ENDANGERED HORNBILL Says:
‘I still think PAS can be reasonable and principled.’

The core principle that PAS holds on to is Islamic State. As Hadi Awang has said, PAS will not give way on the issue of Islamic state, since this is why they are fundamentally different from UMNO.

In Kit Siang’s latest blog entry, he says that DAP had no relation with PAS before 8/3, and that the voters’ choice has created a scenario that led to their co-operation.

However, this raises serious questions.

Why did DAP refuse to work with PAS before 8/3? If DAP leaders believed that PAS’s agenda of Islamic state and Islamisation was no longer a problem in this general election, why didn’t they form a coalition with PAS alongside PKR during the election campaign?

If their reservation about PAS’s agenda led to their refusal to co-operate with them before 8/3, do they seriously believe that this (i.e. PAS’s agenda of Islamic state, which led to DAP’s reservation in the first place) is no longer a problem after 5pm on 8/3?

If PAS’s agenda of Islamic state, which led to DAP’s refusal to co-operate with them before 5pm 8/3, remains the same before and after 5pm 8/3, DAP’s current co-operation with PAS will be rightly deemed as unprincipled:

Before 5pm, 8/3, DAP refused to work with PAS because of X; after 5pm, 8/3, DAP is willing to work with PAS DESPITE X.

TO lohsh,

According to NST online 14/3/08, PAS Kedah MB Azizan says that Islamic laws are still in their agenda though they will come into force later. Islamic dress codes will also be introduced later.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/2186524/Article/index_html

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AdVw7yqqi_UJ:www.kairos-malaysia.org/view_file.cfm%3Ffileid%3D3+ng+kam+weng&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3
PAS ISLAMIC STATE DOCUMENT
Critical CommentsBy Dr. Ng Kam Weng

Birds in a bird park, we may blithely assume, would be happier in than their feathered brothers shut up in small cages in a home somewhere. After all, birds in a park can take longer flights and enjoy a measure of freedom and security, albeit within the netting. But birds know better. Give them half a chance and they will fly off to real freedom that lies beyond the netting.Some of the questions posed in the recent PAS launching of their Islamic State Document raised the ridiculous suggestion that birds should accept life within confinement just because the park keeper is able to give them tastier seeds and larger nettings. Surely, these questioners have missed out on the more fundamental issues of freedom and equality in limiting the discussion to issues like granting permission to non-Muslims to drink and gamble, and seeking less severe punishment for adultery.To be sure, the glib answers from PAS officials may persuade some to accept the Islamic state. At least, PAS has now laid its cards on the table with its manifesto that is sprinkled with the language of piety. The manifesto even affirms fundamental liberties.But the people need to be wary—what the bold print giveth, the fine print taketh away. On the one hand, the PAS document accepts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On the other hand, it specifies that the rights must not contravene the provisions of the Syariah. What can this mean? Non-Muslims are at liberty to practice their cultural expression, presumably “within the ambit of the Syariah.” PAS offers such concessions precisely because it is replacing the Federal Constitution with its version of the Syariah as the supreme law of the land.The PAS proposal strikes at the foundation of our whole legal system. Hence, we must reject it. To borrow a phrase from PAS officials, we must defend our fundamental liberties and rights to equal citizenship enshrined in the current Federal Constitution because they are “immovables”.The Constitution formulated in 1957 and 1963 was arrived at through the tradition ofmusyawarah-muafakat ( consultation and consensus) of the nation’s Founding Fathers to reach a consensus. It epitomizes a social contract among equal partners that promises equality of all citizens—regardless of race and religion—in a pluralist democracy.In contrast, PAS insists on the Ulama (from which non-Muslims are obviously excluded) as the final interpreter of the laws of the land. In other words, non-Muslims are relegated to a subservient position.PAS assures us that their rule will include consultation (Shura) within Parliament. Butunfortunately, without the premise of equal citizenship, and with PAS reserving the right to make the final decision, such consultation will only be tokenism that provides a veneer of legitimacy for PAS’ undemocratic rule.What will happen when PAS replaces the current politics of democratic consensus? Politics of mutual recognition will then be replaced with a politics of hegemony where all Muslim citizens are ‘more equal’ than others.
——————————————————————————–
Page 2
2The PAS document lists out various freedoms that include the right of mother-tongue and cultural expression. But political scientists and historians often warn us that paper guarantees are insufficient to protect democratic rights. For example, the 1936 Soviet Constitution (Article 125) guaranteed by law freedom of speech, the press, assembly and even street demonstrations. It added that “these rights of citizens are ensured by placing them at the disposal of the working people and their organizations of printing shops, supplies of paper, public buildings, the streets, means of communication, and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.” These promises did not prevent the rise of tyranny.Rhetoric must be fleshed out in concrete institutions to be credible. In this regard PAS’document fails to demonstrate how the party will move from pious principles to concrete policies in the context of establishing just institutions that will preserve the checks and balances of political power.PAS appears reluctant to spell out concrete details. Regardless of whatever concessions it makes, PAS reserves the prerogative to define the limits of the rights of its non-Muslim subjects. To be sure, the document emphasizes that “the citizens possess all rights to demand transparency at all levels of leadership.” But sadly, such transparency was not evident when PAS was thrown the question on kharaj. PAS gave a misleading answer by suggesting that it was merely taxation.Kharaj may be deemed as merely taxation if it is equally required of all citizens but if it is imposed on non-Muslims then it can only be a continuation of the historical policy of relegating non-Muslims to the inferior status of the dhimmi since historically kharaj was considered as jizyah (protection tax) on their conquered land. PAS evocation and evasion contradicts the document’s assurance of transparency.The practice of telling half-truths emphasizes the fragility of political language that is open to distortion and misinformation. Barisan National politicians who look forward to a field day attacking PAS and its manifesto ought to take note that their criticisms will have credibility only if they are not seen as political opportunists, but they are genuinely defending the sanctity of the Constitution and strengthening our democratic institutions.I sympathize with my Muslim fellow-citizens when PAS seeks to impale them with a dichotomy between loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to God. But surely, the choice between serving God and our fellow-men is both false and unnecessary.Indeed, we may argue that religion plays a vital role in promoting a pluralist democracy when its believers move beyond self-interests to promote the common good and foster social relations of mutual respect in the context of just institutions.The real choice for all of us is clear. We must choose either the present Constitution that preserves justice and equality for all citizens and affirms the importance of religion, or PAS’ document that evidently undermines democratic justice and equality and renders religionvulnerable to political exploitation.November 2003

