It has now become more and more apparent that PAS and DAP don’t play well together. Ever since the Selangor Menteri Besar imbroglio, blows have been traded repeatedly ad nauseam
Over the past few weeks, the issue on the table has been PAS President, Dato Seri Haji Hadi Awang (HA)’s absence from Pakatan Rakyat (PR) presidential council meetings
In all fairness, HA is an elderly man and is thus more prone to sicknesses. For the sake of the betterment of PR, shouldn’t HA temporarily delegate his ultimate decision-making power to a trusted right hand man? Or at least step down in order that a physically fit person may take the helm
Yes, PAS does send its representatives (namely deputy president Mohamad Sabu and vice-president Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man) for PR presidential council meetings. However, if you have been following the recent criticisms by DAP, it centers around HA having veto power and yet being absent from the meetings
Basically, whatever is agreed upon by the PAS representatives in the presidential council meetings may be overruled by HA at the end of the day. Thus, DAP has a valid point when it says that a PR presidential council meeting without HA is akin to PAS being absent
It is clearly undemocratic for a political party leader to have veto power in every matter considering other leaders are also elected by the members of the party. As cliche as it sounds, there is a lot of truth to the saying “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton)
If PAS refuses to sort out the aforementioned issues, PR’s effectiveness as a coalition would undeniably be adversely affected, and PR may need to reconsider its composition. After all, you can’t join the school but refuse to wear the uniform!
Just like when Britain entered the European Union (then known as the European Community) in 1973, it had to subject itself to EU treaties, regulations, directives, and European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions despite having done things its own way for centuries
A good example of PR’s effectiveness being hindered would be when the PR presidential council accepted the proposal for Datuk Seri Wan Azizah to be nominated as the new Selangor MB, and HA ended up vetoing the decision and nominating candidates of his liking
Another problematic issue is PAS’ continuous insistence on implementing hudud. Prior to the 13th General Election, PAS seemed to have abandoned its hudud agenda by pursuing a benevolent state concept.
Needless to say, the whole “Pas For All” election slogan, gained PAS the votes of many non-muslims who were unsure of PAS yet wanted a regime change. However, after GE 13, PAS reverted back to advocating hudud
Since PAS is seriously considering implementing hudud in Kelantan and has taken many steps to realise it (e.g. a federal-level hudud technical committee, finalising that “trained professionals” will be carrying out the amputations), it is high time for PKR and DAP to consider whether to move on without PAS
PAS’ move may gain support from the more hard line Islamists, but it is sure to cause loss of votes for PR because DAP and PKR will be seen as being inable to influence PAS to abandon its wishes for hudud.
A PR without PAS would most definitely appeal to the more progressive Malaysians. Will we see a PR coalition without PAS/DAP? Or will we see PR end up just like Barisan Alternatif? Or will PR learn how to sort out its differences and work together? Only time will tell
On a side note, if UMNO Kelantan supports PAS’ efforts (which is has in the past), it is time for MCA, MIC, and Gerakan to reconsider its partnership in BN. After all, what’s the point of being in a coalition if your view doesn’t matter?
*This awesome article appeared in The Malay Mail Online, The Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini, and Free Malaysia Today
Out of the blue, Sungai Air Tawar assemblyman Kamarol Zaki Abdul Malik decided to table a motion to discuss hudud and its possible implementation in Selangor
What was more shocking was that Selangor Speaker, Hannah Yeoh decided to allow for the motion to be debated in the state legislative assembly
The Selangor Speaker set a good example by allowing hudud to be debated. After all, it is an issue which has been plaguing Malaysians.
Selangorians would definitely want to hear both sides of the political divide arguing their case
Many felt that the motion was to trap Pakatan Rakyat. If Hannah Yeoh were to disapprove of the motion, she would be labelled as anti-Islam, and afraid to deal with the sensitive issue
Despite being criticised for her decision to allow the motion to be debated, Hannah Yeoh stood firm on her principle of being a neutral and fair Speaker to all parties, and maintained her decision
When a motion was tabled to debate about hudud in Terengganu, the Speaker decided to not allow the matter to come to pass. Barisan Nasional is capable of pushing for hudud in Terengganu as they form the state government by virtue of having the most seats in the state assembly
Isnt it ironic that UMNO decided to talk about hudud in Selangor when they discarded the very same issue in Terengganu?
Unfortunately, Kamarol Zaki Abdul Malik decided to withdraw the motion in Selangor. This lead to the rakyat questioning the sincerity of UMNO regarding the issue
As Muslims believe hudud to be God’s law, it should not be manipulated for political gains. Such revolting acts only reflect poorly on spirituality of the perpetrator(s)
As if that wasnt enough, Selangor BN put the onus on PAS to push for hudud in Selangor. Talk about looking at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye but not paying attention to the plank in your eyes!
Moving on, it was reported today that 10 written questions submitted by Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (ADUN for Kajang) was rejected by the Selangor state legislative assembly by virtue of exceeding the 40 word limit imposed on each question
Guess who was behind such a bold decision? If you guessed Hannah Yeoh, you are right!
