By Farish A. Noor
The repercussions of the somewhat clumsy attempt by some sections of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS to call for the investigation, and possibly banning, of the Muslim women’s rights group Sisters in Islam are still being felt today. Many questions have arisen in the wake of the proposal that was passed without debate at the recent General Assembly of PAS: How and why was the proposal passed as one of the ‘non-debated proposals’ in the first place? Why was it not vetted properly and why was it tabled at all? What does this say about the internal cohesion of PAS and its internal discipline? Does this proposal reflect just a faction of opinion among PAS members, or is it actually representative of the party as a whole? And what does this mean with regards to PAS’s avowed claims to be a modern party that supports the democratisation process and dialogue with others?
It is hard, to say the least, to believe that a party can be supportive of democracy if it starts by calling for the banning of NGOs even before it comes to power…
For now however we are left to watch the internal and external drama of PAS unfold as the party seeks to re-consolidate itself after what was clearly a hectic assembly for all. The lingering question of where PAS really stands, and where it goes from here though will have to be addressed sooner than later.
To help answer this question, we would like to propose a quick re-visit to the history of PAS from the 1980s to the present to illustrate a simple yet important point: Namely, that the Malaysian public has never had much appetite for violent, extreme and exclusive political discourse and behaviour, be it from PAS or UMNO.
In the 1980s, some of us will remember that PAS was heavily engaged in a fiery war of words with its nemesis UMNO. The leaders of PAS then – notably Yusof Rawa, Hadi Awang and Mat Sabu – were at the forefront of attacking and condemning the leaders of UMNO – notably (now Tun) Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim. It was during this period that UMNO and PAS both jointly raised the political temperature in the country, leading to the controversial kafir-mengafir episode where both sides were accusing the other side of being hypocrites (munafik) , secular and un-Islamic. This culminated in a number of bitter incidents such as the killing of Ustaz Ibrahim ‘Libya’ Mahmood at the village of Memali in 1985 and the controversy around the book ‘Hadis’ by Kassim Ahmad some years later.
PAS had then gone onto overdrive with its fiery polemics against UMNO, and the infamous proclamation of Hadi Awang that accused PAS’s opponents of being the enemies of Islam had done wonders to transform the image of PAS into that of a violent and extremist party. At the elections of 1986, the result of this overheated rhetoric were obvious: PAS’s share of the vote dropped to 15.3 per cent and Parliamentary seats to 0.6 per cent, winning only one seat.
Then, as now, PAS was trying to court the support of the non-Muslims in Malaysia through the Chinese Consultative Councils (CCCs) of PAS, but to no avail. The Malaysian public demonstrated that they were not able and willing to tolerate the violent oppositional dialectics of UMNO and PAS, but were more worried about PAS’s language of jihad and kafirs.
Fast-forward to 2002 and we see a similar scenario in the off-ing. In the wake of PAS’s victory at the elections of 1999, an over-confident PAS took it upon itself to once again play the role of the ‘defenders of Islam’. In 2002 Muslim writers, academics and NGOs (including Sisters in Islam) were once again attacked and accused of all manner of things. In the same year, PAS declared its support for the Taliban in the most blatant manner when PAS members demonstrated in front of the US embassy with posters and banners that read “Taliban are our brothers”.
The rest of the Malaysian electorate, however, was not inclined to think of the Taliban as their brothers, and once again PAS was badly damaged at the elections of 2004…
These incidents demonstrate a simple fact: That the Malaysian public may vote for PAS as a reaction against UMNO, but this does not mean that the vote is a vote in support of an Islamic state, liberal-bashing or Taliban-supporting. Consistently the Malaysian public has shown that whenever PAS (or UMNO) resorts to extreme communitarian politics and discourse, its votes will swing in the other direction.
PAS, like all political parties, has to learn the simple lesson of representative politics, and realise that the vote given to PAS in 2008 was given by the Malaysian public to the Pakatan Rakyat and what the Pakatan stands for; which is a new, freer, more democratic and plural Malaysia where diversity is respected and enhanced. The call for the investigation and possible banning of a Muslim women’s NGO like SIS on the spurious basis that it is ‘un-Islamic’ beggars belief, and makes a mockery of the Pakatan’s efforts thus far. But the ones who have the most to lose are the members of PAS themselves, who should always study their own history to learn from the past in order not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
PAS has indeed come a long way, and no doubt will remain on the scene for a long time to come. We hope and pray that as it develops and evolves, PAS will evolve in tandem with the new spirit of the new Malaysia that we are trying to build, and not against it. Having learned from its history, PAS should not condemn itself to becoming a historical relic instead.
