Malaysia's General Election 13 to be survival of the fittest

It’s all a matter of endurance. Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose. 

WE are entering the final straight. Whether the date of the actual polling day is in June, July, September or even next year, the finishing line is fast approaching.

It’s all a matter of endurance. Who can best manage their own resources and minimise their weaknesses? Whose “messaging” is the most focused and sustained?

Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

As Tun Daim Zainuddin said a few months ago, the contest between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is much like an extended game of tennis – with victory going to the side that commits the least unforced errors.

In this respect Barisan would appear to be gaining the lead. Pakatan’s lack of access to the mainstream media further undermines the challenger’s chances.

Last week’s resignation of DAP Senator and vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and PAS’ continued call for the introduction of the syariah have raised doubts about Pakatan’s ability to hold the middle-ground.

But there are also real dangers in trying to “read” the election outcome from the mainstream media. Official controls will always tend to magnify Pakatan’s mistakes whilst minimising Barisan’s missteps and only a fool would ignore the Internet’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, the vast numbers of new voters have injected an enormous degree of uncertainty into the game.

It is as if Tun Daim’s tennis game had been crossed with a Sony Wii as well as a Pentagon battle-ground simulator: permutations are the new “norm”.

No one knows for certain where these young people will cast their ballots. As Ben Suffian of Merdeka Centre explains: “They lack the loyalty of their parents. They are better informed and more sceptical: arbitraging on news and events.”

But when all is said and done, the voters are faced with four fundamental decisions when they’re dealing with Barisan, which are as follows:

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak: Should the Malaysians reward or punish him? Have his reforms satisfied the voting public? Conversely, has he been too weak in the face of non-Malay demands? Does Bersih 3.0 accurately reflect popular sentiment? Does he deserve to better Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 2008 result? Will we reward him with the constitutional majority? Can his personal popularity (much like Abdullah’s at the same stage of the 2008 scenario) strengthen his hold on power?

> Umno: For over five decades – the United Malays National Organisation has been the parti kerajaan – the party of Government with its supreme council meetings surpassing Cabinet in terms of “real” authority? Is the automatic identification of party and government (along with all the attendant patronage) coming to an end? Or is it merely a case of the parti kerajaan becoming a parti politik no different from PAS and PKR? Is Umno’s supremacy finished?

> Barisan Nasional: Can the alliance remain intact if the country’s second largest community, the Chinese, remove their support? Is an Umno-dominated coalition sustainable? Are we witnessing the end of the so-called unwritten consensus that has brought us thus far? What will be the substitute?

> Malaysia: Will the 13th General Election see the firming up of the two-coalition system or its demise? Are we Malaysians comfortable with the level of checks and balances that have entered our political lexicon since 2008 or do we wish to return to the past – entrusting the Barisan, unreservedly with our future?

March 8, 2008 was a surprise result. It upset our (and especially my) lazy assumptions.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

CERITALAH  By KARIM RASLAN

Practise 'Addin', a Malaysian way of life? PAS Vows Hudud for Malaysia!

The PAS leader's statement that Islam's status in the Federal Constitution would be changed from official religion' to Addin' if Pakatan Rakyat captures power is the latest example of the party pushing its Islamic agenda without consulting its coalition partners.

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang needs a quick lesson in history and the best person to give him that is his colleague and fellow traveller in Pakatan Rakyat DAP national chairman Karpal Singh.

Abdul Hadi had told a press conference in Terengganu last week that the status of Islam in the Federal Constitution would be changed from “official religion” to a “way of life” if Pakatan Rakyat captures power in the next general election.

The unilateral statement was also justified by an attack on the Reid commission, which drafted our constitution in 1956, with Abdul Hadi claiming that there were no Muslim members among its five members, headed by Lord William Reid.

As Karpal Singh has rightly pointed, Hadi was wrong on both scores.

Political analysts and political parties, including the MCA, followed suit in severely criticising Hadi for wanting to unilaterally amend the constitution.

The matter was certainly not brought before the Pakatan Rakyat leaders' council for discussions.

Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who advocates a pluralistic approach to religion, was noticeably missing in the controversy because Hadi and PAS, while colleagues in Pakatan Rakyat, have an entirely different approach in that they believe Islam is the only true way to God.

On his part, Hadi has always been pushing for more recognition for Islam and its primacy as the only path to God.

“In the world today, people know of two ways to describe the faith: one is what is adopted by the West by calling it a religion, which denotes the spiritual relationship between human and God, without mentioning it as a way of life,” Hadi was quoted as saying after launching the Terengganu PAS Youth annual meeting in Kampung Kubang Lembek, Manir.

“The second option is by calling it Addin the way of life which is more apt as it includes everything, from the spiritual to all other aspects of life.

“It is not right to say Islam is a religion. The right way is to describe it as Addin, a way of life,” Hadi said.

His interpretation of Islam clashes with the country's multi-ethnic society populated by different races practising different religions.

If an amendment is done it can seriously affect non-Muslims and their way of life which is radically different from that of Muslims.

Although all religions have similarities in moral values and concepts of human justice, their methods and practices differ greatly.

When religion is imposed as a way of life on the majority, the amendment will impact on the rest who practise different faiths and cultures.

It will create many “dos and don'ts” issues like the banning of alcohol, rules on entertainment, dressing and also the intermingling of sexes.

Such amendments will be a recipe for disaster as it can result in the various races drifting further apart and living separate lives instead of coming together into a harmonious, multi-ethnic melting pot.

Hadi also argued that the current definition of Islam as “the official religion of the Federation” did not do justice to Islam and suggested that legislation in this country be interpreted according to the tenets of Islam.

While PAS is under pressure from its Islamic clientele to speak up for Islam, it is also under pressure from its non-Muslim supporters club to desist and behave like PKR or DAP, in wanting to be better than Barisan Nasional at ruling.

Unlike them, PAS is a party that has dreams of creating an Islamic theocracy, something that is unsuitable in this multi-racial society.

This is one reason why PAS is obstinate and unyielding on implementing hudud law and speaking up on many other social issues and the current one to amend the constitution.

PAS' increasingly “superior behaviour”, however, is a by-product of unquestioning support from the DAP.

It shows that neither the DAP nor even the PKR can control PAS any longer and its acquiesce to its demands, like the statement from Hadi that PAS will implement hudud law if elected to Putrajaya.

