Tag: PAS

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2397] Reminded of my misgiving of PAS

I do not believe in specific individuals or organizations. I believe in institutions to make everybody honest, so-to-speak. I truly believe for governance in Malaysia to improve, political competition must flourish at the federal level. The first step is to have Barisan Nasional served some time in the opposition.

While the blood reference is excessive, the spirit of Jefferson’s “[t]he tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” underlines the need for BN to lose its political power. It is about bloodletting. Power corrupts whoever whom holds it for too long. Hopefully, the bloodletting will flush out the worst within the ranks of BN. They will need to improve and be better than its rivals in order to survive. This applies to everybody as well. The competitive force will keep everybody on their toes.

A near loss is not enough. The so-called Pekan lesson is not good enough. Nobody truly remembers it because it was merely a near miss. BN has to lose.

Despite my harsh criticism of BN, I am not against BN per se. At least, not in the last year or so. I think I have grown out of that pure anti-BN sentiment. Now, it is simply an institutional requirement for me.

Pakatan Rakyat is the obvious candidate to replace BN. Within democratic institutional dynamics, I am supportive of PR.

Since PAS is an essential member of PR, I have discovered that somehow I am subconsciously trying to be more mild and measured in my criticism against PAS. This is all the more important because I increasingly see PKR as the most incapable of the lot in PR. PAS is the party that needs to pick up that slack. I do not believe DAP can do that in the short run. DAP needs to widen its base before it can cover for PKR.

And really, PAS has been moving to the center now, much to my delight. Obviously, my positions are very far from PAS in many ways but the distance is somewhat narrowing. So, it is not just that I am giving PAS a blind eye, there is also less for me to criticize on.

Until this week.

What happened in Kedah with respect to Ramadan dan entertainment outlets reminds me why I am distrustful of PAS in the first place. The PAS-led Kedah government has decreed that several types of entertainment outlets need to close during Ramadan, which is the Muslim holy month.

This is an effort at moral policing.

I reject moral policing through and through and I do not want to be voting for PAS to only to have them biting me. I do not mean to rear a boa that will swallow me whole later.

Voting for PAS has always been problematic for me. I voted for them in the last election. I am not so sure for the next election.

A friend has suggested that I change my address to solve my problem. That is really a creative way addressing it but it does not solve it. It only circumvents it. If PAS becomes part of the federal government, no amount of address changing will solve my problem, unless I move abroad again.

I thought the institutional requirement argument would be good enough for me to vote for PAS. But then I do not want to change from one bad scenario to another. I want a better scenario. I do not want to shortchange myself by eliminating choice. I do not want to guarantee PAS my vote.

I am a nobody. I realize that. So, I should make the following demand with humility. Nevertheless, for me to vote for PAS in the next round, I will need a guarantee from PAS that such moral policing will not happen.

Or maybe, a guarantee from PR is enough. Or least, from either PKR or DAP. Maybe I cannot rely on PKR due to how they have argued that non-Muslims need not worried if hudud is implemented. I am not impressed with that. Besides, their words are becoming less and less of value to me. Only BN has worse reputation.

So, under a system of consensus, I am looking at DAP. I am looking at that one golden vote to prevent the moral police from roaming the streets. If DAP can guarantee the existence such consensus system requiring unanimous agreement (which exists, I think), and that they can guarantee that they will always oppose moral policing on anybody, Muslims or non-Muslims alike, then I will vote for PAS in the next general election.

Until then, I will not, unless someone moderate contests in my area.

(Dr. Lo’ Lo’, the current Parliamentarian for Titiwangsa, will not do. I have seen her debated in the Parliament while I was working with a Member of Parliament in the last few months. I can say that I am not her greatest fan. But I guess, Dr. Lo’ Lo’ will not be contesting the next time around due to her health, hence the point on a moderate contesting. As far as her health is concerned, I wish her well.)

Categories
Politics & government

[2381] UMNO is turning into the old PAS

If one had opined that PAS was more of a centrist than UMNO 10 years ago, nobody would have believed it. It would have been an outrageous opinion. Yet today, it is no longer so foreign a prospect.

