One of the causes of gloom for many Malaysians on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary comes from the question whether Malaysia has lost one of its fundamental nation-building underpinnings agreed by the forefathers of the major communities in the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement half-a-century ago that ours is a secular state with Islam as the official religion and not an Islamic state?
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in Bukit Mertajam on Saturday that Malaysia was not a secular or theocratic state but one which was based on parliamentary democracy.
What Abdullah did not say is as important as what he said. He deliberately omitted reference to the Islamic state. Is he saying that Malaysia is or is not an Islamic state?
Abdullah’s omission is understandable as general election is around the corner and he wants to make life easier for the Gerakan, MCA and other non-Umno Barisan Nasional leaders to mislead the people that the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement were still intact and honoured although one of the core nation-building principles had been demolished.
Although Abdullah studiously avoided any reference to Islamic state, nobody can accuse Umno leaders of camouflaging their clear intentions as the declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state had not only been made by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as Prime Minister on Sept. 29, 2001 but reiterated by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on July 17, 2007 who went on to say that Malaysia was not and had never been a secular state.
Furthermore, there had been unanimous support by Barisan Nasional leaders to Mahathir’s “929 Declaration” that Malaysia was an Islamic state, with the then Gerakan President, Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik even anticipating Najib’s “717 Declaration” arguing at the time that Malaysia had been an Islamic state from Day One of the new nation!
After the next general election, what is there to stop the stitching together of these various declarations by the top Umno leaders which have received explicit support of the other Barisan Nasional leaders into one all-encompassing declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state and was not and had never been a secular state?
For 44 years until the Mahathir’s “929 declaration” in 2001, the position of the UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders were clear and unequivocal – that Malaysia was conceived as a secular state with Islam as the official religion and that It was not an Islamic state.
On the 50th Merdeka anniversary, the position has varied to: Malaysia is not a secular state. It is an Islamic state. It is not a theocratic state.
The abandonment of the “Malaysia is a secular state and not an Islamic state” stand and its replacement by the “Malaysia was an Islamic state and was not and had never been a secular state” position involved a quantum jump and tectonic shift, going against the very grain of the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement which had been openly defended by the nation’s forefathers including the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.
Once it is accepted that Malaysia is an Islamic state, then the call to transform Malaysia into a theocratic state would involve a smaller and much easier jump as compared to the quantum leap from Malaysia as a secular to an Islamic state.
If Malaysia as a secular state with Islam as the official religion which was totally unchallenged and undisputed for the first 44 years of Malaysian nationhood could be so summarily, undemocratically and unconstitutionally jettisoned, what is there to stop another small leap for those who want to see Malaysia’s Islamic state assuming full Islamist characteristics on the road towards a theocratic state?
It will not require another 50 years for such a smaller and much easier jump unless the present generation of moderate Malaysians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, are prepared to heed the recent advice of the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrain Shah in quoting a leading jurist: “We have to stand up and be counted. We have to protect the things that make our nations great…”
#1 by lakshy on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 1:44 pm
All of us must read the constitution as suggested by YTM Raja Nazrin. Therein lies all the answers.
Anyway, someone should ask YTM Raja Nazrin or even Sultan Azlan Shah the question and get their answer to it. Is Malaysia a secular state and was it conceived as such.
If Malaysia is not an Islamic State, PM should have immediately told his men to stop harping on the issue.
#2 by sotong on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 2:01 pm
Don’t expect any Malays, including the former PM, to come forward to declare the country is secular with Islam as an official religion according to the spirit of the Social Contract and Constitution.
This is the most divisive and damaging statement made at that time for narrow, short sighted and personal political survival……the consequences are permanent, long term and far reaching.
#3 by lakshy on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 2:01 pm
…and whatever some Bn youth leaders may say, umno practices racism. The very fact that the membership is by race or religion makes it so.
And no amount of spin is going to change that. Also the calls made during the recent umno general assemblies clearly shows that the party uses racism to further their agenda. And what pray tell is the agenda that results in phrases like “ketuanan melayu” being coined?