PAS has a tendency to declare its Islamic agenda without due consultation with its coalition partners and in doing so, it is impinging on non-Muslims' right to freely practise their religion and rights that are guaranteed under the very constitution the party wants to change.

Originally, PAS championed an Islamic theocracy but later following pressure from PKR and especially DAP, it changed to championing a welfare state.

Now the party has come up with its “Addin” or Islam as the way of life proposal, with hudud law included.

The motive is to win the conservative Islamic vote but at the same time, try to satisfy non-Muslim voters.

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Islamic Party Vows Hudud for Malaysia

OnIslam & Newspapers

"If we have enough majority (of seats), if Pas is stronger than our allies, we will implement hudud," Harun said. >>

CAIRO - Seeking to lure more voters in next year’s election, Malaysia's main Islamic party has pledged to amend the constitution to allow the application of hudud in the Asian Muslim-majority country.

"We will implement hudud and amend the Constitution even if (it is) not with the current partners we have in Pakatan...may be there will be other pacts (Pakatan) that will lend us their support,” Harun Taib, chief of PAS Ulema Council, was quoted as saying by the New Straight Times on Saturday, May 12."If we have enough majority (of seats), if PAS is stronger than our allies, we will implement (hudud and the amendment to the Constitution)."

Hudud (Penalties) in Contemporary Legal Discourse

The issue was first raised when the Islamic party’s president Abdul Hadi Awang said that PAS had never backtracked on their intention to put hudud (Islamic penalties) to law and that it will seek to implement it if it takes federal power.

But the staetments drew fire from Karpal Singh, the national chairman of the secular Democratic Action Party (DAP).

Harun reiterated the party support for Hadi on the issue of hudud, saying that the party views Karpal’s criticism as a “personal opinion as a lawyer.”"I think whether it is against the Constitution or not is just his (Karpal's) personal opinion and comment as a lawyer,” Harun said.

"As a PAS member, I am fully behind Hadi."

With an estimated 800,000 members, PAS is the main rival of Prime Minister Najib Razak's United Malays National Organization.

A few years ago, PAS has enacted the hudud laws in Kelantan, to be imposed only on Muslims who represent about 90 per cent of the state's 1.5 million population.

The laws introduced Shari`ah punishments for theft, robbery, adultery, liquor consumption and apostasy.

Adamant

The leader of PAS Ulema council confirmed that hudud can only be implemented through a parliamentary majority."If we have enough majority (of seats), if Pas is stronger than our allies, we will implement (hudud and the amendment to the Constitution)," Harun said.

He added that hudud remains PAS’s intention despite the criticism it received from both its allies in Pakatan and rivals Barisan Nasional.

The Islamic party had already enacted the law in Kelantan and Terengganu but faced constitutional restraint in its implementation.

"We are a party that is championing Islam,” Harun said.

“Of course we will implement what is required by Islam. Pas will always be behind Hadi and the party's struggle to uphold Islam in the government and administration of the country."

Malaysia’s parliamentary elections are due in 2013, but expectations are high that the polls could be called much earlier.

Muslim Malays form about 60 percent of Malaysia's 26-million population, while Christians make up around 9.1 percent.

Buddhists constitute 19.2 percent, Hindu 6.3 while other traditional Chinese religions make up the rest of the population.

Related posts:
Politics, Religion don't mix!
Don't let the sun go down on our rights; those mess up politics ...
Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard
Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum ...
MCA do-or-die at 63 in sarong politics
Speaking up for religious tolerance 
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System ... 
Get set for Malaysian politics of the young!

PAS will close Genting casino if it takes over Pahang

Tweet

PAS stands by its plan should Pakatan take over Pahang in next election

By ROSLINA MOHAMAD and NIK NAIZI HUSIN newsdesk@thestar.com.my

FATE UNKNOWN: The casino in Resorts World may take its last bets if the Opposition wins at the polls — Pic: 1Malaysia Travel Blog

 KUANTAN: PAS is pushing ahead with its plans to shut down the casino in Genting Highlands if it takes over Pahang in the next general election.

Pahang PAS Youth chief Sharil Azman Abdul Halim said the only thing the party would allow the Genting Highlands resort to run was the theme park and other parts except the casino and gambling-related facilities.

“PAS has no intention of closing the whole place down as the highland resort is a major tourist attraction,” he said, reiterating the party’s stand on the matter.

Sharil Azman is the third person to state the party’s stand after two PAS assemblymen, Syed Hamid Syed Mohamad (Kuala Semantan) and Syed Mohammed Tuan Lonnik (Beserah), stated recently that the party could not tolerate gambling and would close the casino if the Opposition took over the state.



Sharil Azman said this in response to allegations in the state assembly that PAS intended to close down the resort if the Pakatan Rakyat coalition captures the state at the next polls.

Backbenchers Datuk Chuah Boon Seong (BN–Mentakab) and Datuk Pang Tsu Ming (BN–Semambu) had raised this matter on Wednesday.
Syed Mohammed had clarified to the two Barisan Nasional reps that only the gambling facilities would cease operations while other tourism-related activities would continue.

Shahril Azman said it was the PAS Youth wing that had come out with the proposal to shut the gambling business.

Meanwhile, when met on the sidelines of the assembly sitting, Syed Mohammed said he stood by the Islamic teaching that gambling is a sin.

“The party’s stand on gambling is also clear,” he said, adding that the country did not need to include in its coffers revenue from gambling.

He said it would be up to the Pakatan leaders to reach an amicable decision on Genting Highlands and its gambling activities should the Opposition alliance rule the state.

He said non-Muslims were free to drink and gamble and Islam did not prevent them from doing so, such as at their homes and other places of their own.

Chua: Casino closure plan shows hudud will affect non-Muslims

PUTRAJAYA: PAS is contradicting itself when it claims the implementation of hudud is not likely to affect non-Muslims.

MCA Young Professionals Bureau chairman Datuk Chua Tee Yong said its intention to close the Genting Highlands casino would surely affect some of the 15,000 people working there.

He said the tourism industry would be severely affected if Pakatan Rakyat went ahead with its decision as the resort received some 20 million visitors yearly.

“How can PAS claim the implementation of the law would not affect non-Muslims?

“What would happen to the people working there? Wouldn’t they become jobless?” he asked yesterday.
Chua said the country would also lose about RM1bil in tax revenue if the casino was closed.

He hoped the rakyat would scrutinise PAS’ claim on the matter as the party was fond of changing its stand to suit the situation.

