DAP Rocket has landed on the Moon!!

The move by ROS (Registra of Society) to not recognize the DAP CEC (Central Executive Committee) has the unintended effect of strengthening the cooperation and camaraderie between its component parties, PKR, DAP and PAS.

DAP has decided to use the PAS "moon" logo in Peninsular Malaysia and the PKR "eye" logo in East Malaysia.

So do help us kick out the corrupt and power abusing UMNO/BN from Putrajaya by helping to spread the news that the DAP Rocket has landed on the MOON


Please tell all the voters that where a DAP candidate is contesting, put your X in the box for PAS.

Malaysia and the Club of Doom

The article Harris calls a cangkul a cangkul—again drew my attention to the book Malaysia And The Club Of Doom. In the spirit of wanting to understand Islam, the mind of a Muslim and hopefully a good Muslim non-Muslim Consensus, I think it is a good idea to let Malaysians know what that book is all about:

Malaysia and the Club of Doom (The Collapse of The Islamic Countries) is a book published in 2006 by Syed Akbar Ali who argues that countries with a Muslim majority population have collapsed economically, politically and socially.

Theses
With a particular focus on Malaysia, the thesis of the book is that growing Islamisation of the political and social climate in Islamic countries are causing democracy and freedom to be threatened by religious irrationalism. He attempts to show how the curtailing of democracy and freedom of speech have caused those countries to collapse. He further draws a distinction between Islam and its current practises, and offers his perspective that current practises of Muslims are not in vein with the true meaning of Islam with that being the underlying cause for the collapse of those countries.

The book takes pains to stress that many practises that define Islam on the world stage like stringent laws, cruel punishments and irrational beliefs cannot be found in the Quran. Syed Akbar Ali then proceeds to show that many of these extra Quranic beliefs and practises which have brought about the downfall of the Muslims are actually taken from the Bible.

In the Malaysian context, his book also exposes a masquerade whereby certain 'Islamic' laws pertaining to divorce are actually a reworded version of English Law taken from the Marriage and Divorce Act - a left over of British colonialism. The book also dismisses 'Islamic banking' as 'Arabic banking' i.e. conventional banking with Arabic prefixes attached for camouflage.

Author
Syed Akbar Ali 49 years old is a name that is well known among the Malaysian intelligentsia, especially among its Muslim intellectuals. A graduate of an American university and having developed a career in banking Syed was also an often controversial newspaper columnist - pushing the envelope on free and unfettered discussion on religious and political issues in Malaysia.

His debut book 'To Digress A Little' published in July 2005 stirred much discussion in Malaysia for its frank and honest appraisal of Malaysia's affirmative action policies which have now outlived their usefulness.

RPK's take on Hudud & PAS

As part of trying to understand the mind of Muslims and PAS, here is a reproduction of RPK's NO HOLDS BARRED: Thick in the head which incidentally repeated wha I had mentioned in my earlier post - Should non-Muslim have a say on Malaysia becoming an Islamic state?:

RPK: PAS requires non-Muslims to pay ‘Islamic’ tax other than income tax. Muslims pay zakat and non-Muslims pay kharaj. Is this not a violation of Article 11(2) of the Constitution?

At least now in addition to knowing the people of the book are referred to as dhimmis in an Islamic state, I now know the rest are called thimmies (also referred to as Ahl Zimmi?) and the tax paid by non-Muslims is called jizyah

Full text from RPK's article:

Grow up, PAS supporters. Stop acting like bloody spoiled children who throw tantrums every time someone does not agree with you. You are still far from matured. And until you show maturity do not expect us to show you respect. Respect must be earned. Stop demanding that we show you respect when you have not earned it.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We are still seeing a lot of venom being spitted out because of my article on Hudud. The trouble is these people appear to think they have every right to propagate Hudud (just because they happen to be Muslim-Malays) and others have absolutely no right to oppose the issue.

They appear to have forgotten one very crucial issue. PAS is a political party. Therefore, whatever PAS says and does is politics. That is all it is. Politics. Nothing more nothing less.

Any political party is allowed to propagate and promote its objective, aspiration, ideology, mission, vision, manifesto, and what have you. This is the right of all political parties. And in that same spirit, any citizen of Malaysia has the right to disagree with what these political parties stand for.