#4 by Toyol on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 2:09 pm
The only way to uphold the Consitution is to vote out BN. It is them who is making a mockery out of our beloved Constitution.
#5 by sotong on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 2:37 pm
There is a huge difference between a secular state with Islam as an official religion and an Islamic state.
Because it was misunderstood in the past, political and religious opportunists took full advantage of the situation to implement their damanging and hidden agendas resulting in worsening religious intolerance in the country.
#6 by Daniel Quah on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 2:50 pm
dont bother telling them about it, it just like teaching pure math to a 12 yrs old boy…they wont understand , they just know 1 + 1 = 2 …if u challege them, they will run amok and start using the religion or KERIS to threat u…seem like a warrior if it was 100 yrs ago but for now seem like lack of credibility..Pls show your KERIS to US if u dare…
#7 by Godfather on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 4:22 pm
Sleeping Beauty would have been better served with the standard “saya tak tahu” reply instead of trying to sow confusion with his “neither this nor that” reply.
So we are now a bastardized country ?
#8 by Jeffrey on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 5:09 pm
The Prime Minister’s exact words : “Malaysia is not a secular state and neither is it a theocratic stateâ€Â.
He is saying the truth, no matter how unpalatable, and one can’t fault him for that.
According to Wikepedia, a secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and most often has no state religion or equivalent. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions. Public funds are not used to support any particular religion over the others.
One can say that our Constitution and government are predicated substantially on a secular platform with separation of 3 branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary), government being formed from coalition of parties that win majority seats in parliament and that laws are made by Parliament with no formal institutional method for vetting a law to ensure it’s compliance with Islam before its passed.
Being predicated a large part on a secular platform however does not imply that we’re secular with due respect to all detractors including prominent lawyer Karpal Singh.
There is no way Malaysia can be considered a secular state considerating firstly the Constitution provides that the official religion is Islam and allows under its 9th Schedule Islamic authorities to promulgate the necessary sharia laws at will as may be applicable to Muslim and secondly the amount of public funds the government commits to construction of mosque and establishment of Islamic institutions in education, banking, finance, insurance etc and the enthusiasm with which Islamic values are infused and disseminated…..
One may raise the issue of the ‘Merdeka Agreementâ€Â/‘Social Contract’ and say that it was intended to be “secular†but the reality is whatever the expectations are on the ‘Social Contract’ may be, what the character of a state is – whether secular, Islamic or theocratic – is measured by and reflected in the land, its peoples (including majority peoples), predominant culture and its rulers, with all four indicia representing the cornerstones of a state……
Yes, the PM “deliberately omitted reference to the Islamic state†as pointed out by YB Kit. “Is he saying that Malaysia is or is not an Islamic state?†Kit asked.
It depends on what the term “Islamic state†means. Admittedly, the term “Islamic state†has different meanings depending on peoples and countries and the Islamic state proclaimed for Afghanistan is the not same as that of Iran and for that matter that of Saudi Arabia or Syria.
However in common parlance, when one talks of an ‘Islamic state†it is generally represented by the following features: –
· its laws are primarily sharia (Islamic law) derived from God, as interpreted by Ulamaks and religious scholars; Islam is the major criteria for laws. All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations.
· The population is overwhelmingly muslim and the ruling authority looks after the citizens’ affairs according to the Shari’ah rules. Other religions are not recognised officially.
· Criminal law is Hudud and not common law;
· the ruling authority excludes non muslims.
By these criteria above stated, Malaysia is definitely not an Islamic State in the sense of popular parlance, an Islamic theocracy.
So what is Malaysia?
If the term Islamic State is not to be connoted as an Islamic Theocracy as is usually understood – if an Islamic State is one where the majority of citizenry are muslims and the government is partial to promoting Islam – then Malaysia is a hybrid and rojak of an Islamic state to Muslim citizenry and a secular state to non muslim……It is unique to this country.