“DAP should state its stand now and not say the matter would be discussed if Pakatan Rakyat took over the state,” he said.

PAS’ intention to close down the casino was disclosed by a government backbencher at the Pahang state assembly sitting on Wednesday.

Mentakab assemblyman Datuk Chuah Boon Seong asked whether PAS had considered the fate of the resort’s workers should it implement the move.

Related post:

How Malaysia's politics stay true while reinventing?

Insap forum on Hudud leaves public still grappling with fears

Tweet

Chua: Be clear on hudud

WANI MUTHIAH, FLORENCE A . SAMY and JOSEPH KAOS Jr at the ‘Hudud and its Implications on Non-Muslims in Malaysia’ forum in Kuala Lumpur

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has challenged Pakatan Rakyat to include its stand on hudud and its implementation in its general election manifesto and common agenda.



Pakatan, especially PAS, he said, should be transparent in its stand.

“Right now, there are conflicting signals from Pakatan leaders. Hudud should be in their common agenda since they always never do anything without consulting their partners.

 

Making a point: Dr Chua delivering his keynote address during the forum at Wisma MCA Sunday.

“If the rakyat votes for PAS, DAP or PKR knowing full well that they will implement hudud law, then we should respect it as it is the voters' choice,” he said at a forum entitled “Hudud and its Implications on Non-Muslims in Malaysia” yesterday.

Dr Chua lambasted DAP for its contradictory stand and for misleading the Chinese community, especially with its “agreeing to disagree” statement.

“On one hand, DAP says it opposes hudud. On the other hand, in the last general election and subsequent by-elections, DAP campaigned vigorously to ensure the PAS candidate won,” he said at the forum organised by MCA's Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research.

The forum was moderated by Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee.

Dr Chua reiterated MCA's opposition to hudud and its implementation, adding that hudud law would adversely affect both Muslims and non-Muslims.



“It is a lie that it will not affect us. We have the right to talk about it as it does affect us.

“We do not accept hudud and its implementation in a multi-racial country,” he said.

Explaining the ramifications, Dr Chua said that the implementation of hudud law would affect the country's foreign direct investment, revenue as well as rights of non-Muslims, including gambling and drinking activities.

He dismissed claims by Pakatan that hudud law could not be implemented even if it came into power but did not have two-thirds majority.

He said Muslim MPs from both sides of the divide would be forced to support the Bill although they might not agree with the implementation as hudud was part of Islam.

Dr Chua pointed out that hudud law could not be implemented without amending the Federal Constitution.

“How then can the rights and freedom of non-Muslims be safeguarded? Which court will have jurisdiction which involves both Muslims and non-Muslims as hudud law cannot exist without the existence of Islamic law?'' he asked.

In his closing address, Dr Chua urged non-Muslims to reject the implementation of hudud law because it had great implications on them.

“We also heard the panellists say that the PAS version of hudud does not represent the true essence of Islam.

“Malaysians must make a choice of either choosing Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's vision of a high-income nation by 2020 or a failed state run under hudud law,” he added.

On Saturday, Dr Chua had said in Malacca that he had no problem having a public debate on hudud with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng provided the latter answered two questions first.

He said Lim must first explain to the people if he could ensure the implementation of hudud law would not affect the non-Muslims.

Second, he said Lim must explain if the implementation of hudud law would affect the norms and life- style in Malaysia, especially the economic, education and social system aspects.

Related Stories:
Chandra: Some have narrow interpretation
Look, Hu's at the forum

MCA hudud forum leaves public still grappling with fears

Puline Wong
newsdesk@thesundaily.com

(l-r) Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya, Ustaz Mohd Kamal Saidin, Lim Chee Wee, Edmund Bon and Prof Dr Chandra Muzaffar meeting MCA president Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek during a hudud forum organised by Institute of Strategies Analysis and Policy Research (Insap) at Wisma MCA today.

 KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 4, 2011) : Legal and Muslim religious experts tried to discuss the effects of the implementation of hudud law in Malaysia to a public forum comprising mainly MCA members today but stopped short of of answering the fears of the non Muslims.

The panel of speakers which comprised of International Movement of a Just World (Just) president Dr Chandra Muzaffar, special religious advisor to the Terengganu Mentri Besar Ustaz Haji Mohd Kamal Saidin, and Umno Young Ulama working committee chairman Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya was moderated by the Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee.

It discussed the implementation of hudud in the country but stopped short of saying whether it should or should not be implemented.

Chandra stated that although some Muslims in the country are for the implementation of hudud as part of their identity, there are many Muslims who have yet to agree.


He said criminal punishments under the hudud law is not the vortex of what Islam is nor what it means to be a Muslim.

"There is an obsession, and a preoccupation with a literal interpretation of hudud and of Islam," he said, adding that this kind of narrow interpretation does no justice to the religion itself.

He warned that should there be a hudud-obsessed state in Malaysia, we might end up as Saudi Arabia or Sudan.

"In many hudud-obsessed countries, their interpretation of hudud emphasises prohibition and punishment, when it should be educate and enlighten.

"To endorse this hudud-obsessed mentality will mean the destruction of the nation," said Chandra.

The issue of hudud, which crops up occassionally, ever since PAS passed the Hudud Act in 1993 in Kelantan, has seen much debate among the ruling Barisan Nasional and opposition parties.

Hudud is the criminal law under Islamic laws and the main fears by non Muslims are on the various forms of punishment which include cutting off hands for stealing and stoning for adultery. PAS had stated that if it comes to power, it will implement hudud in the country for Muslims.

Fathul Bari, although from Umno which has openly opposed hudud, stated that "a misunderstanding is that in hudud, someone caught committing a crime, stealing for example, will have his arm cut off. But this is not true. Islam is a forgiving religion, and Allah s.w.t is a forgiving God."

The he goes on to say "Crime must be punished but the punishment should be appropriate," he said, dismissing the notion that the punishments should always be "an eye for an eye".

"Hudud practised by PAS does not take into consideration the multi-racial society of the country. They want to implement it on everyone," said Kamal, condemning PAS for not interpreting the hudud laws accurately.

From a legal perspective, however, implementing hudud is not possible, said Bar Council member Edmund Bon,

Bon, a human rights lawyer, said hudud law cannot be implemented because the Federal Constitution has not provided for the punishments listed within hudud, nor has the federal government approved hudud.

"Hudud cannot be implemented unless the federal government approves or allows for it, which is why the hudud Bill of Kelantan, which was created since 1983, is still not law.