Part 2
An excerpt from
PLURALIST DEMOCRACY OR ISLAMIC STATE?
Dr. Ng Kam Weng

http://www.kairos-malaysia.org/index.cfm?menuid=6

Let it be stressed that the anxieties of non-Muslims are not abstract fears. Indeed, they have for some years experienced painful restrictions on their own religious rights even under an UMNO led government. For example, some government officials – acting from a narrow interpretation of Islam – make it difficult for non-Muslims to gain approval to build places of worship. Some state governments even prohibit non-Muslims from using some crucial technical terms like Allah, Iman, Wahyu, Injil, Kitab,Nabi etc. In effect, non-Muslims are denied the right to talk about the central tenets of their own religion. Non-Muslim religious literature have been confiscated on grounds that they contain such words. Is it any surprise that non-Muslims fearfully anticipate that PAS – with an even more narrow interpretation of Islam – can only make matters worse?

In the light of these grave concerns, the non-Muslim’s objection to the establishment of an Islamic state should not be taken as an act of animosity towards Islam per se. It is, rather, a reaction towards a serious threat against one’s fundamental citizenship rights. Polarizing citizens into contesting groups – divided along the criterion as to whether they are for or against the Islamic state – would only cloud the real issue. As such, conflictive politics should be replaced by a positive approach concerned with defending the inalienable basic rights of all citizens as enshrined in the Constitution.

It is therefore appropriate to clarify the relationship between religious and political institutions envisaged by the Federal Constitution. Of direct relevance is the clause which states that “Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” The additional Constitutional provisions that empower the government to render assistance to Islam, especially pertaining to education, require lawmakers to be sensitive to the concerns of Islam. But the status of Islam was clarified by our first Prime Minister when he explained that the clause referred to the ceremonial role of Islam at official functions.

To put the matter in historical perspective, we need to recall that the original architects of the Federal Constitution assured the Sabahans and Sarawakians during negotiations for the formation of Malaysia that the clause “does not imply that Malaysia is not a secular state.” Put positively, Malaysia is therefore a secular state. By a secular state is meant a state that adopts religious neutrality in a pluralistic society. Notice that neutrality is far from hostility towards religion. Indeed, a secular state should maintain a benevolent neutrality that respects the integrity and equality of diverse religions of the nation.

Two consequences emerge if we demarcate a clear boundary between state and religious institutions. First, the state is judged as lacking competence in matters religious. The Latin term saeculum (from which the word ‘secular’ comes) means pertaining to temporal matters. The call for a secular state is to remind state authorities in a democratic society that the electoral mandate given to them in elections only pertains to temporal matters in society. The state should respect the autonomy of religious institutions even though both institutions work together in promoting a moral society.

The act to remove religious institutions from state sovereignty should not be seen as an act to undermine religion. On the contrary, the act alleviates the status of religion since its institutions become independent public institutions capable of censuring state authorities if it should arrogate for itself the final authority in human affairs. If anything, state authorities are morally held accountable to a higher transcendent authority.

Second, the separation between state and religious institutions is necessary to avoid possible conflicts in the event that some politicians exploit religious sentiments and incite disgruntled citizens to resort to violence. A quick look at Nigeria and the Indian sub-continent should serve as a salutary reminder against the temptation to mix religion and politics. Maintaining the precarious harmony between the various racial communities in Malaysia is already a most difficult task for any government. Confusing the boundaries between religious and political institutions will make matters worse given the conflictive nature of politics.