Then the other question arises – isn’t it true as what YB Kit said of a “ tectonic shift†that “once it is accepted that Malaysia is an Islamic state, then the call to transform Malaysia into a theocratic state would involve a smaller and much easier jump as compared to the quantum leap from Malaysia as a secular to an Islamic stateâ€Â?
In a way yes, but it is not going to be principally dependent upon “labels†– “Islamic state†or “secular stateâ€Â, it is going to depend these factors :
1. whether non muslims and civil societies are vigilant and defensive of their secular rights;
2. whether the government will continue playing the religious card to up the ante on PAS;
3. whether the non mulsim population continues to dwindle due to parents having fewer children and the children migrate whereas the Muslims have larger families and do not migrate.
The scenario does not look optimistic for non muslims. It is realties that count, and not labels because for 20 years before TDM said we were an Islamic State, the answer to 1. is no. to 2. and 3. yes which means that even if the secular label had not been challenged the Islamisation process is fiat accompli!
The other part of the equation is whether the ruling party really wants us to make the transistion from Islamic state to Islamic theocracy. The Islamic scholars and clergies and the very conservative may want to but the ruling party (at present moment) may not. They are promoting religion to bolster their credentials to rule and continue with what many people would consider non religious and capitalist interests under the banner of “modernisation”.
Then there is a growing modern segment of the Muslims (eg sisters in Islam, individuals like Marina Mahathir, Zaid Ibrahim, Regent of Perak etc and many of UMNO bigwigs as well and those who helm GLCs and our institutions [Central bank, Securities Commission etc] are opposed to the slide towards a theocracy.
For now the PM has at least put on check fundamentalist Islamists wishing to push their agenda based on Najib’s and TDM’s declaration that we’re an Islamic state as the expression is commonly understood to mean in popular parlance and lexicon.
#9 by AhPek on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 5:20 pm
“The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmed Badawi said in Bukit Mertajam on Saturday that Malaysia was not a secular or theocratic state but one which was based on parliamentary democracy.” But he also did not make it unequivocally clear that it is also not an islamic state.So what does it mean?
It means he is playing politics for he might think that he has made it easier for every BN to face their respective constituent on election day.He knows his “Mr. Clean” image won’t sell. Neither would his “Don’t work for me,work with me.” crap.
So fellow Malaysian, what else is new.
#10 by shiver on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 5:22 pm
uncle lim, you better make sure that the 40% of the non-muslim voters will understand the consequences if we are to become an islamic state. and also, get some muslim members in DAP or else DAP will be forever seen as a chinese party fighting for chinese rights.
the only way is to get matured minded muslims to make DAP a more malaysian malaysia party. in fact, if you can get malay leaders in, i’m sure DAP will do well
#11 by sybreon on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 6:33 pm
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
I, for one, can still remember the time when the DAP went to bed with PAS, a party that _wants_ to implement an Islamic State. As a result of that election, both you and Karpal lost your seats.
Therefore, I am not convinced by all the political posturing that DAP is doing now. You have shown through your actions that you are perfectly comfortable with the concept of an Islamic State.
I know that, to you, all this is just politics and talk. UMNO is playing their role in the play (to attract PAS supporters), and you are playing yours (dancing right opposite them). No thank you!
#12 by Godfather on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 6:46 pm
“For now the PM has at least put on check fundamentalist Islamists wishing to push their agenda based on Najib’s and TDM’s declaration that we’re an Islamic state as the expression is commonly understood to mean in popular parlance and lexicon.”
says Jeffrey QC
That’s a convenient way of saying that Badawi really knows what he is doing, which requires a real stretch of the imagination. If he is truly a PM for all races, then he should openly chastise Najib for saying that Bolehland is an Islamic state. He should go on to say that the “neither here nor there” position must remain the official government position and that there will be no further debate on the matter. Have we heard such declarations ? Nooooooo. What I think is happening is that he is pandering to a specific audience and he will say what he thinks that audience wants to hear. Tomorrow, Kelantan UMNO will openly say that Bolehland is an Islamic state and there will be no squeak from Badawi.