"Questions of religions are extremely emotional. Because there are so many interpretations of hudud, a moratorium must be established for calm, careful debate on these issues," he urged.

The forum drew more comments than questions from the 200 strong mostly-Chinese crowd, which urged the speakers to address the issue of whether hudud is fair, or if hudud will be implemented on non-Muslims, to which none of the speakers did.

Related post:
How Malaysia's politics stay true while reinventing?

How Malaysia's politics stay true while reinventing?

Tweet

Much ado about everything

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

MALAYSIA has braved slogans as milestones with chequered results.

Spanning two decades were the Mahathir-era “Vision 2020” and its “Bangsa Malaysia” component, and the Najib administration’s “1Malaysia” and “high-income nation”. As national goals, they have been positive, inclusive and aspirational.

In 1997 then deputy premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim proposed masyarakat madani, translated as but supposedly transcending “civil society”. Much of its potential was however obscured by interpretation issues even in the original Bahasa Malaysia.

Malaysians are generally wary of attempts to tinker with the existing secular (non-theocratic) system. So in the 1999 general election, much of the DAP’s support evaporated over its links with PAS in the Barisan Alternatif opposition pact.

In 2001, then prime minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysia was an “Islamic state”. This infamous statement panicked some political circles, notably the DAP.

Typical of Dr Mahathir’s rhetorical flourishes, it was meant to counter and challenge, and needed to be read in context. It had come after a wearying tussle between PAS, which had sought to install an Islamic state and amend the Federal Constitution, and its adversaries.



Dr Mahathir later said since (as he had defined it) Malaysia was already an Islamic state, there was no need to amend the Constitution. He had sought to end the debate and preserve the secular status quo rather than to change it.

That was fine as long as Dr Mahathir still headed the Federal Government and dominated the terms of the national debate. Nine months later he went further and declared Malaysia a “fundamentalist Islamic state”, according to his (textually correct) definition of fundamentalism.

But after he retired in 2003, the terms of the debate changed and his past statements encouraged PAS in further Islamisation instead. His successor Datuk Seri (now Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi could not direct or dominate the discourse that followed.

Aware of popular opposition to its theocratic aims, PAS this year unveiled the idea of a “welfare state”, a vague concept that did not impress many. Kelantan Mentri Besar and PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat then announced plans to implement hudud in his state.

Some legal quarters insisted that no state may implement hudud (punishments for “serious crimes”) without amending the Federal Constitution, but that view has been challenged. PAS then said hudud would not apply to non-Muslims, but that has also been questioned.

Hudud is part of syariah law along with qiya (punitive recompense), diyya (compensatory settlement) and tazir (corporal punishment). Hudud covers apostasy, alcohol consumption, theft (or robbery) and illicit sex, with punishments that include amputation and execution.

These offences can involve other people, including those serving or selling the alcohol or those accused of trying to convert Muslims. Thus saying that hudud would apply only to Muslims is unconvincing.

Further, hudud is considered divinely inspired so its punishments are not open to reform, substitution or reduction. PAS has also told non-Muslims that since hudud would not involve them, they have no right to object.

But in July 2002 after the PAS Terengganu government passed the Hudud and Qisas Bill, Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Hadi Awang said hudud would be “extended to all non-Muslims” when they were ready for it. Presumably the party would decide when non-Muslims are “ready”.

Parti Keadilan Nasional at the time had joined protests against the Bill’s impending passage. But this year, PKR adviser Anwar supported Kelantan’s plan to implement hudud.

Beyond DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s personal objections, the party does not oppose Kelantan’s plans for hudud. DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said hudud was not mentioned in Pakatan Rakyat’s Common Policy Framework (Buku Jingga), placing any opposition to it only at Federal level.

But once Kelantan introduces hudud, Kedah as another Pakatan state may follow. Then, acquiescing at state level may be taken as tacit approval for compliance at Federal level.

These and related issues would be explored at today’s Insap (Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research) forum at Wisma MCA in Kuala Lumpur from 9.30am to 2.30pm. Admission is free.

PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, In the spotlight for wrong reason?

Tweet

In the spotlight for wrong reason

INSIGHT: By JOCELINE TAN

Mohamad Sabu’s provocative style is being scrutinised in the hot glare of the spotlight now that he is deputy president of PAS, and he is making news. 

IT was not surprising that Mohamad Sabu’s latest “eruption” happened in Tasik Gelugor, the rural Malay outskirts on the mainland side of Penang.

The PAS deputy president, better known as Mat Sabu, has his sights set on Penang in the next general election and Tasik Gelugor is one of the parliamentary seats he is eyeing.

The plan is one of those poorly kept secrets among Penang Pakatan Rakyat leaders who hope that the fiery orator who shoots from the hip will lend his weight in the defence of Penang and help the Chinese-dominated coalition connect with the Malay ground.

Provocative style: Mat Sabu’s shoot-from-the-hip political style is changing the image of PAS. He is seen here in a wheelchair with his wife Norma Alwi (left) arriving for a dinner-cum-ceramah not long after the Bersih protest.

Mat Sabu and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng are what some call NBF, that is, New Best Friends. He is the DAP’s idea of what a PAS leader should be. He speaks their lingo, does not always go around dressed like some Middle-Eastern citizen and is clued in on current issues. His political style is not very different from that of DAP leaders; he is a street-fighter whose speeches are as witty as they are about banging and slamming his opponents.

In fact, he has often told friends, “I am a bazaari (an Iranian term for street-fighter).”

Mat Sabu is without a doubt the most controversial leader in PAS today. He has been making headline news since becoming the PAS No. 2 in June and he is trying to make his presence felt in Penang where he was born.

The trouble is that he not only shoots from the hip, he also sometimes shoots himself in the foot.
His remarks about the Bukit Kepong affairs, made in the heat of a ceramah and used as an analogy of how history is often written by the victors, were one such instance.

Historical interpretation is not against the law but the tone of his remarks, coming on the eve of National Day, was tasteless timing and simply politically incorrect. And it is up in YouTube where everyone can hear for themselves what he said.

Batang Kali massacre [In Cold Blood - BBC]

There is no denying that he referred to the pro-Communist attackers in Bukit Kepong as “those fighting for independence” while the police personnel under attack were dismissed as belonging “to the British” and thus part of the colonialists. The fact is that home-grown policemen and soldiers fought alongside the British during the insurgency years and many died for their country.