When Perak MB pushes for Islamic policy (he can do it gradually and subtly), I’m afraid DAP leaders will cite the similar considerations of ‘big picture’, ‘new scenario’, ‘uncharted waters’, ‘new era’, ‘golden opportunity’ etc to explain away their acquiescence, as shown in this MB issue. They might even suggest that it is the voters’ collective choice, which created the unexpected political tsunami on 8/3, that puts them in such a dilemma. That’s why I say this MB issue has set a dangerous precedence.

We can surely discuss and evaluate something that has been decided.

On hearing the SPR’s decision to cancel the use of indelible ink, many people discussed and criticised it. Imagine if SPR were to stop those discussions by saying what Godfather said to me…

For those who find my comments and excerpts unhelpful, they should just ignore them. Others have found them helpful. I’m happy with this. I don’t expect everyone to like them.

Godfather Says:
Today at 03: 51.22 (16 minutes ago)

‘What I am saying, as what others have been saying is this: Put up or shut up. We have decided. DAP has decided.’

in a later comment,
Godfather says:

‘Go to a pro-BN blog and make your comments there. It is more appropriate. We want to discuss others things.’

These remind me of Nor Omar – ‘Go back to your own country if you ‘re not happy.’

It is said that those who criticise DAP’s decision cannot be a DAP supporter.

Amazingly, I’ve been hearing a lot of BN rhetoric here, including ‘we must look at the big picture’, and ‘we’ll have to live with the reality’ (that Malays and Islam dominate).

The latest is the claim that one who criticises X cannot be loyal/patriotic to X.

It reminds me of BN leaders’ accusation that opposition leaders and Hindraf people who criticise the leaders of this country must be unpatriotic to this country.

You miss the Nor Omar analogy (note that this is an analogy), which is meant to work as follows:

Nor Omar’s and Godfather’s statements share the following similarity:

‘If you are not happy with what is associated with X, leave X’

Nor Omar
Not happy with what we do here (Malaysia) — Go away (leave Malaysia and go back to your home country)

Godfather
Not happy with DAP’s decision — Go away (leave DAP’s LKS’s blog and go to BN’s blog)

cto,

I think you miss the point.

someone says that
Some authority in DAP (its leadership) has made a decision (to ally with PAS), members and supporters of DAP should not criticise.

according to this satement, we can infer the principle that
if some authority in X has made a decision on Y, members and supporters of X should not criticise.

According to this principle,

Some authority in Malaysia (SPR) has made a decision (to cancel the use of ink), members and supporters of Malaysia should not criticise.

It also reminds me of someone’s schooldays.

When two children discussed something. A third child butted in and laughed at them for one of the points discussed because he did not understand the principles involved in the discussion. When the two children tried to explain the principles to them, the third child said ‘you like to show off your knowledge by using bombastic words’

One of the two children told him, ‘I wouldn’t have to use these words…actually I wouldn’t even need to explain anything to you, if you had not criticised something you didn’t even understand’.’

Restricting the Perak MB post to Muslim Malays goes against the egalitarian principle of pluralist democracy, according to which there must be ‘impartiality of the state in not favouring a particular religion to the extent that it discriminates against other religions. This principle also demands that public offices should not be restricted exclusively to citizens professing a certain religious affiliation.’ (Ng Kam Weng, Pluralist Democracy or Islamic States)

Parties that fight for justice, equality (KEADILAN) and pluralist democracy (DEMOCRATIC ACTION party) should not accept it.

cto,

Your caricature about the flat world misses the point.

There are acceptable and unacceptable uses of inductive inferences. You cannot deride a legitimate use of inductive inference by citing an illegitimate use. More precisely, you cannot deride a legitimate use of inductive inference in context A by citing an illegitimate use in context B.

In scientific contexts, a legitimate use of inductive inference involves causal and nomic explanation. If you want to infer from the fact that a physical substance A has a feature X to the claim that another physical substance B also has feature X, you must show that there are causal/nomic relations between A and B. That’s precisely why your flat world example fails to caricature my argument. The fact that one can cite many illegitimate uses of inductive inference in science (illegitimate because they don’t involve causal/nomic relations) does not show that the legitimate uses of inductive inferences in science (which do involve causal/nomic relations) are unacceptable. Neither can it show that my use of inductive argument in the context of moral reasoning is unacceptable.

In the context of moral reasoning, a category into which my argument falls, some normative principles must be invoked in comparatively evaluating two actions.

I cited BBC, Times, Wikipedia, the Strait’s Times, some accused me of being too simplistic.

I responded to wildly inaccurate caricatures by explaing the slightly complex principles involved, some accused me of being too arrogant.

I’ve never failed to be amazed!