It just happens to be that PAS promotes the Hudud issue. And those who do not support this issue are allowed to oppose it. What if PAS promotes the issue that every Malaysian citizen must be given a free cow? Do we have right to oppose that if we disagree with this idea?

What if PAS says that Malaysian males of the age of 15 must be allowed to vote and for females it should be the age of 11 because that is the age of puberty? Can we disagree with that proposal on grounds that Malaysians of age 11-15 are just too young and instead propose that all Malaysians of the age of 18 should be allowed to vote since they can get married and can drive a car at that age -- so they should be also allowed to vote at that age?

PAS members and Malaysians in general scream that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not respect the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. But do the PAS supporters respect the Constitution?

Article 8 (1 and 2) of the Constitution says all Malaysians must be treated equal. So how can Muslims suffer a different punishment from non-Muslims for crimes they commit? Is this not a violation of the Constitution? And is PAS respecting the Constitution by proposing different punishments for crimes based on your religion? The Constitution says there must be no discrimination based on religion.

PAS requires non-Muslims to pay ‘Islamic’ tax other than income tax. Muslims pay zakat and non-Muslims pay kharaj. Is this not a violation of Article 11(2) of the Constitution?

Why scream about Barisan Nasional and Umno not respecting the Constitution when we too do not respect it? We scream blue murder when it suits us. But we also violate the Constitution when it suits us.

This is what these emotional PAS supporters are overlooking. PAS is a political party. And everything they say and do must be seen as politics. And in politics we have a right to agree, disagree, and agree to disagree.

So what if PAS happens to be talking about Islam or Islamic laws? It is still politics since PAS is a political party. And in politics we have every right to agree or disagree with what you say and do.

Grow up, PAS supporters. Stop acting like bloody spoiled children who throw tantrums every time someone does not agree with you. You are still far from matured. And until you show maturity do not expect us to show you respect. Respect must be earned. Stop demanding that we show you respect when you have not earned it.

***********************************************

DAP will not compromise on hudud issue, says Karpal

(The Star) - DAP will not depart from its stand that Malaysia should not be an Islamic country.

DAP chairman Karpal Singh said PAS should not infringe the ruling by the five-men bench Supreme Court ruling in 1988, which decreed that the country is governed by secular laws.

“This ruling is not overturned and therefore the decision still stands.

“PAS has to accept the Supreme Court’s pronunciation,” he told a press conference at the Air Itam market yesterday.

He was commenting on PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi’s statement that it would continue to push for the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia despite fierce objection from the DAP.

Karpal Singh, who is also Bukit Gelugor MP, said the party would not compromise on its principles to appease its political partners.

He said DAP was not anti-Malay or anti-Islam but “what we want in absolute terms is what the Constitution provides for and for what the Supreme Court has decreed”.

“Syariah laws means hudud laws and hudud laws are inappropriate for a multi-cultural and multi-racial country like Malaysia.”

On the allegation made by Umno Youth that the state government was using the Penang Turf Club’s contribution to fund its hardcore poor eradication programme, Karpal Singh said Umno should not exploit the issue.

“The income of the country or at least part of it is from gambling.

“If Umno is right, then all governments (state and Federal) should be condemned as the gambling permits are also issued by the Federal Government,” he said.

***********************************************

Federal Constitution of Malaysia

Article 8

1. All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

2. Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Article 11

1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

PAS DAP relation - can it survive hudud law dispute?

As a continuation of seeking a consensus between PAS and DAP over the Islamic state and Hudud law issues, let's do a compilation of all views regarding the relations and interactions between PAS and DAP. So here is political analyst Wong Chin Huat take on whether PAS and DAP can survive the hudud law dispute, courtesy of the Nut Graph:

Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: Can PAS and DAP survive hudud law dispute?
By Ding Jo-Ann | 20 September 2010 |

MALAYSIANS have been seeing PAS and DAP cooperate on a level not thought possible before. When DAP Member of Parliament Teo Nie Ching received brickbats from Umno for speaking in a surau’s prayer room, PAS leaders spoke up in her defence, saying non-Muslims are allowed in Muslim houses of worship. Earlier this year, Umno leaders argued that sports betting should be legalised. PAS and DAP begged to differ. Umno said Christians should be banned from using “Allah” to refer to God. PAS leaders said otherwise.
But what about the ultimate bones of contention — hudud law and an Islamic state — both of which DAP opposes? Can PAS and DAP really put aside their differences on this to form a lasting coalition in Pakatan Rakyat (PR)? The Nut Graph asks political scientist Wong Chin Huat in the latest installation of Uncommon Sense.