Mat Sabu is not pro-Communist but his words came across as irreverent of the role of the security forces in the nation’s struggle for independence and against communism.

His Pakatan colleagues have defended him but he has been made mincemeat by Utusan Malaysia, which has devoted pages of coverage on the issue, and including reports of noted historian Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Khim and DAP chairman Karpal Singh chiding him for his version of Bukit Kepong.

This is barely two months after his spectacular clash with the police during the Bersih protests. His knee, which he injured during the protests, has yet to recover and these days, he sits down when speaking at ceramah. The circumstances surrounding his knee injury is still a matter of dispute and even the injury itself is surrounded by mystery.

Immediately after the Bersih demonstrations, he had appeared at a string of high-profile functions in a wheelchair, claiming that a police Land Rover had rammed into him as he was riding pillion on a motorcycle. He was hailed as an injured hero.

It made the police look really bad, but when the police released a video showing otherwise, Mat Sabu’s attacks ground to a stop and he told reporters pursuing the story that he would respond to them in court.

He has since stopped talking about the incident and is now confronted by queries over his billing of the medical treatment for the injury to the Penang Water Authority of which he is a board member.

“But the most shocking part about the Bukit Kepong issue was that he said he could not really remember what he said. To me, that was more terrible than if he had really said all those things. A leader cannot say something and then a few days later, tell us he cannot remember,” said restaurateur Juhaidi Yean Abdullah.

Juhaidi recalled hearing Mat Sabu and several other PAS politicians speak at a ceramah shortly after the Al Mauna incident, where a cult of Islamic extremists had attacked a military camp, seized ammunition and then proceeded to kill the hostages one by one.

“They claimed it was a sandiwara (shadow play or conspiracy) engineered by the Government to discredit the Islamists. I remember feeling quite sad when the mother of one of those killed asked: ‘If it is a sandiwara, why has my son not come home?’” said Juhaidi.

A more thorough investigation of that tragic episode has been screened on Astro’s Discovery channel and it has helped put the matter to rest.

Drama king

But it does seem that Mat Sabu, like many of his friends who dominate the ceramah circuit, has a tendency to make dramatic claims and statements.

“He once told me that even if he is sick and down with fever, if you give him a microphone, he will recover and does not need to see the doctor. He is the sort of guy – you put a microphone in his hand, put him on a stage and he becomes a different person. But once the curtain comes down, he is back to his normal self,” said blogger Syed Azidi Syed Aziz, also known as Kickdefella.

Mat Sabu has always had a no-holds barred style. At the height of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking, Mat Sabu who has had issues with Anwar dating back to their days in Abim was going around, giving ceramah and talking about “Al Juburi”, which is Arab for the A-word.

The Malays call it mulut tak ada insuran (uninsured mouth, meaning that what is said could be libellous).
Not everybody likes his aggressive style, especially his habit of calling people names. He was deemed so controversial at one stage that he was not invited to speak at ceramah during by-elections.

There is no denying that Mat Sabu has a folksy charm and a certain boyishness about him although he is now 57 and rather overweight. He is a crowd-puller and PAS members flock to listen to him because they are guaranteed of entertainment. He is often the last person to speak so that the crowd will stay on till the end.

“His enemies are frightened when he speaks. At the same time, his style attracts the bullets of Umno,” said Harakahdaily editor-in-chief Zulkifli Sulong.

The Umno assemblyman for Ketereh in Kelantan, Datuk Alwi Che Ahmad, has a cynical but witty take on Mat Sabu.

“I will remember him forever. I became a political secretary to a minister because of him,” he said with a laugh.

Mat Sabu had contested against Tan Sri Annuar Musa in Nilam Puri, Kelantan, in the 1990 general election. It was a big fight with lots of ceramah going on. At one ceramah, the Kelantan-born Annuar had said in jest: “Why do you want to vote for Mat Sabu? He is an outsider. I am a local boy, more educated. I studied in two universities. I am taller and more handsome.”

Mat Sabu rebutted in similar vein at his own ceramah: “Anuar Musa is better educated, taller, more handsome but I am more popular, especially among the women.”

He went on to crush Annuar with a majority of 8,000 votes. Annuar was subsequently appointed a senator and minister and that was how Alwi became his political secretary.

Mat Sabu’s political enemies had been quite willing to forget the khalwat episode where he was apprehended with another woman in a Kota Baru hotel in 1995. After all, he had won a discharge and acquittal after two witnesses contradicted each other on the hotel room number.

But now that he is on top, his detractors are digging out the dirt again. A video titled Skandal Sexs Mat Sabu (sex scandal of Mat Sabu) has been making the rounds in the Ampang area. However, the video was apparently about another Pakatan leader.

PAS MP for Parit Buntar Mujahid Yusof accused the mainstream media of picking on Mat Sabu especially after he became the party No. 2.

“He has always been the sort to provoke, and he is bringing the party to a new audience. But why is it that in the last three months, he is always in the media? The media is manipulating it,” said Mujahid.

It is true the media is taking a more intense look at Mat Sabu following his rise in PAS; that is only natural. When one is up there, one cannot go on acting or talking in the same way as when one was down there.

And especially when one is the No. 2 in the party, everything said and done is scrutinised and analysed. Mat Sabu is learning that it is now harder to get away with outlandish statements. He will be held accountable because the public will read the statements as the party’s stand.

Mat Sabu’s latest trouble may also be connected to the way Pakatan politicians have been chipping away at the system and institutions like the judiciary, the police and security forces, and even the civil service. They have questioned the reputation of bodies like the MACC and the Election Commission. These are institutions which they believe have been unfair to them and which are standing in the way of their quest to control Putrajaya.

They are so used to criticising the police that Mat Sabu may not have realised he had stepped beyond the boundary when talking about Bukit Kepong.

The outcry over his remarks is not purely about politics. It is also because there are very few Malay families who do not have a family member or relative in the police or army. As such, criticism of these bodies is bound to hit sensitive nerves all over the place. There is a limit to criticising the men and women who put their lives on the line for our security and well-being.

But Mat Sabu, controversial firebrand and all, was the party’s choice. Members were disenchanted with the passivity of some of their ulama leaders and they saw in Mat Sabu someone who could push their cause on a more political path. He has given them their money’s worth thus far.

He is such a contrast to the studied style of his president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang although some wish that he was a little more like Hadi.

But Mat Sabu will always be Mat Sabu, and the roller-coaster ride he is taking his party on has just begun.