Political expediency is the name of the game, which is of course unfortunate.
#13 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 7:08 pm
“Once it is accepted that Malaysia is an Islamic state, then the call to transform Malaysia into a theocratic state would involve a smaller and much easier jump as compared to the quantum leap from Malaysia as a secular to an Islamic state” KIT
I’m sorry I cannot say I share the same thought.
It is not possible to make that leap – small or quantum. Neither do they want to take that leap. I do not think even PAS believes it is possible. Well I’ll take some of that back! Maybe only PAS in the tormented minds of their leaders would like to think it is possible to take the leap and not fall in the abyss of what could well turn into a failed state.
If they keep up with this Islamic state rhetoric and the DAP keeps responding to it, we’d be playing their game and not ours. Already it is drumming up support from the Malay conservatives to rally in support of UMNO in fear rather than in hope. To them the message appears to be “it is better to have some corrupt Muslims as their leaders who have fear of Allah in their hearts than an infidel who prays to stone idols”.
#14 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 7:10 pm
I say in the final analysis it is better to leave it alone.
#15 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 7:22 pm
“I, for one, can still remember the time when the DAP went to bed with PAS, a party that _wants_ to implement an Islamic State. As a result of that election, both you and Karpal lost your seats.” sybreon
This speaks to the failure of the DAP leadership in getting to their conservative base and explaining why DAP “went to bed with PAS” as you characterize it. We are not naive as to believe that that is what it meant. Failure to forge some sort of electoral alliance to contest the GE dooms the opposition parties to the role as opposition parties. I hate having to repeat this oft quoted the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” (I hope I got that right!).
Now hold that thought for a sec. Tell me if it makes sense. If it does then does it make sense to proceed from that premise and build an electoral pact so that we could defeat BN. PAS does not share the same ideology as any other party. The same argument applies against the other opposition parties but I do not see that happening within those parties – or is it because they are Malay or Malay dominated parties? You tell me.
#16 by sybreon on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 7:52 pm
undergrad2: I think that history has already shown what happens when DAP sleeps with PAS. Decades of trust was betrayed and trust needs to be *earned* back.
I disagree with your notion that you need a political pact to defeat BN. By having a political pact for a straight fight, you are forcing the voters into a position between a rock and a hard place. You are polarising the people. you cannot make wise choices when you are being crushed from both sides. Between BN (who shouts Islamic State) and PAS (who has worked out the details), how is a regular person supposed to choose?
If political expediency is all that DAP can come up with in order to win an election, they do not deserve any vote. DAP needs to give people a real choice, not the pirated version of choice. If the opposition really wants to come into power, it needs to present something different from the ruling government and not the pirated copy of the same old DVD that has been playing for the last 50 years.
LKS, please tell me why I should even bother to take the effort of replacing the current government of snakes with your government of snakes? What happened to from the people, for the people, by the people? People?
#17 by AhPek on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 8:44 pm
“LKS,please tell me why I should even bother to take the effort of replacing the current government of snakes with you government of snakes?”.Sybreon.
So if LKS cannot give you a satisfactory reason, are you also saying that you’ll help to retain this “current government of snakes.”.If you are abstaining to vote you are also saying that this “current government of snakes” are still preferable to me.
Common on Sybreon, this state of affairs prevailing in this country is just not acceptable by any standard with a bunch of thieves plundering the nation’s coffer. This situation is more akin to a banana republic that you see prevailing in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.Any opposition is better than any from the present government, don’t you see. Or you don’t agree?
#18 by AhPek on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 8:49 pm
Correction- If you are abstaining to vote, you are also saying that this “current government of snakes” are still preferable to you.
#19 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 8:59 pm
“undergrad2: I think that history has already shown what happens when DAP sleeps with PAS.”Sybreon
What do they say about repeating a lie often enough so it becomes the truth?
“Sleeping with the enemy” reflects the failure of the DAP leadership in explaining adequately to its conservative base. In any case I believe those who switched votes (to BN?) or did not vote as a result of Sybreon’s characterization, came from the ranks of fence sitters who would not have cast their votes in any case.