TNG: PAS and DAP disagree over the implementation of hudud laws every so often. The most recent incident involved DAP chairperson Karpal Singh reminding PAS that hudud and the Islamic state are not within PR’s policy. How will this play out if PR manages to form the next federal government? Will either side have to compromise and if so, will those compromises alienate their respective voter bases?

Wong Chin Huat : The issue will disappear once they form the next federal government provided Umno is sufficiently weakened but not completely wiped out.

While their ideological commitments are real, DAP and PAS have always been strategic in the issues they highlight. There are many ways to showcase PAS’s contribution in promoting Islam other than implementing hudud. DAP won’t have problems with Islamisation if it involves islamising the financial system or expanding social welfare as long as non-Muslims are not discriminated against or forced to follow Islamic laws.

Before 8 March 2008, you would expect DAP to stand up to defend the right of non-Muslims to gamble, a position now ironically taken over by Umno on the sports betting issue. Instead, DAP supported the anti-gambling position and packaged it with a strongly non-Muslim flavour by announcing Penang’s state-level ban on sports gambling outlets on Wesak Day.

All things are possible in politics. What we should be concerned about is how to divert attention away from the divisive issue of hudud or at least not make it a priority. The answer lies in giving PAS and DAP enough power so that they appreciate that forsaking such power over hudud is suicidal. This rests more on non-Muslim voters than on Muslim voters. Imagine if PAS won 40 parliamentary seats, with half of those won in mixed seats due to crucial non-Muslim support. Would they harp on hudud if they risked losing these 20 seats in the following elections?

However, if Umno/Barisan Nasional (BN) is completely destroyed in the next elections and PR starts to feel it is unbeatable, there will be some who will want to play hero again within Pakatan Rakyat on the issue of hudud. So the issue will come back.

TNG: PAS leaders have said they will adhere to PR’s Common Policy Framework (CPF) and called a truce for now on the hudud issue. How binding is this document and do you foresee PR parties sticking to it on principle, even at times when it may hurt them politically?

If the prospect of PR coming into power is real, the CPF will be binding. They will definitely stick to it before the next elections even if it hurts. What happens after the next elections will depend on who survives and who triumphs.

If people like Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Khalid Samad and Siti Mariah Mahmud lose in the next general election, then they can stick to the CPF all they like, but it won’t matter anymore. Collectively, politicians are opportunists. It’s part of their job requirement. So, don’t test them on their principles more than you want to deliberately test your partner on their fidelity. All we should aim for is a good outcome, not a heroic but tragic ending.

TNG: Does the CPF bind PAS’s actions in the states where they hold a majority such as Kedah and Kelantan? Have they been abiding by the CPF’s principles so far?

There are clearly sins of omissions to say the least. Kelantan and Kedah have shown no interest in local democracy. Kedah’s policy of reserving 50% of housing lots for Bumiputeras certainly does not fit well with PR’s vision of an inclusive and colour-blind Malaysia.

Why is the CPF not being followed religiously? The simple answer is that it is not being indoctrinated effectively. It remains an official document, not an ideological guide. If you tested DAP and PKR’s party election candidates and asked them to list out five specific issues in the CPF, I don’t know how many would pass.

Is this a problem? Yes, the lack of interests and seriousness in CPF means that we can’t expect a clear picture of how this country will be run. The CPF is rather vague to begin with. But this is not a serious issue, and it is not one that will break the Pakatan Rakyat.

As long as federal power is still within sight, DAP and PAS will love each other. By the same logic, the moment the prospect of power fades, Umno will bid farewell to MCA, MIC and other member parties. For example, in Sarawak, because Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud is increasingly unpopular, his once-loyalists in SUPP have hinted they might leave BN.