The recently concluded PAS internal election is the latest evidence of the party’s march to the centre. That election saw both the promotion of the so-called professional group to the leadership of the party and the adoption of a more realistic stance with regards to the Islamic state agenda.

The participation of PAS within Pakatan Rakyat has a lot to do with the reconfiguration of the party towards the political centre. While the criticism of ideological difference against the coalition as a whole remains valid, the alliance itself is the great engine that is pulling all of its members to a middle ground. That middle ground is proving to be the Malaysian centre.

This is should be contrasted with trends within Barisan Nasional, or really, just UMNO.

Regardless of the sincerity of the accusation, UMNO and its allies insist that PAS is committing a political betrayal. They claim PAS is abandoning the Islamic state ideal and ejecting the ulama from party leadership. Rather than acknowledging the developments as simply a move to the centre, they are more comfortable accusing PAS of kowtowing to DAP.

Betrayal or not, as with any move to the centre, those on the fringes will have less hold on the party. That will fuel some discontent.

UMNO-owned Malay daily Utusan Malaysia wants UMNO to appease the fringes. Assistant chief editor of Utusan Malaysia Zaini Hassan has gone as far as suggesting that UMNO should have its own ulama wing, perhaps thinking that particular man oeuvre could outflank PAS.

He forgets that times have changed.

In the past, the Islamization race between UMNO and PAS always ended up with PAS being the loser. PAS did not budge even as UMNO encroached on the traditional domain of the former. That allowed UMNO to win centrist votes and gain some voters who could have voted for PAS.

That little trick might not work again after the latest PAS election.

With PAS slowly nudging towards the centre and UMNO to the opposite direction, the Islamization game has only one participant, and that is UMNO. With enough momentum powering both sides, UMNO might find itself taking the relatively more extreme position compared to PAS. This means UMNO is at risk of becoming the loser this time around.

If both parties stay on their course, UMNO will turn into the conservative party that PAS was. Meanwhile, PAS the centrist should be very happy with that.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on June 14 2011.

Categories
Politics & government

[2307] Of the option off the ballot

There is speculation that there will be a general election in the near future. Political parties across the board are shifting gears, as if they needed to after all the by-elections.

I had a conversation with a friend several months back about the general election. Being away from Malaysia, I caught up with him, among others, to find out the latest about Malaysian politics. There is, of course, the Internet but it can get you only so far. Nothing beats face-to-face conversation. The facial expressions, the intonations and everything that matters are something that articles, podcasts and videos do not relay.

Among the topics discussed was the disillusionment that both of us had with the current political reality where both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat dominate. Although I do believe that this is the stage for Malaysians to strengthen the newly established, effectively competitive two-party system before any further steps are taken to improve the Malaysians political system, I despise the options that I face.

It was then that I contemplated the idea of refraining from voting in the next general election.

Where I am registered to vote, it has always been a contest between UMNO and PAS.

I do not believe in UMNO. I do not believe in their core values and I do not trust them for all of their abuse, regardless of the presence of some good individuals in it. I do honestly believe that for UMNO and its partners to change, they must be out of power at the federal level.

Nothing is more powerful as a driver of change than failure itself. Without power, the worse and the corrupt will be flushed out, leaving the competent and clean to work their way up, at least hopefully.

Besides, Malaysia needs to experience a proper and peaceful change of political power. The actual experience will test the country’s institutions. The outcome of that test will inform Malaysians at large whether the institutions are capable of handling peaceful transition, or that the institutions themselves needed to be changed.

Malaysia has experienced change at the state level. There are kinks but the institutions are handling it reasonably well. Federal change, however, is likely to be a different beast altogether.

While I do not think highly of UMNO and its junior partners in Barisan Nasional, the other viable alternative is not too convincing either.

Specifically, I distrust PAS. While PAS may have allayed the fears of the non-Muslims in issues like the controversy on liquor sales, they have not done so for the more liberal Malays like me. For instance, PAS has insisted that Islamic laws should not be imposed on non-Muslims. While that is more progressive relative to a more suffocating encompassing view regarding Islam and the state, that communal thinking leaves the liberal Malays trapped.