#1 by Godfather on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 8:09 pm
I was just egging the QC Wannabe and the Cambridge Kid on. They are smart and good people, but they still lack in humility and tolerance. Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values.
#2 by Loh on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 8:10 pm
///Do you still use the Pythagorean theorem? Do you think that people today should still use the Pythagorean theorem?///
That is a truth consistent with the assumptions. It can only change when the brains work differently.
#3 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 8:15 pm
You have either misunderstood or twisted my conclusion.
What it says is that your inference that Jeffrey is spreading fears of Islam ‘based on outdated theories and outdated practises not seen in the modern era’ from your so-called fact that Taqiyya is a 15th century concept is fallacious.
In that inference (as in your oft-repeated question, ‘Are you still using a leaf to preserve your modesty?’) , you illegitimately assume that the fact that an x originated in the past shows that x is no longer believed/used/practised today.
This is a fallacious inference. You can’t assume that Taqiyya is not practised today by Muslims just because it started in or was practised in the 15th or 7th century. If you care to check, you’ll find that Muslims still practise Taqiyya today.
There are plenty of examples to show that your inference is fallacious. The fact that many Christian doctrines were formulated in the Council of Nicea in the 4th century does not mean that they are not longer held today. The fact that the probability theory was developed in the 17th century does not mean that they are obsolete today.
Of course, some ancient practices are obsolete. Your oft repeated mention of the usage of leaves is a case in point. But the above examples show clearly that historical origin in itself does not indicate that something is no longer practised today. Thus, the inference that Taqiyya is not used today because it was used centuries ago is fallacious.
#4 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 8:32 pm
Godfather either misunderstands or deliberately twists my conclusion to make it say something I do not say (and cannot be responsibly interpreted to say), that is, ‘the historical origin of Taqiyya shows that it is not relevant in Malaysia today’.
No, that cannot be what I mean if my conclusion is seen in its context. The context shows that what I mean in that conclusion is that ‘one cannot conclude or infer that something is not used/practised/believed today simply on the grounds that that thing originated in the past’.
Godfather has a tendency to misrepresent others’ views and then accuse others of writing long postings when those who have tasted his misrepresentation either elaborate a simple point or make the same simple point in several different ways either in response to his misrepresentation or in an attempt to prevent his misrepresentation.
#5 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 8:35 pm
// I was just egging the QC Wannabe and the Cambridge Kid on. They are smart and good people, but they still lack in humility and tolerance. Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values// – Godfather.
“egging” means “to encourage or incite to action”. It means, even when big issues are at stake, he is arguing for the sake of arguing – which is trivialising discussion here. Focus is not on merits/demerits of message – but trying to inculcate “humility and tolerance”.
And then the patronising remark “Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values” as if “older” necessarily implies widom (humility & tolerance) when some more rigid, dogmatic, intolerant and even senile. It also makes the implicit – questionable – assumption that he is older.
Is this not an irony when the Arrogant who says “Alright boys, I gotta go as my hourly rate is definitely higher than that of the QC Wannabe” preach Humility?
#6 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 8:39 pm
“Godfather has a tendency to misrepresent others’ views” – Lee Wang Yen. This (misrepresentation) is a tendency that for one so inclined, the years in growing older only afforded more practice to turn misrepresentation into reflex and a state of art.
#7 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 9:05 pm
His idea of (humility & tolerance) is to be humble and tolerate his misrepresentations, mis-statements, ridicules and insults, crooked and fallacious arguments, assumptions without basis thrown at any one on any issue as and when he feels at liberty to do so – without correction and check.
Humility and Tolerance means giving him a free rein like Mafia Godfather to engage in all these undesirable practices in an open forum of participators within the “family” of opposition supporters – without dissent.
His choice of nick/handle (Godfather) is calculated.
Ever seen the film “The Godfather” an American 1972 crime thriller based on the 1969 novel of the same name by Mario Puzo, directed by Francis Ford Coppola starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan etc?
There was a scene (don’t know whether Godfather II or III) in which Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), tells brother Fredo to never take sides against the family again after Fredo tries to stick up for Moe Green when Michael is talking to him. (Never mind whether Fredo doing the right thing or not) or Corleone family doing wrong thing – “Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.”