Changes & Reforms - a case of two opposing sides in Malaysia

Tweet

A case of two opposing sides

CERITALAH By KARIM RASLAN

We’ve reached a point where it doesn’t matter who brings the change – BN or PR, conservative or liberal, socialist or right-wing. Malaysians will get behind whoever is the most sincere in taking us out of this mess. 

Voices from Malaysian: 

 Patrick Teoh

Teoh has come a very long way from his days as an announcer on the Rediffusion private radio station before establishing himself as one of the pioneers in mobile discos. In fact, till today people still associate Teoh with his voice though he is also into the arts and theatre.

Watch and listen his Video:

LAST weekend’s thwarted march wasn’t an ordinary incident – it reveals two radically different world views.

While the march was nominally non-political, the chasm between the two forces – the Government and the demonstrators – clearly mirrors the increasingly acrimonious split between Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Of course, a deeply divided political terrain is always troubling, however, it is at least proof of a dynamic and thriving public discourse.

Ironically, the opposition, despite being excluded from the mainstream media, is clearly setting the terms of this debate.

It also shows that Malaysia remains a democracy – albeit a flawed one.

Indeed, I’d argue that the intensity of the discourse over the past few weeks highlights quite how much we Malaysians care about the state of our nation.

We can see and feel that the state is becoming more polarised – and in such a situation, we are being forced to choose sides.



Sitting on the fence is no longer a viable option – especially when the fence is been shaken so hard by the two opposing sides. However, there are some positives. Most notably the fact that the divide is not racial despite what some politicians are alleging.

In fact there are Malays, Indians, Chinese, Iban, Kadazan, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Hindu on both sides of the debate. Indeed, the struggle has gone way beyond racial and religious lines.

Instead we are tussling over political philosophies and principles.

While the differences are certainly stark, their mere existence indicates a certain maturing of our political system presenting us with the alluring prospect of a two-party system.

I must stress that the racial diversity on both sides represents a steadying force – anchoring us together as a nation.

And yes, you could say, it underlines the fact that we are debating a truly Malaysian set of issues.

So what are these substantive political differences? Well, for a start, they transcend mere personality.

On one hand, we have a strident Umno-led Government demanding the continuation of the status quo.

In this respect, Umno is very definitely a conservative (small “c”) force – defending and promoting the interests of the influence-bearing classes.

It’s arguable that Umno’s small businessmen/contractors have adopted the mindset and behaviour of the many minor aristocrats and noblemen that once surrounded Malaysia’s many istana (or palaces) jockeying for favours and/or contracts.

The current Umno vision is retrogressive – it looks back to the party’s heyday under Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It is not a dynamic, expansive vision – witness the primordial and unavoidable cry for Malay unity interspersed with Malay rights.

As with those enamoured and indeed obsessed by the past there is a paranoia and fear of change. Understandably then, any concession or reform is seen of as an affront to Umno’s domination, dignity and integrity.

On the other, you have what is essentially a socialist front in Pakatan Rakyat.

They claim to represent the interest of the rakyat – the ordinary people, taking a moral high-ground on issues such as corruption, mismanagement and civil liberties.

They know the language of the people – focusing on day-to-day issues from rising food prices to the quality of education.

Obviously my formulation ignores the inconsistencies, but there’s no denying the socio-economic and “class” basis to this struggle.

At the same time the respective leaders play up these associations because politics – let’s face it – is also theatre and understatement doesn’t play to the gallery.

Returning to Pakatan, I must point out that the coalition’s very new-ness means they are much more flexible, less rigid and accepting.

Indeed, Hadi Awang’s courageous stance on Negara Kebajikan is an indication of the extent to which Pakatan is exploring new paradigms.

Of course, PAS carry a certain baggage themselves. For example, will the gentle and considerate PAS of today be replaced by a morally sanctimonious force once in power?

At a time when technology is changing so rapidly, (iPad succeeded by iPad2, just when you’ve begun to understand it), we’ve got to accept political systems have to change as well.

But will the face-off between the two opposing forces benefit us – the rakyat?

Well, I for one am confident that there will be change and that we as a nation desperately need that change.

Indeed, we’ve reached a point where it doesn’t actually matter who brings the change – BN or PR, conservative or liberal, socialist or right-wing.

Malaysians will rally behind whoever is the most sincere in taking us out of this mess, just as Ronnie Reagan and later Obama inspired their respective voters.

Ironically, after all this talk of substantive politics we’re back where we started with character and personality.

So, we have to batten down, wait, watch and judge because at the end of the day we, the people are sovereign and through the ballot box, we can kick out those who’ve let us down.

So carry on ladies and gentlemen of the political world, we’re watching and evaluating your performance.

It’s all about politics, in the end

Tweet

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

The competing forces have little choice but to bring in the numbers, and every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us.

THERE isn’t much time left, really. Those of us who live in Klang Valley can only brace ourselves for the numerous police road blocks that would be set up ahead of this Saturday’s illegal Bersih 2.0 rally.

The city will be locked down for sure, even as early as Wednesday, and we can expect a lot of inconvenience. But the police have a job to do.

It does not look like there is going to be a compromise or a middle ground solution between the organisers of the rally and the police. The organisers want to proceed and have no intention of applying for a permit.

The police, meanwhile, have said there will be no more talk with the organisers and stressed that it is time now for action and the full force of the police would be applied.

Deputy Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar did not rule out the possibility of the police invoking the Internal Security Act to nab participants of the illegal rallies.

What is different from the first Bersih protest held in 2007 and other past massive protests is that this time, two other parties have warned that they would proceed with counter demonstrations if the Bersih 2.0 rally went ahead.



This time, the police fear a clash and their concerns are justified, given the emotions that have built up. From the information the police have gathered, there are good reasons why police are talking about taking tough preventive measures.

In 1997, supporters of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim staged a huge protest after the court sentenced him to six years’ jail for sodomy. A passing TV3 vehicle was attacked in front of Masjid Jamek by an angry mob in full view of the public and many shops were looted. And it was a one-sided affair then.

Anwar’s conviction, the protests and the backdrop of the 1997 financial crisis in Asia certainly had an impact as (then Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had a tough election in 1999.

In the case of the Bersih protest in 2007, which also called for electoral reforms, about 250 demonstrators were arrested as they clashed with the police. When elections were called the following year, Pakatan Rakyat won five states, despite claiming the electoral rolls were “unclean”, and that cheating and dirty tactics were used. And for the record, PAS has ruled Kelantan for 21 years.