At the end of the day, all political coalitions are marriages of convenience. We don’t have to ask whether there will be true love at the time of adversity. We should just make sure that the marriage works out well when they are in power or on the road to power. This is the problem with BN — their marriage is not even working when they are still in power.

TNG: Have PAS and DAP leaders been saying different things to different constituencies in order not to ruffle any feathers? How consistent have both their stands been on hudud and the Islamic state issue since March 2008?

No. The exchange of words between Karpal and PAS spiritual leader Datuk Seri Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat over hudud is the case in point. With the increasingly multilingual population, double-speak or dog-whistling has no chance of success but will backfire.

The challenge for PAS and DAP is exactly how to remain consistent and reconcilable with each other at the same time. It’s how to persuade their members that some issues just need to be left to time and they just need to agree to disagree for now.

TNG: Will one way of compromise be that PAS implement its Islamic state model only in states where they hold a majority? Will this result in creeping Islamisation state by state?

Islamisation has two approaches in general.
The first is Islamisation of the state, using state power to impose Islamic values and institutions, as understood and interpreted by the ruling elites, on the rest of population. This is basically Islamisation by coercion — even though its advocates would call it part of believers’ duty or even that of residing minority groups. The fact remains that those who refuse to follow cannot opt out. Such Islamisation will not work even if carried out only at the state level because citizenship and civil rights should not be differentiated by region.

The second approach is Islamisation of the society and economy through persuasion and incentives. People are encouraged to adopt Islamic values and practices because such values and practices benefit them. The best example is of course Islamic finance, where non-Muslim Chinese are said to be one of the most enthusiastic groups. Halal standards are also adopted by many non-Muslim restaurants because they want Muslim business. Surely Islam has more to contribute to the society, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, on a voluntarily basis. If state governments are competing to Islamise in a non-compelling way, such competition is only good for making Malaysia more diversified.

So the key is really not how Islamised Malaysia should be, but how Malaysia is to be Islamised, by persuasion or by force.

PAS asked Malaysians to give absolute trust

Free Malaysia Today reported PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang as saying 'Give us your absolute trust,” PAS tells Malaysians.

It will be great if we can trust PAS absolutely as then securing a Consensus between PAS and DAP on its struggles to win Putrajaya would be an easy job.

However, from that article, it looks like the basis of this absolute trust in PAS will be based on:

1. UMNO's misdeeds
2. non-Muslims' peers in the communities in Kelantan, Terengganu and now Kedah, Penang and Selangor (Pakatan Rakyat controlled states)
3. “We (PAS) have always been consistent with our stand and administrative approach. Islam is about justice and fair treatment...”

Are these enough? Hopefully we can get PAS to be more specific on the basis upon which we Malaysians can depend to absolutely trust PAS.

"Give us your absolute trust,"PAS tells Malaysians
WED, 01 SEP 2010 12:11
By FMT Staff

KUALA LUMPUR: At a time when the country is grappling with its own issues of faith and trust laced with fear, PAS is asking Malaysians to believe in the party.

“Give us your absolute trust and allow us to replace Umno and lead this country. We pledge to be fair to all and urge Malaysians to give PAS their trust as an alternative leadership to Umno,” said party president Abdul Hadi Awang.

He said Umno could no longer be trusted because it was now desperate, reckless and uncaring of how divided and suspicious the communities were.

He said Umno’s aim of confusing the Muslims and the public with a distorted version of true Islamic teachings and blatantly stoking racial intolerance was creating discord and distrust.

“We urge non-Muslims not to judge PAS by Umno’s discriminative standards and distorted understanding of Islam,” Hadi said last night.

He said if non-Muslims were unsure of PAS’ capabilities, they just needed to speak to their peers in the communities in Kelantan, Terengganu and now Kedah, Penang and Selangor.

“We have always been consistent with our stand and administrative approach. Islam is about justice and fair treatment...” he said.

According to him, the reason for the confusion these days was the deviant understanding of Islam as propagated by Umno during all its years of rule.

He said Umno had never stopped using religion and racism as a weapon to frighten multi-racial Malaysia into supporting the party.

Dangerous tactic

The worst and most dangerous tactic of Umno is projecting an image to the public, especially the Malays, that its decisions were in accordance with true Islamic teachings.