Isn’t a coincidence that BN foot soldiers engage in a psychological battle for the hearts and minds of Chinese voters see the same as an opportunity to further alienate the conservative base of the DAP party from its leadership.
Kit, please take note!
#20 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:12 pm
“By having a political pact for a straight fight, you are forcing the voters into a position between a rock and a hard place. You are polarising the people. you cannot make wise choices when you are being crushed from both sides. Between BN (who shouts Islamic State) and PAS (who has worked out the details), how is a regular person supposed to choose?” Sybreon
Elections are about winning. That is only a strategic alliance forged to contest the GE and the GE alone. It is not a betrayal or a dilution of the principles DAP stand for – nor the sharing of an ideology. Everyone knows that and if it had been carried out properly it could have turned the tables in a number of constituencies. DAP would need someone like Karl Rove in the Bush Administration to act as political strategist. This is a specialized field and a position which only the best among the country’s political scientists could hope to fill.
Why is it that PAS followers are not saying the same thing about their leaders “sleeping with the infidel”?
#21 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:20 pm
An electoral alliance for such a limited but very important purpose is hard to forge because it will require compromise. It revolves around the desire of the parties to give up certain seats – rather than some seats – in return for another. This is difficult to do but easy enough to state. It requires certain individuals to sacrifice their personal interest, subject their short term personal interests to those of the long term objective of the party they serve.
So far it has been a failure of leadership.
#22 by sybreon on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:37 pm
AhPek: It isn’t either us or them situation. It’s only this way if you choose to see it that way. If you are the kind of person who believes that since the current situation is extremely bad, any other alternative must be better, all I need to do is point to Iraq. I want a Good solution and not a “damned if I do, damned if I don’t” one.
Undergrad2: There is no need to resort to name calling. There is no need to suggest that I’m callous with my votes (I have actually taken the effort to vote before). It’s because I believe in the democratic process and *care* about my vote, that I’m expressing my unhappiness with DAP. If I was a ‘tidak apa’ I wouldn’t even have bother to express my views here.
I believe that LKS is wiser than the two of you and will understand what I mean.
#23 by sybreon on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:40 pm
undergrad2: You want a “Karl Rove” person in our country?!!! Please read up on what kind of person he is before you make statements like that. I rest my case.
#24 by UFOne on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:49 pm
Probably Malaysia is trying to stand in the eyes of, and look the best in the islamic world. May be she thinks that is a smart thing to do.
#25 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:59 pm
To: Syberone
I never engaged in name calling. I’m sorry I don’t see any name calling in my response to your post.
As for Karl Rove, I hate the guy because he is the brain behind Bush’s policies. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was his idea as well as Rumsfeld’s. Rumsfeld has been pressured to resign but the only reason why Karl Rove has not taken the heat in the Scooter Libby’s trial is because he is that close to Bush.
#26 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 9:59 pm
But I believe he is good in what he does.
#27 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 10:04 pm
“I believe that LKS is wiser than the two of you and will understand what I mean.” Sybreon
There is nothing new about “sleeping with the enemy” argument, and why some people have been made to think that that was the cause of the DAP doing less well that it should have.
#28 by sybreon on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 10:19 pm
undergrad2: I grant you the fact that you didn’t outright call me a liar, a fence sitter nor a BN foot soldier. Insinuation would be a better term for it.
When I said that LKS will understand what I mean better, I wasn’t referring to the “sleeping with the enemy” issue.
Like I said, I believe that he will understand it better.
#29 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 10:57 pm
The problem is that Kit may buy into this “sleeping with the enemy” as the cause of the poor showing by DAP at the last GE. If it was, it is not, in my opinion, because of the “sleeping with the enemy” or the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” but because of the failure of the DAP leadership in explaining to their base why they thought it was necessary to collude to win more seats that would have been lost had there been three-cornered fights.