But it’s hard to argue against a case for a clean electoral system. It’s a clever political package. Seriously, who can argue against such a clarion call and who can say “no” to freedom of expression and the right to protest, which are all basic principles of demo­cracy?

It’s understandably attractive for many and, undoubtedly, a matter of choice if people wish to take part in the rally. But again, those who organise the rally and those who wish to take part should also know the legal and political consequences of their decisions.

Any gathering of five, without a permit, is illegal and even if we feel that it is an archaic law, it remains a law until it is changed.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 should give a convincing answer to whether their campaign is initiated by Paka­tan Rakyat, which has given the whole show a political dimension, or it has been hijacked by them.

It doesn’t help that Anwar has said he could just call organiser Datuk S. Ambiga to call off the rally. Of course, like many politicians, he claimed he was misquoted.

PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu has also said on record that the Bersih 2.0 rally would help Pakatan in the elections.

On the surface, it looks simple but it’s all politics in the end and not quite as innocuous as it seems. The reaction has been political, and likewise the counter protests.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 cannot expect their rivals to join them on the argument of a clean electoral system when the latter feels that the system is sufficient, admittedly it can still be improved, as the opposition has gained so much.

Against the rising political temperature, the issue has become more explosive when elements of religion and sedition come into play.

Some have said the authorities over-reacted and the communist revival claim is a little scratched, given the fact that almost all the commie icons are long dead. Even China and Vietnam are communist in name only these days.

Still, the July 9 rally won’t be a stroll in the park. It is a political event. So, let’s not bluff ourselves that it is a non-governmental organisation affair as they wouldn’t be able to marshal the numbers, if it is indeed an NGO show. The organisers need PAS particularly to bring in the crowd.

It is essentially a show of strength ahead of the polls. The competing forces too have little choice but to bring in the numbers. Every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us, not because the rallies and counter-rallies will help their political ambitions.

There will be enough people who believe in them. Just as enough people climbed trees to put up PAS flags and quarrelled with their families and friends for Datuk Ibrahim Ali, until he called himself an independent.

There will also be people who still believe in him now that he is representing an NGO and he is doing all these for Malay rights.

There will also be people who believe politics can be clean and there are wannabe politicians with noble intentions.

The Datuk Trio, meanwhile, must be upset at the seeming obsession of the authorities over the Bersih 2.0 rally as the sex video issue has been forgotten overnight, which is what Anwar probably wants.

All these groups could hold their gatherings in stadiums, with even a short march thrown in, if they want to. They could shout and make speeches for 24 hours if they want, but as Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was quoted in Sinar Harian as saying, it would have lacked the “oomph”.

Without the chaos, the anger, the water cannon, the arrests, it would not be a success. So it all comes down to that.

Malaysia's PAS makes cosmetic changes to Islamic State, a Mission Impossible

Tweet

ANALYSIS By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY 

Recent developments in PAS are aimed at winning support from non-Muslims but the party's ultimate Islamic agenda still remains.

The latest changes in PAS are therefore in-keeping with its long-term goals - to win acceptance from Middle Malaysia and to eventually Islamise the country.

SOMETHING has happened to PAS in the space of a short time and it has to do with transforming itself for a general election that is widely expected by late this year or early 2012.

First, Datuk Abdul Hadi Awang, speaking at the party's 57th Muktamar, dropped the sacred goal of the party since its founding 60 years ago the Islamic state concept.

It would instead pursue a welfare state. Abdul Hadi in announcing PAS' new direction said that in Islam, an Islamic state and a welfare state were one and the same.

In the blink of an eye, the party had dropped the reason for its existence and conceded to all the non-Muslims in the country, who had feared the party's long term goals, that it is no longer pursuing an Islamic state.

It has also given the DAP, which had long opposed an Islamic state, an avenue to argue to the non-Muslims that PAS is no longer to be feared.

DAP chairman Karpal Singh can sleep easy now that the party has dropped the Islamic state agenda. He does not have to say “over my dead body” to defend a secular state, as what Malaysia is.

To top it all, moderate Mohamed Sabu managed to win the deputy president's post although by just 20 votes.

The ulama faction in PAS had tried very hard to stop the popular Pakatan Rakyat grassroots leader by putting up an ulama candidate Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man but Mat Sabu still managed to defeat him and another candidate, Nasharuddin Mat Isa, who had enjoyed incumbency.

Mat Sabu's defeat of his opponents lends credence to the new image of the party, as progressive and acceptable by all and led by non-ulamas and professionals.

Also winning as vice-president were Datuk Husam Musa, the Kelantan state exco member and incumbents Salahuddin Ayob and Mahfuz Omar.

All of these lends credence to the theme that the ulamas are in retreat and that the professional and non-ulama group is ascendant.

Mat Sabu also wasted no time and in the first week of his victory granted an interview to Malaysiakini in which he ruffled the ulama's features and stated that Kelantan and Kedah should emulate Penang and urged the PAS rank and file to fight corruption and abuse of authority.

In the series of articles, he also sought to rewrite the seat allocation formula between PKR, DAP and PAS in which DAP contests the Chinese majority seats, PAS the Malay majority and PKR in the mixed seats.

By saying he would like to stand in Bukit Bintang, a Chinese majority seat that the DAP holds through Fong Kui Lun, Mat Sabu who lost in Kepala Batas (1982), Kuala Kedah (2004) and Kuala Terengganu (2008) is giving notice of PAS' intention not to accept the seat allocation rules.

Then on Saturday the party made another change that is sure to bring smiles to the DAP and the non-Malays it dropped Datuk Dr Hassan Ali as the PAS commissioner for Selangor, replacing him with Dr Abdul Rani Osman.

Dr Hassan had been at loggerheads with the DAP's Ronnie Liu over the sale of alcoholic drinks in Malay-majority areas in Shah Alam. He had wanted 7-Eleven stores to stop the sale of beer, a move strongly opposed by the DAP.

Another person also dropped was the state's ulama wing chief Datuk Harun Taib, whose post has been taken over by Abdul Wahid Endut.

Abdul Hadi also announced that a book would be published on the welfare state and he specifically said the DAP was agreeable to the new concept the party was pursuing.

All these changes from dropping the Islamic state agenda, showing the door to Dr Hassan and allowing Mat Sabu to pontificate show that the moderate image of the party is actively advertised as opposed to the intolerant ulama image known to all.

