Baradan Kuppusamy (“BK”) is supposedly a veteran journalist.

I believe the statement written by him in The Star “Analysis” that LKS takes exception is “they (meaning LKS & Theresa Kok) defend their association with PAS by arguing that hudud and qisas laws are only for Muslims, an argument also advanced by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim while campaigning in Kuala Terengganu”.

BK is right about Anwar though, who is attributed to have said that the party (meaning PKR) will not reject outright PAS’s plan to implement the Hudud, as it was solely for Muslims, a point immediately contradicted publicly by DAP national chairman Karpal Singh who said Anwar was wrong on this score, and went on to reiterate Malaysian Constitution/law was secular as confirmed by 1988 Supreme Court case [Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988)] presided by Tun Salleh Abas.

I don’t know about whether Teresa Kok did agree or not agree with what Anwar said but as far as I know, LKS is simply too veteran a politician to have followed Anwar’s mistake.

As far as I know LKS’s response (on 22nd December 08) to PAS Husam Musa’s statement that PAS would implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat took over the Federal Government was that “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy and it is for Husam to clarify what he actually said” – which is a stretch from what BK attributed to LKS (jointly with Theresa) to have taken position of.

There is a world of difference in what Anwar has said (which he has not denied) and what LKS has said, whi ch is different, and to that extent BK has committed a error of fact.

Unless BK could cite the exact report by which LKS has made such a claim attributed to him by BK, it would be appropriate for BK to retract and apologise to LKS.

Jong is right that “Anwar should stop playing with words”.

Here your position, as elder statesman of DAP is challenged as to why you continue electoral collaboration with PAS, helping its candidate to win KT by election, when even Anwar has made clear that the party (meaning PKR) will not reject outright PAS’s plan to implement the Hudud, as it was solely for Muslims.

Yes Anwar was refering to PKR’s position – and not PR’s position but in a coalition consisting of only 3, 2 (PAS with PKR’s acquiescence) is majority and tantamount to the same thing that PR is ok (by majority) to ac quiescence if not endorsement of PAS’s objectives.

Does that not imply your statement “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy” is now contradicted albeit indirectly by Anwar’s statement (uncontradicted by you) and has no basis to stand within the PR political firmament?

Does this not mean that you & the DAP are ineffective to stop the establishment of PAS’s theocratic Islamic state when PR is provided the opportunity to make the transition from an electoral coalition to a governing coalition if PR wins the next election with DAP’s help?

Does that not mean that you and DAP have, in spite of good intentions, facilitated or accelerated an undesirable result of helping PAS’s realisation of its agenda sooner than it otherwise could have done on its own?

There may be good pragmatic reasons why you have not contradicted Anwar, like the way Karpal did but this is one of the thrusts of Baradan Kuppusamy’s accusations going far beyond and arguably of greater importance than his commission of error of fact of what you allegedly said (with Theresa).

Whilst he was wrong about what you said, he wasn’t, regarding what you did not say.

This will remain fodder for critics like Baradan Kuppusamy to continuously question and point contradictions of yours and the DAP’s moral position in continuing in this ideologically mismatched coalition for so long as DAP still maintains its stand for Secular Malaysia against PAS’s Islamic state.

Anwar is in a dilemma.

To lead the Pakatan Rakyat to political victory, he perceives he can’t afford to alienate any segment of the Muslim community including the conservative segment in sympathy with PAS’s ideology. And yet he needs to secure support of alienated non muslim Malaysians as well as moderate muslims against PAS’s hardline approach. So he tries to hone his stand – for he surely knows he will be pressed for it – by the press and BN’s political rivals. He aims at striking a delicate balance – to satisfy and allay concerns of all opposing sides on the Hudud/Islamic state issue, a slight misstep in nuance of which would alienate both sides and satisify no one!

So he came out with this brain wave : there was no blanket answer on hudud ; he would not emulate what TDM did, ie oppose and reject hudud law out right. If Muslims wanted it, he asked why not. He went on further to say that opposition parties understood Islam and that its legislative aspects should NOT just be confined to Syariah family or civil law. Of course he did not say that if he led the PR government, he would definitely accept Hudud implementation. He added the caveat that PKR was not willing to commit itself until all parameters of the implementation of hudud were clearly defined and deliberated with its Pakatan Rakyat partners (including presumably DAP).

The salient points are that in saying that its legislative aspects should not just be confined to Syariah family or civil law, he was opening the door ajar for a passage way for demands of PAS to slip through including Hudud, justified on basis that if Muslim wanted it, why not. He also admitted that this divisive issue of Hudud issue had never even been discussed among leaders of the PR coalition.

This places the DAP in a very difficult position because when it came together with PKR and PAS to form the electoral coalition PR, it was on basis of common agreed principles to oppose bad governance on BN’s part and not pave the way for Hudud/Islamic state. In admitting that this divisive issue of Hudud issue had never even been discussed among leaders of the PR coalition, it means that it is not part of the common understanding forming the common electoral pact. This further means that one can construe what he says as constituting a paradigm shift of at least his and PKR’ s position.

His caveat that all within PR would be consulted will not assuage Non Muslims and moderate M uslims’ concerns because PR is made up of 3 partners, and such a paradigm shift by 2 out of 3 will put Kit and DAP in a tight corner and mocks at the validity of DAP’s claim ie that “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy”. How is that tenable any more? [Which in part explains why DAP Karpal Singh broke his silence and said Anwar was wrong, citing 1988 Supreme Court case of Che Omar].

Anwar may need to do what he thinks he needs to do to defeat BN based on pragmatic realpolitik but whether what he does/says is really “pragmatic” to help PR’ s cause is open to question.

Although many people want change from BN’s 50 years hegemony, they are not unconcerned as to what or where this change is leading to. They want to know that they can trust a leader who is not a chameleon speaking situationally different tones/nuances to different audiences depending on race, religion and culture based on pragmatic considerations of how to garner maximum votes regardless of principles.

In trying to hone his message to please all sides of the Hudud debate, he may end up pleasing no one, and certainly embarrasing his coalition partner DAP in a quandary as to how to maintain the claim “Hukum hudud is not Pakatan Rakyat policy”. His ambivalence will infect like a virus the DAP’s leaders who, except for outspoken Karpal, are disinclined to openly contradict the defacto head and show schisms in the coalition. However this will not shield them from being continuously made fodder by the likes of people like MCA OKT who contradicted what Kit said and Baradan Kuppusamy, for what Kit did not say….

It is difficult to see how by such of Anwar’s actions/words, that basi cally undermies the DAP’s position, he is being “pragmatic” in service of the PR’s cause. It is likely to backfire and alienate the DAP from its traditional supporters in disservice to the P R’s Cause.

This is the point I want to make in my earlier postings, lest they are being misunderstood.