Must be our Godpap’s favourite lines. Very telling! :)
#8 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 9:07 pm
In the film, he had a lonely death. He just fell off the chair in the Rose Garden.
#9 by zak_hammaad on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 9:51 pm
“Public doesn’t like extremists” and many people don’t like your lax form of Islam either Mr. Noor – Go and learn your religion before you attempt to preach it to other, more qualified Muslims who don’t share your anti-Muslim and pro-secular agenda!
As Hadi recently said: “If you are not a fisherman, you cannot talk about fishing. It’s the same with SIS, if you do not have knowledge about Islam, you cannot talk about Islam,”
SIS is a secular and an extreme feminist party that intially began as a moderate NGO seeking to address the imbalances of the rights of women in the Malaysian context. They then turn ugly by mis-representing Islam and totally twisting the very sources that provide for Islamic legislature. None of their members are qualified nor learned in any of the sciences of the religion and therefore, they remain ignorant to think they can address women human rights without consideration for the cultural pollution that they foolishly link to Islam.
#10 by TomThumb on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 11:27 pm
moderating has finally come into play but the wrong people are being moderated. lol.
#11 by alaneth on Thursday, 11 June 2009 - 11:37 pm
I’ve never trusted PAS from the very beginning as I’ve told u in my blog. When I said if choice btw UMNO/PAS, vote undi rosak, people said – vote PAS – better than UMNO. But I don’t believe in both.
The only PAS guy I like is Dato’ Seri Nizar.
#12 by Onlooker Politics on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 12:24 am
The argument between Jeffrey/Lee Wang Yen as one party and Godfather as the other party only gives me these impression:
1. Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen were both suspicious about the sincerity of PAS in policy making for protection of the interest of non-Muslim people and of the women if Pakatan Rakyat is to continue include PAS as the component party of the coalition for forming a Federal Government in the future.
2. Godfather is keen to see a much closer tie among the component parties of Pakatan Rakyat because he is filled with the political fervour of wanting Pakatan Rakyat to form a Federal Government in the soonest possible future. Therefore Godfather will tend to rise up quickly to rebute anybody who makes a comment which is deemed to be able to cause damage and deterioration in the relationship between any two component parties within Pakatan Rakyat, such as between DAP and PAS.
3. While Godfather may not be so academically trained in logical reasoning as compared to Legal Counsel Jeffrey and Logics Expert Dr Lee Wang Yen, Godfather’s political enthusiasm and loyalty to party are some precious value which is very much sought after by a party which insists on upholding its political principle like DAP.
4. I do not know Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen personally. However, from the comments of these two gentlemen, whether posted today or posted in the past, I could strongly feel that these two gentlemen had taken up a political position to strongly oppose PAS as a political partner of DAP. Even though they might have softened their position a bit during the initial stage of Perak Impasse after seeing the good performance of Nizar in cooperation with DAP state leaders of Perak, both Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen basically still posed a susceptible attitude towards PAS.
5. Perhaps Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen should try to mix around much more often with PAS leaders in order for them to get a better hold on the religious thinking pattern of PAS leaders. Religious dogma or doctrine is never something which is never changed. If religious dogma or doctrine can remain something very static and long-lasting forever, then we will never be able to see the divisiveness between Sunni Sect and Shiite Sect of Islam, and the disunity among different denominations of Christian Churches throughout the whole world!
Anyway, please cheer up everybody. We don’t find a second Khomeini too often too easily! Let’s pray that PAS leaders will turn wise to reject any extremism!
#13 by TomThumb on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 1:20 am
“Godfather’s political enthusiasm and loyalty to party are some precious value which is very much sought after by a party which insists on upholding its political principle like DAP”
granddaddy’s blind faith and blind loyalty does injustice to the pursuit of liberty, equality and equal justice for all.
like i said if he wants the cheerleader post he would have to fight for it as there are many contenders here on this blog although most times they do not know what they’re cheering for. that’s what is wrong with dap supporters who frequent this blog to post trash.
#14 by Godfather on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 7:54 am
Onlooker:
All you need to do is to make the suggestion that the narcissistic QC Wannabe and his sidekick the Cambridge Kid ” try to mix around much more often with PAS leaders in order for them to get a better hold on the religious thinking pattern of PAS leaders”.