The speed of changes in PAS has even taken Umno leaders by surprise with one leader urging PAS to drop “Islam” from its name and others slamming the party for its decision to drop the Islamic state label in favour of the welfare state and for sacking Dr Hassan.

While the changes would help PAS better prepare for the next general election to win non-Malay votes, the party has not abandoned any of its core principles.

The Islamic state, defending the sanctity of Islam, making Islam the guide to politics and statehood and upholding Islam in all fields (including governance and administration, economics, society, learning and education) these are all very much the party's core aims and are in the party's constitution.

What PAS has achieved in a short space of time are really cosmetic changes to better prepare for the next general election by capturing the moderate votes of all races the Middle Malaysia of Malays, Chinese and Indian and others who had supported Barisan Nasional.

PAS is aware that the next step in the political transformation of the country is acceptance of the party by “Middle Malaysia” if it is to expand on its Islamic agenda.

It must pursue this goal in a gradual manner to win acceptance from “Middle Malaysia”.

The fact that a party based on religion would eventually lean towards religious dogma to rule because of the make-up of its members thus fades from the voters' minds.

The latest changes in PAS are therefore in keeping with its long-term goals to win acceptance from Middle Malaysia and to eventually Islamise the country.

Mission impossible

COMMENT By CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

The quest for an Islamic State has been so fundamental to PAS' struggle all these years and yet, there is no Islamic State in the Quran.

PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang has just discovered that there is no “Islamic State” in the Quran.

And yet since its inception in 1951, PAS has espoused the cause of an Islamic State. It is the ideological foundation of the party. On a number of occasions, especially since 1982, when the party leadership proclaimed “the rule of the ulama”, the goal of an Islamic State has been bandied about to show the people that it is PAS that occupies the moral high ground compared to Umno which PAS often condemns as a secular party.

If the quest for an Islamic State has been so fundamental to PAS' struggle all these years, is Hadi's recent discovery an open admission that the party was wrong in its understanding and interpretation of the Quran?
Is Hadi and also Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz, PAS' spiritual adviser guilty of misleading Muslims and non-Muslims alike, perhaps unwittingly?

It is, of course, true that there is no Islamic State in the Quran if by that, one means a description and explanation of how power and authority are derived, organised, exercised and relinquished in the religion; for these are some of the essential attributes of a state.

What the Quran offers is guidance in relation to the values and principles that are vital for good governance. It is not just in relation to governance or welfare which PAS now enunciates as its mission that the Quran is a book of guidance. It embodies universal values and principles pertinent to all aspects of human life and death.

The idea of an Islamic state emerged to a large extent as a reaction of sorts to Western colonialism that had conquered most Muslim countries by the beginning of the 20th century. It was reinforced by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1923.

Various concepts of an Islamic State were subsequently popularised through the writings of men like Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimin (the Muslim Brotherhood), and Sayyid Qutb, one of its leading ideologues, both Egyptians, and Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat Islami in Pakistan.

There was also a rigid, puritanical version of the Islamic State associated with the teachings of an 18th century preacher, Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab, that became the ideological basis of Saudi Arabia.

Much later, in 1979, a Shia-oriented Islamic state was established, the product of a people's revolution in Iran.

However different the theories and practices associated with the Islamic State project from Afghanistan under the Taliban to Saudi Arabia to Sudan to Iran there are certain broad similarities that seem to define both the idea and its implementation.

Invariably, the State determines how Islam should be interpreted, understood and practised. Other approaches to the religion are sidelined and often suppressed. This leads to religious-cum-political authoritarianism which, in almost every Islamic state, has resulted in the stifling of legitimate dissent and the incarceration of dissenters.

Given this perspective on state power, it is not surprising that the implementation of syariah in every instance has bestowed primacy upon hudud, the Islamic criminal code. It is this emphasis that has created a 2P punish and prohibit culture in those societies that claim to be Islamic. In a genuine Islamic ethos, it is the 2E educate and enlighten approach that would prevail.

While the roles prescribed for the non-Muslim citizenry are often observed, it is also true that their subordinate status is a norm in these so-called Islamic states. Similarly, concessions may be made to women in the public sphere but the privileging of the male is both legally sanctioned and socially legitimised.

In all Islamic states, there is a preoccupation with protecting and perpetuating a religiously moulded popular culture which tends to negate the finer attributes of individual creativity. This is partly because preserving Islamic identity as defined by the elite is so central to the Islamic State project.

To a greater or lesser degree, PAS' outlook and orientation mirror these characteristics associated with the Islamic State project. It may have dropped the label but the content remains.

Has PAS, like the Islamic reform movements in Indonesia and Turkey, gone beyond hudud and fiqh (jurisprudence) to articulate values and principles that distinguish the contextual from the universal in text and tradition? Has the party like the Nahda (Renaissance Party) in Tunisia evolved a theory of shared citizenship rooted in the Quranic vision of a common humanity that transcends religious affiliation? Why has PAS not done what the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimin in Egypt did recently? The new party it has established in preparation for the coming national election, the Freedom and Justice Party, has not only allowed Christians to be full and equal members but has also appointed a Christian as the party's vice-president.

Though a PAS leader, the late Zuikifli Muhammad, first raised the question of allowing non-Muslims to become associate members of the party in the early 1960s, PAS has made no move in that direction. All that it has done is to establish a non-Muslim supporters club which has no membership rights!

This is why it is wrong to describe PAS, in the wake of its recent election, as a party which is now spearheaded by “reformers” and “progressives”. While there are some individuals who are reform-minded in the party hierarchy, PAS as a whole remains a hudud-oriented, Islamic State-inclined party.

What makes the present leadership different from its predecessors is the dominance of individuals who are willing to forge tactical alliances and engage in strategic manoeuvres to attain power to capture Putrajaya even if it means setting aside for the time being their decades' old dream of establishing an Islamic State.

Seizing power through the ballot box is their primary goal. This is why PAS is prepared to adjust to the agendas of its Pakatan Rakyat partners the DAP and PKR in order to maximise non-Muslim/non-Malay support in the coming general election. Its motto is simple: power first, dogma afterwards.

Is there any wonder that the PAS president has now come to the realisation that there is no Islamic State in the Quran?

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is a political scientist who has written extensively on Muslim societies since the late 1970s. His latest book is titled Muslims Today: Changes Within; Challenges Without' (Islamabad: Iqbal Institute, International Islamic University, 2011).