Hannah Yeoh is doing a superb job as a Speaker and is setting a very good precedent for others in a similar position of authority. Her impartiality and strict obedience of the rules is nothing short of praiseworthy!
Ladies and gentlemen, in Hannah Yeoh we have a good example!
*Read it also at The Malaysian Insider and The Malay Mail Online
I was in serious shock when I read a few articles saying hudud is in the Bible. One of it is found at DUN N26 Bangi, Selangor’s blog while there is another at My Journey Of Faith’s page
Both articles quoted the same Bible verse which is from Matthew 18:8-9
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell
Let me first clarify that the Bible is not always read literally. Otherwise, according to Matthew 16:24, we would have to deny ourselves, literally take up a cross and follow Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus spoke in parables in the Bible, which should at least indicate to you that not everything is literal in the Bible.
Jesus in Mattthew 18:8-9, spoke metaphorically. When the phrases ‘cut it off’ and ‘gouge it out’ was used, Jesus was NOT referring to self-mutilation. What Jesus meant is that the root cause of the sin must be cut off and gotten rid off. Matthew 15:18-19 tells us that the root of the sin lies in the heart.
18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual
immorality, theft, false testimony, slander
Does it now mean that we have to cut the heart out?! Obviously not. In order to cut off the root of the sin, one must change his/her attitude (e.g. the behaviour that causes the person to sin must stop). In conclusion, hudud is NOT in the Bible. The only reason people get such an idea is because they read the Bible out of context. Which is unacceptable!
A reply to: Only UMNO can stop hudud
Lim Guan Eng slightly erred in saying that ONLY UMNO can stop hudud. As we all know, “a coin has two sides.” Similarly, when looking into the hudud issue, UMNO is only one side of the coin
While it is true that “With 88 MPs in Parliament, UMNO is in the best position to stop PAS’s attempt to implement hudud,” the onus to act isn’t just on the part of UMNO. As a political ally to PAS, DAP should convince PAS to drop the idea of hudud as it is not suitable in our multi-racial and multi-religious nation. The whole problem will be solved if PAS does not table both the Private Members’ Bills
By asking UMNO to act, is DAP absolving itself from all liability? Is DAP implying that it is incapable of pressuring its ally to abandon hudud? These are questions which should linger on our minds
Pakatan Rakyat works on a concept that they will “agree to disagree” especially when it comes to controversial issues. In one sense it is good as the component members of PR wont draw it’s guns and start a friendly fire. But it also leaves a loophole that allows each party to put its own interests above that of the entire coalition
It could potentially be devastating for PR. Imagine if hudud were to be implemented in Kelantan. It would probably cost DAP A LOT of non-muslim votes at GE 14. This is because before GE 13, DAP went around gathering votes for PAS by reassuring the non-muslims that hudud would never be implemented
And in this hypothetical situation, DAP has let down its voters. Hopefully this hypothetical situation does not come to pass. Back to the million dollar question “Who can stop hudud?”, UMNO can. But so can DAP and PKR!
A reply to:
Implement hudud for all, not only Muslims, says ISMA
As if the entire hoo-ha about hudud wasn’t enough, ISMA went on to say that it should be applied to non-muslims as well. That stirred a lot of unrest among non-muslims in Malaysia and many voiced their displeasure. Especially on social media
Of course ISMA is entitled to voice their opinion (enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution). But their opinion(s) should be made with respect to the highest law of our land or it would reflect badly on their intellect. Plato once said, “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something”
Article 11 of the Fedeal Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. Article 11(1) states that “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”
If hudud were to be imposed on non-muslims, the right of non-muslims to practice their religion would be infringed. How? While most churches use non-alcoholic beverages when partaking the Holy Communion , some Malaysian churches do use wine to represent the blood of Jesus
Hudud covers an offence called syarbul khamr (a.k.a drinking alcohol). Will Christians then be flogged 80 times for observing a practice considered holy to them? Christians would no longer be able to freely practice their religion, hence infringing Article 11
Also, under hudud, only free, adult Muslim men are eligible to testify. The status of a women’s testimony under hudud is an unresolved issue. Some Muslim scholars believe the testimonies of TWO women equate to the testimony of ONE man
What then about testimonies of non-muslims? (presuming they are subjected to hudud). Does it count for anything?
According to an article by Sp4n4r ,
“Non muslims are allowed to testify in Hudud cases. The only difference is that their testimony will not be sufficient
for a hudud conviction and will only lead to a Takzir conviction
However, in cases where there is an absence of any muslim witnesses, the testimony of a non muslim will be
accpeted for a hudud conviction with two conditions:
A) He/she has never been proven to be a liar
B) He/she is a believer of a religion and practices his/her religion”
However, Muslim women activist and
filmmaker Norhayati Kaprawi , takes a different stance and says “Based on PAS’s current hudud enactments in Kelantan and Terengganu, only Muslim males are eligible to be court witnesses. The testimonies of non-Muslims (and also
Muslim women) are not accepted in PAS’s hudud-style Islamic courts”
Clearly there are A LOT of unresolved issues. Perhaps ISMA should contribute on sorting out the hiccups related to hudud instead of churning out bootless statements such as “hudud should be implemented for all and not only muslims”