These anti-Islamists will come at you not with just one retort, they will come after you with continuous foot-long postings condemning PAS, condemning you, and in the process reveal their true colours – their air of superiority over others, their condescending attitude towards other faiths, their overriding desire to see PR split up. Regular readers to this blog can attest to this.
#15 by Jeffrey on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 8:55 am
///These anti-Islamists will come at you not with just one retort, they will come after you with continuous foot-long postings condemning PAS, condemning you, and in the process reveal their true colours – their air of superiority over others, their condescending attitude towards other faiths, their overriding desire to see PR split up. Regular readers to this blog can attest to this./// – Godfather.
The above is a classic specimen of rabble-rousing.
In case you say that English is not your first language I need to explain: to rabble rouse is to arouse collective emotions by leveling incitive and instigative accusations against selected targets convenient for such a purpose, never mind that the accusations are neither supported by facts, cogent arguments nor reasons.
The interest of the rabble rouser is not quest of the truth or facts on any issue – he gives two hoots on that except where it serves his agenda – but merely to leverage on and exploit the collective sentiments of readers in this blog (frustrated with excesses of the BN over the years and placing hopes on Pakatan Rakyat to end them) and making their bile of the audience rise to the brains.
There can therefore be no meaningful exchange between the rabble rouser (a small time blog demagogue wannabe) constantly inciting passions (maybe as a means to vent his own frustrations) and those others who discuss with a view to ascertain the balanced truth.
However why should we be let off a rabble rouser?
He is engaged in a combination of conscious and unconscious ways in the very same demagoguery, twisting, misrepresenting others’ positions, making false accusations as the very same racists, extremists and bigots on the other side of the political fence that he vehemently condemns here. Not only are such methods hypocritical but they are also dangerous.
Think about it.
#16 by sotong on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 8:56 am
Every party in the Opposition is important…..they need to stick together for the next election.
This is our best opportunity for significant change and you don’t want to wait another 10 years….whether from BN or PK.
#17 by Godfather on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 10:13 am
“He is engaged in a combination of conscious and unconscious ways in the very same demagoguery, twisting, misrepresenting others’ positions, making false accusations as the very same racists, extremists and bigots on the other side of the political fence that he vehemently condemns here. Not only are such methods hypocritical but they are also dangerous.” Narcissitic QC Wannabe
Since I condemn you as an extremist and bigot, I’m glad you accept the point that you engage in the same demagoguery, twisitng, misrepresenting others’ positions…
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That’s why I also want to expose the danger of listening to a crapshooter who does not deny that he writes eloquently.
#18 by OrangRojak on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 10:14 am
sotong Says: Every party in the Opposition is important…..they need to stick together
We go round and around on this point. Malaysia’s ‘first past the post’ system forces unattractive choices on the opposition. DAP and PKR could reject PAS, but the consensus (I think) is that this would cost them the next election – possibly even before the next election if PAS were to be forced into UMNO’s arms like a bitter ex-girlfriend. If DAP and PKR maintain their alliance with PAS, there is some hope of success at GE13, even if some suggest it may be a short honeymoon.
Life is full of difficult choices, and people will inevitably use whatever means at their disposal to achieve their ends – whether there’s an explicit set of instructions on the matter in their favourite work of fiction or not. I think Farish makes a good job of putting a reasonable point in his article. The point is that PAS, for its own ends, should pay better attention to the reasons for its recent success. The wider issue of Pakatan Rakyat’s choice of running mates is moot, as there simply is no choice. This isn’t a proper parliamentary democracy: second place is a total loss.
#19 by Onlooker Politics on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 11:56 am
“This isn’t a proper parliamentary democracy: second place is a total loss.” (OrangRojak)
As a foreigner living in Malaysia, OrangRojak probably sees things much clearer than we the Malaysian people, regarding the choice of running mates for Pakatan Rakyat.
Even though the police are often criticized for making baseless accusation on the Opposition Party members, the ISA can still be frequently invoked by the BN-dominated Special Branch Police to put the members of Opposition Party into solitary confinement in the ISA Detention Centre and the Sedition Act can also be occasionally used to harrass the political leaders of Opposition Party by the BN-dominated Department of Commercial Crime or the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police Force. What choice does the Opposition Party still have if it is not to overthrow the BN Federal Government by hook or by crook?