#30 by Jeffrey on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 11:03 pm
“……//…If he is truly a PM for all races, then he should openly chastise Najib for saying that Bolehland is an Islamic state. He should go on to say that the “neither here nor there†position must remain the official government position and that there will be no further debate on the matter…//….†Said Godfather.
I read it that when the PM said “Malaysia is not a secular state and neither is it a theocratic stateâ€Â, he was already saying that that was the “official government position and that there will be no further debate on the matterâ€Â.… No I don’t think that he should openly chastise Najib for saying that Bolehland was an Islamic state to prove he is truly a PM for all races.
On the other of your remarks “that’s a convenient way of saying that Badawi really knows what he is doing, which requires a real stretch of the imagination†and that “he is pandering to a specific audience and he will say what he thinks that audience wants to hear†– (the suggestion here is that if he addresses another audience he would say differently) – I don’t think it is substantially true.
He did not make the statement to a non muslim audience such as (say) a closed door Gerakan or MCA function. According to news report he made the statement on 4th August to a mass gathering at the Tuanku Bainun Teachers Training College in Mengkuang which I presume was a majority muslim audience. It was intended for national audience, which includes muslim conservatives and his constituency. Once stated (as what the Tunku & Tun Hussein Onn did) goes on record and would be subsequently quoted.
Concerning your statement “tomorrow, Kelantan UMNO will openly say that Bolehland is an Islamic state and there will be no squeak from Badawiâ€Â, we do not know that, do we?
On the statement “political expediency is the name of the game†for Badawi, the fact that it may be true for some of the PM’s other actions and statements does not necessarily mean that in this particular instance he did not know what he was doing or what he was saying.
I may be a minority opinion here but I just have a little more faith in and would give the PM a little more credit what you are prepared to give in the context of this particular and important statement on the state of nation.
When the PM has done or said wrong I can understand the legitimate criticisms against him but if he has not said anything wrong and may have even said right, why extrapolate to say he did not know what he was saying or doing in such an instance?
We should evaluate and comment the merits and demerits of what he said or does case by case, criticize or commend also based on case by case rather than take the stance that because in most instances he was, in our judgment, doing or saying wrong, it would apply to each and every case because the man is incapable at all times of doing or saying right and if this time around though he sounded right, it must be because he either did not know what he was doing or saying or that he didn’t mean it and would change the tune the next audience he addressed on what the nation is – that it is an Islamic state…….
In other words, he could never do or say anything right, ever. This is, I humbly submit, unadulterated bias.
#31 by Jeffrey on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 11:08 pm
So if the BN is rid off (assuming it loses in an election to the alternative front consisting of PAS PKR and DAP) what do we have? Is PAS, PKR or DAP the leader of the Alternative Front? If PAS is the leader will the alternative front implement a form of government secular as what the DAP advocates or the theocratic state that PAS promises its supporters? What is the end result?
#32 by thearmchairbitch on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 11:37 pm
The first thing Abdullah should start focussing on is to put a leash and muzzle over each one of the loose-cannon members of his cabinet, those who, when they open their mouths to speak, churn out nothing productive but sheer garbage.
#33 by Godfather on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 11:48 pm
Jeffrey:
Yes, I admit that I have bias against Badawi, bias brought on by 4 years of broken election promises, first hand accounts of the manner in which he “runs” the country, the “amnesiac” style of his responses (which incidentally, are almost all totally true). I judge him on his leadership, or the lack thereof. The buck has to stop with him, and no one else. So when his deputy announces Malaysia as an Islamic state, and then proceeds to muzzle all public discourse, Badawi did nothing. When UMNO Youth gave their warnings to MCA, Badawi did nothing.
What I am saying is that for Badawi to earn my trust, he has to bend over backwards and not me. I am entitled to be skeptical, and I am entitled to assume that if he does not reprimand his deputy and those goons at UMNO Youth, then he is leaving the door open for him to adulterate, or even change, his position depending on which crowd he wants to pander to.
