate intent of the thocratic agenda is reaffirmed).

If they miscalculate on non-Malays/Muslims or even some other Malay/Muslim voters sentiments on Hudud issue, it would send Kuala Terengannu’s parliamentary seat right back to BN for which PAS is wholly responsible for this debacle.

In Selangor PAS is lobbying that beers be not served in football matches. They are very clever at these challenges, they will say beer will cause rowdiness and fights whereas it is doubled edged to further its agenda incrementally where ever possible.

Feuds within PR are not instigated by BN that only exploits the feuds.

They are instigated by PAS itself and the question DAP/PKR have to address is how long this acquiescence of PAS advancement of its agenda by incremental/marginal steps should be tolerated and when and where to draw the line and take action.

yes good for The Star, Wong Chun Wah will have finally got a successor who could do better than him on impartial journalism

Good suggestion I always encourage people to fulfill their life long ambition, if your particular application of sterile logic combined with venomous writing will help you get there faster to get the pingat, the panacea for curing certain types of insecurity, go for it! Certainly beats relying on handle like Godfather in virtual environment for recompense.

The bottom-line is a coalition without UMNO and PAS – Lee Wang Yen . It is possible only if the malay ground is not by overwhelming majority remain divided between either of the two, which for long as this subsists, DAP/PKR would have to put up with PAS’s provocations, if they were, at the same time, not to lose their recent electoral gains as a coalition and distance themselves further from prospects of dislodging BN & winning Federal control. (Here we’re limiting the goal just to dislodging the BN, whether or for the price and pragmatism of that, it will irreversibly usher the country precariously nearer to the precipice of theocracy to the detriment of all is nother separate question).

The severance of of the ideologically more compatible DAP and PKR
from the ideologically opposed PAS is possible – with prospects of others in BN (alienated with UMNO crossing over) – only if enough of the moderate Malay ground move to support PKR if not DAP in combination.

There are two questions here to be resolved.

(1) what constitutes “enough” – 40 to 50% ??? who and how to determine that?

(2) the chicken & egg issue of which ought rightly come first, whether for example PKR/DAP have to wait for the critical mass of 40 to 50% referred to in (1) to move first, and then sever from PAS OR the other way around, sever first at some point of time in order to accelerate the development and obtaining of that critical mass…..

I suppose Individuals and rakyat like us would be concerned with principles of “good acountable and transparent governance” equal oportunity and fairness of applications of rules and laws. The reason is that where such principles are applied, we, as rakyat benefit, as rightly ought to be the case.

You should excuse me being a cynic.

My view is that politicians and coalition partners – whether BN or PR – would pay attention to principles only to the extent that by being perceived so by their constitutencies and electors favourably, they could get elected to power to be able in turn to leverage on that power for its continuance, for so long as possible….

That being the case the main principle by which politicians including Opposition PR politicians operate is the calculation of which route gets them nearest and quickest to power by dislodgment of the incumbent.

It is dominanely a cost versus benefit evaluation in terms of which gives quicker access or impediment to attaining power that bear on the equation of whether to stay or leave or sack anyone from a coalition at any given time.

I do not think technical difficulties arising from how to expel PAS from coalition and whether it would be more technically feasible for PKR and DAP to pull out instead are important or decisive : either way is Ok and whichever way there are a million excuses depending on whether if or when a coalition partner or partners want to do it.

So the method of split (who evicts or retires) is not but whether, on the balance of cost and benefit in relation to power, one wants to split in the first place and if so when is best time and circumstances to do so will be decisive.

Since I started (rightly or wrongly) on first premise that end/objective of politicians/coalition partners is primarily power, and in terms of ideological principles, only secondarily [to the extent of how much their constituencies/electorate’s perception of their adherence to principles translates to voting support serving the ends of power], then there is but only one crucial consideration and calculation – ie whether or when sufficient of the moderate Malay ground has moved to PKR’s side or DAP in combination – or perception thereof by PKR/DAP’s politicians. In short the cost and benefit based on (1) and (2) of my preceding posting at 22: 25.36 above.

This (beyond anything else) will mainly determine the questions of if and when it is neccesary if at all for PKR/DAP to effect the split and also whether other alienated component parties within the BN will cross over to the perceived winning side.

Humour (as emanting from a perceived joke) is an attribution more charitable to its maker than the only other alternative of ludicrousness.

“So why not let BN retain power, structurally weakened though it may be because of the in-fighting, but with a reduced majority – with a strong opposition” – Undergrad2.

You are saying this exactly from whose point of view, and advantage?

If it were from rakyat or even PK’s view points, it is no comfort.

Things may not be static. A structurally weakened BN could repair
that structure; and a strong Opposition on 8th March may be weakened over time by the Center/Federal Government in control of funds and laws impeding the Opposition’s ability to run the state governments. As you earlier observed, “DAP (and rest of PKR) does not have is the luxury of time!”

Sorry for typo omission – should be “90.999%” not 9.999%

Sorry it should be “No I think you should be judge more than a lawyer”, not the other way around, see how your cross examination confused me. :)