Lee Kuan Yew never denied the opportunities of engaging a political cooperation with the leftist socialists or communists during late 1950s and early 1960s when People’s Action Party of Singapore was still in the infant stage of its party development and was still not able to grasp the political power by its own strength without the support and assistance from other popular leftist leaders and the trade unionists. However, Lee Kuan Yew’s cooperation with the leftists and the trade unionists never turned PAP into a communist party.
Perhaps, those principled gentlemen like Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen should learn to take the risk of partnering with a susceptible partner if overthrowing Barisan Nasional has been set as the top priority over other considerations in the course of struggle for achieving success in their political cause!
Since Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen are good in using the technique of logical reasoning in order to arrive at a persuassive conclusion during a discussion, why don’t Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen give it a try to persuade Nik Aziz and Husam Musa to willingly declare an open renounciation or quietly give up any possible extremism element in the political ideology of PAS? There is no need for Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen to criticize fiercely on the logical flaw which may have been found in the comment of Godfather, for Godfather always speaks out of a revolutionary passion in favour of his favourite party DAP.
The political fervour or the so-called revolutionary passion which could generally be found in the revolutionists of French Revolution and American Revolution is the essential factor contributing to the success of a noble political cause. (I don’t quote October Revolution of Russia and Chinese Revolution as the historical events which already displayed the importance of revolutionary passion as a contributing factor to the success of a political cause, lest if I don’t avoid Russia and China I may be accused by Dr. Mahathir as a Communist sympathiser or a Chinese Chauvinist Racist.)
#20 by Loh on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 12:29 pm
Some 75% of those 2,000 plus who voted on Ong Tee Keat’s blog wanted MCA to leave BN. The result implies that all those who are able to post the votes but did not take part would hold the same position, a 75-25 split.
Najib said that the result was academic, which should mean that MCA would not act on it.
Why did Najib think that the result was academic? By saying so, Najib recognised that the percentage would represent the opinion of the people, and most probably the Chinese who may or may not be MCA members. Najib knows now that hardly 25% of Chinese would support MCA comes the next election. Najib might have known all along that Chinese did not vote MCA, but he did not possess this clear ratio. Najib knew also that the low support MCA commands is a result of UMNO policies which made MCA unpopular. That policy direction had been set since May 13, and has been getting more discriminatory over time. UMNO could have relaxed its imposing discriminatory racist policies if he had been interested to get Chinese to support MCA. UMNO and Najib are not interested in that outcome.
When Najib said that the results were academic, he might also mean that MCA would not act on the result. The accuracy of the result was never called to question. It is that Najib knew that MCA would stick with BN like a beggar.
I have said in the past that MCA should leave BN. In fact MCA should cease to be a political organization, but to stay on as a NGO to serve the interest of the society. The current MCA leaders are free to join whichever party outside BN. As a NGO, it can still monitor government policies and uses its influence comes next election.
MCA was worried that if PAS joined UMNO, then the Malays will be the ruling party and the others would be in the opposition. MCA had not realised that the Chinese in the cabinet served only to window dress. It is time that UMNO answers its policies based on merits, rather than following TDM’s formula that those policies were supported by MCA and hence the Chinese, to discriminate against the Chinese.
Ong Tee keat should act on the result. He should tell UMNO either to go back to Pre-1969 days with the Provision of review for Article 153 reinstated, or leave BN.
#21 by frankyapp on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 12:41 pm
Like I said before there’s a “pakatan” within PR to create serious political damage to Umno/Bn in order to win in the next GE. A kind of a Trojan Horse drama to crush the enemy within the enemy.You guys need not have to unduely critisize PAS proposal unity talk with Umno as PR’s strategy is to weaken if not cause serious damage to Umno/Bn before taking head on to win the war ie 13th GE.You guys know too that in politic there’s no permanent friend as well as no permanent enemy.Politic is also an art to win the hearts and minds of friends and foes to your side to win the ultimate war at any given time. I think PR is currently doing just that and maybe more. In politic two are not enough,you need huge crowd to determine your final success.I would suggest PR to consider this slogan ” Need solution,vote PR “.
#22 by OrangRojak on Friday, 12 June 2009 - 2:22 pm
Loh Says: The result implies …
… only something about visitors to OTK’s website. I might be prepared to wager RM50 that 10% of those votes were cast by monsterball.
I agree with Loh on the fate of the MCA – if only because I think there should be no place for racist organisations in politics. People can be conservative though. There’ll always be popular support for the MCA as long as explicit racism is permitted (much less mandated) in Malaysia. Is it time for a Malaysian Heritage Party?