UMNO cannot win Kelantan on Badawi’s current position. It may even lose Trengganu on Badawi’s current position. PAS will, and should, exploit it to their fullest advantage.
#34 by undergrad2 on Monday, 6 August 2007 - 11:54 pm
“So if the BN is rid off (assuming it loses in an election to the alternative front consisting of PAS PKR and DAP) what do we have? Is PAS, PKR or DAP the leader of the Alternative Front?” Jeffrey
“To dream the impossible dream…” so goes the song.
The Islam state rhetoric has taken its toll. It has driven the ordinary Malays into the arms of UMNO. To them it is better to have corrupt Muslims as leaders than to have infidel ones.
#35 by Godfather on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:00 am
The very essence of UMNO’s existence is to prey on the fears of the Malays so that the majority become like sheep and follow their leaders without question. UMNO’s leadership is really wolves in sheep’s clothing, so we are entitled to be skeptical regarding whatever pronouncements they make.
#36 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:01 am
Godfather,
All things considered there is a good chance that Badawi will continue as PM for another term. The reason? Their leaders cannot agree to someone else and they are comfortable with him as he does not lead, does not interfere too much. He has been a good follower for so many years – the classic foot soldier. A good follower does not necessarily make a good leader. In fact in most cases they don’t – and Badawi has been a good follower throughout his career in the civil service and in his political career.
#37 by Godfather on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:05 am
So we are in for another 5 years of chaos, where subordinates can contradict their bosses, where UMNO Youth see themselves as even more superior than the president of MCA or Gerakan, where “saya tak tahu” is the standard answer of the civil service ?
#38 by sean on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:26 am
His answer is amazing………really..
An example…..imagine anyone of you asking someone this ..” how is your business”?…and the answer you get is…….”my business is quite good and it is also not good also”……
see…this is the type of answer we get from the chief executive of the nation……Amazing isn’t it.I wonder what will the 6th PM answer to this blunder…next time around.
My family and I personally declare that we are and will always be a secular country…….we don’t need some ungrateful elected reps or even the PM to tell us that.Its written on the wall.
#39 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:39 am
Looks like that to me, Godfather.
#40 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:45 am
Some Malays probably the urban Malays, the professionals – in short the Malay intelligentsia, would support an alternative to UMNO. But PKR is still in the middle of a crisis of confidence and the integrity of many of their leaders are very much in doubt.
DAP rather than concentrating on winning more Malay votes prefers the more well trodden path, and will not throw conventional wisdom to the winds in return for a few more seats.
#41 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 12:55 am
Look at Anwar Ibrahim at the top of the heap, screaming Malaysia is a secular state. I just cannot visualize him an Islamic scholar and someone who rose to the zenith of his political career to become the deputy PM, on his strong Islamic views.
Who could imagine the 180 degree-turn? His enemy shall always be his own personal demons. To others it is all about credibility.
#42 by johntee on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 1:12 am
i know little of political science but i ll vote against the coalition will to acquire majority seats. we have had enough of chaos under their leads.
#43 by AhPek on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 2:53 am
It’s definitely an us or them situation. How else could it not be.The us is the opposition —any opposition.”Iwant a good solution and not a “damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.” one.Following your trend of thinking and with the election most probably within the next 6 months which amongst the opposition parties is your good solution, let’s be pragmatic because presumably you want a regime change if possible and if not a denial of two thirds majority.If there isn’t any,then you are saying you are quite happy to continue with this bunch of thieves until such time you can get a good solution which may be 3 or 4 elections away.By then this country could be plundered into a banana republic like Haiti or Congo.
In my case the good solution is a regime change or a two thirds denial to this regime which has gone on for far too long.Your Iraq situation is way off from the present line of discourse. It is a
completely different set of situation whereby in Iraq’s case America went in for her oil reserve and in the process mess that up unleashing a civil war which she now finds it hard to extricate herself from.