"They have mixed and meshed their narrow perspective on racism and linked it to appear like it's the teachings of Islam,” he said, adding that Umno-linked media had helped propagate these sentiments by giving the impression that the ties between the races was at its worst.

He said Muslims were being hit with confusing interpretations of Islam, while non-Muslims were being incited with racial slurs.

"I wish to advise the media to stop fanning racial issues because it is only confusing the Muslims and endangering their ties with others.

“It is time for Muslims to be discerning and to weigh whatever they hear and read.

“They should avoid being trapped by misleading information disseminated by Umno and its agents,” he said, adding that PAS was willing to face the National Fatwa Council to explain the guidelines to Islamic teachings if invited to do so.

Hadi's comments come amidst fears that the country may be on the road to self-destruction following wanton interpretations of Islamic teachings, socio-cultural intolerance and rising inflation.

Yesterday in his National Day message, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak called on Malaysians to practise restraint and value what they have inherited.

He said society should not allow the Malaysian way of life, which is based on diversity and moderation, to be undermined by extreme attitudes which manifest themselves through racial and religious issues.

"Everything which we have achieved, everything which we have built, and things which are dear to us, will be destroyed.

"We should, therefore, value the prevailing peace, harmony and stability in the country," he said

Citizens for PAS DAP Consensus

Further to Solution for PAS DAP disagreement re Hudud & Islamic State, it is good to announce that we are now a team of 4 and possibly one more from PAS. The first thing is what are we going to call our initiative/efforts/drive/......

I had suggested PAS DAP Conciliation initiative. A member suggested consensus is a better word so let's look at the definitions of these 2 words

Conciliation: the state of manifesting goodwill and cooperation after being reconciled; "there was a brief period of conciliation but the fighting soon resumed"

Consensus: Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.

OK perhaps Citizens for PAS DAP Consensus would be better? That would be giving a message to both PAS and DAP that we citizens want them to come to a clear consensus over this Hudud and Islamic State issues so that when it is time to vote, we citizens know exactly what we are voting for.

If you have other suggestions, we would be happy to hear about it.

There was an article by Zeffri Yusof over at Malaysian Insider Do not PAS go, do not collect hudud where he had some suggestions for PAS some of which we may want to incorporate? Do give us your views:

1. Explain clearly to its own coalition first and get their buy in with regards to its Islamic state plans (including and especially how non-Muslims or “dhimmis” fare) and hudud law — before repeating it to the larger public. We would all be interested to know what PAS would do if it gets to practise hudud. Judging from past action, some are betting that its first priority is policing women’s attire as opposed to something more substantial. It behooves PAS to clarify.

2. Be realistic about its Islamic state ambitions. Instead of the whole country — which would require two-thirds majority and the consent of the King to amend the constitution — perhaps just being selective in favour of its strong states as “syariah experiment zones”, leaving the rest of the country secular. Well, if BN can divide and rule along racial lines, perhaps PR along ideological lines. At least people can see how commercially (e.g. tourism), scientifically (e.g. innovation) and socially (e.g. integration) the hudud states would fare.

3. Resist from falling back on the “if only the critics would understand the principles of hudud” line; or that criticising hudud is somehow “sensitive”. Here’s the thing: the fact that people are questioning hudud should tell its advocates that people care enough to want to understand. PAS’s job is not merely to defend its position, but win people over. It is the duty of hudud proponents to explain and enlighten through persuasive argument. In fact, they should do what other disciplines do when they need to communicate a position — publish a position paper, debate in an open forum, etc.

4. When going public with hudud, refrain from using “argument from authority” or “appeal to authority” when claiming why hudud is “just and fair” because not only is that approach dogmatic, it does not wash with non-Muslims and non-believers. A rational, empirical approach would be appreciated — for example, a comparison between how secular and syariah law might address the same issues differently, or citing historical and current examples of successfully implemented hudud (hopefully not Saudi Arabia or Iran).

5. And last but not least, that PAS does not assume that all Malaysian Muslims are for PAS’s brand of hudud. I say PAS’s hudud because taking all of Islam’s schisms and fiqh schools and mazhabs into consideration, no way can PAS claim it holds the one and only legitimate view.