#44 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 5:48 am
“…let’s be pragmatic because presumably you want a regime change if possible and if not a denial of two thirds majority.If there isn’t any,then you are saying you are quite happy to continue…” AhPek
Many of us who frequent this blog are looking for the ‘winds of change’ to sweep our political terrain. Having seen what they see expressed on blogs like this one, some of us including myself, have no reason to feel optimistic or confident, certainly no reason to be jubilant about anything especially since Ijok – and that included denying BN their two-third majority control of the present Parliament.
We are a democracy which means the majority rules. The majority is not always right. We all know that. But it is the best system we have – tyranny of the majority over the minority which is what some describe some versions of eastern democracy, and in our case some would say it is the oppression of the minority by the majority. It is still a democracy. We would be lucky to have what is described as a benevolent form of authoritarianism – such as when Mahathir was PM.
But whether our government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people is another matter.
#45 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 5:53 am
Personally I would want to see the present rule under the national coalition busted, and their leaders arrested for corruption, tried and jailed and their ill-gotten gains confiscated.
But that is just my opinion. My opinion does not matter because it will not change anything.
#46 by Godfather on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 7:34 am
Undergrad2:
Don’t be that pessimistic. Your opinion does matter. It can snowball, until the weight of that opinion becomes impossible to ignore. I have but my family’s votes, and perhaps some financial assistance for the opposition, but if we all think and act alike, then there is hope. Doing nothing – not even expressing an opinion – is the worst kind.
#47 by sotong on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 8:01 am
With increasing political awareness of non Malays and slow but important spread of complete, accurate and meaningful information to the ordinary people through alternative media, it is just a matter of time the people will vote for change and an alternative government to protect the country.
With gross mismanagement of the country, rampant corruption, decades of damaging politics of race and religion, gross abuse and exploitation of NEP and etc., it is all a downhill battle for Opposition parties…………..but it could be a long battle before they could win the war.
Mr. Lim, empower the people with accuarte, complete and meaningful information and they will fight your battles for you to win the war…….take it easy and go for your yum cha, teh tarik, roti bakar, roti canai or nasi lemak…..it is just a matter of time!
#48 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 9:11 am
Badawi attempt to try and straddle this never never land call neither a secular or theocratic state is classically a failure of leadership. These are the moments that supremacy of the constitution and independence of judicial system is so important where the leadership cowardice and hair-brain ideas shines through and clear in the guise of ovewhelming authority.
All Badawi is doing is take the well-trodden path of compromising the long-term high ideals in the name of political expediency that is traditionally UMNO. He is backed against the wall with no good idea and so he comes out with this, covered up with short-term economic gains and overwhelming authority.
Badawi intellect is no better than George Bush, at least George Bush has the courage and character to put himself on the line and lead. Badawi instead hides under the cover that he is NOT as bad as the other guy. A tired excuse after nearly 4 years…
#49 by petyew on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 10:08 am
YB Lim, let’s go back to basics.
The Constitutions does not carry the word ‘God’ or ‘Allah’ in it so we are not a theocratic state. Period. It is no point arguing or debating on this and choose to ignore the supreme document that governs our nation since it was born 50 years ago.
All that were expressed by some of our national leaders are personal opinions. Because they are ‘leaders’ their opinions are widely publicized; right or wrong they will affect the thinking and reactions of the community. I urge bloggers to be careful to not being drawn into futile discussions over a subject that has no legal status in our Constitutions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
#50 by requiem87 on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 - 1:55 pm
I wish Guy Fawkes is a Malaysian citizen…
#51 by sammyvellu on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 - 9:49 pm
No comments from the minister of works
#52 by undergrad2 on Friday, 10 August 2007 - 11:22 am
“The Constitutions does not carry the word ‘God’ or ‘Allah’..” petyew
The U.S. Constitution too does not mention God anywhere – but the US dollar says “In God we trust” and President Bush wears his religion on his sleeve.
#53 by cg on Sunday, 12 August 2007 - 11:55 pm
What the heck is this?
If it’ll cost me the need to change my religion to remain a Malaysian, gosh I’m definitely migrating. No offence to any religion, it’s just that I prefer to stick to my own believe.