While the status quo with BN in power is not fantastic to say the least, the way PAS and Pakatan Rakyat explain the issue of Islamic laws — about how Islamic laws affect only the Muslims, hence non-Muslims need not fear — desensitizes such communal thinking.

Of perhaps larger concern is the rumor that UMNO and PAS are discussing a possible pact, either in the name of Malay unity or an Islamic one, none of which appeals to me. I thought the issue was dead long ago but it persists. That worries me. What is the point of voting against UMNO by voting for PAS only to have PAS join UMNO?

Then there is the Pakatan Rakyat coalition in general. In Selangor recently, the Pakatan Rakyat-led state government announced that they would grant PR state lawmakers RM1 million each in preparation for election while excluding those from other parties.

The state government justified this by saying that BN also does this at the federal level. The selective provision levels the field, so the state government argues. I completely understand the crass reality of politics but I also believe that state resources belong to voters, not to the parties of the day. Seeing PR stooping to the level of BN disturbs me. It forces me to reassess my premise for voting for Pakatan Rakyat.

I fully recognize some of the good that Pakatan Rakyat state governments have done. Yet, I do not want to give them a blank check. The good work should not be used to justify other less admirable actions. I gave them a blank check in the last election because the situation then was dire. Things have changed so much since then. The situation today does not warrant old premises.

In the past, I overcame this problem by resorting to voting for the lesser evil. The lesser evil was PAS. Furthermore, the idea of giving somebody new a shot appealed to me. Since PAS was — and still is — in alliance with DAP and PKR, a vote for PAS was a vote for DAP and PKR; I thought of both DAP and PKR better than any other parties in Malaysia at that time. I worked on the premise that DAP and PKR would outnumber PAS when it matters always. PAS would be powerless where it matters.

I was wrong about power and PAS within Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, I am tired of choosing the lesser evil. I am also tired of others asking me to vote for the lesser evil. They are effectively telling me that I have no option. Imagine how excited I was when they told me that my only option is PAS. Hooray.

They are wrong though. I do have an option, except that it is not on the ballot.

I told the friend that I was thinking of refraining from voting in the next election. “This would not be indifference,” I told him. “It’d be an active choice. No more blank check.”

To which he replied, “You might not be the only one who is thinking of that.”

Although I consider myself as sitting on the fringe of the Malaysian political spectrum, there are many dissatisfied voters out there if the talk of the so-called third force is of any indication.

That makes me wonder about the turnout of the next general election in absence of other options on the ballot. How high, or low, will it be?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on January 26 2011.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2288] Of ridiculously supernatural by too much

As long as there are those who believe in supernatural explanations to rationalize the completely natural world and as long as there are public choices that require collective decisions, religion will be relevant in our society. The relevance of religion, however, is not a ticket to be used with impunity in the public arena.

In The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World, author Matthew Stewart described how the religious of 17th-century Europe were anxious about the advancement of science. As the explanatory power of science grew, the room for supernatural explanation shrank. Four hundred years on, the room for the supernatural continues to shrink as we continue to understand more about the world around us. We have become more rational than ever.

Unlike in the days of old, this is an era when many assertions relating to the secular world require rational reasoning as its thrust. Many individuals no longer accept an assertion as true simply because someone invokes the name of god, or any being of similar status.

While the relevance of religion in society is not denied, it is easy to see how its relevance has been overestimated by some. That overestimation invites ridicule, especially so when the invocation of god’s name is based on self-interest.

When Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan swore on the Quran that Anwar Ibrahim violated him, it was quite clear that his purpose was to strengthen his case, regardless of the truth behind his allegation. While the truth in his case was at best uncertain, he tried to use religion to pre-empt the civil justice system. One can take comfort that the supernatural bows to rationality in the justice system for else, truth would be so cheap that it would be worthless.

A starker example involves former Selangor state assemblyman Lee Hwa Beng of the MCA. When he wrote that the Christian god commands Christians to oppose the concept of an Islamic state, he was using religion for his own political purpose. He linked the DAP with an Islamic state as promoted by PAS to cultivate the fear of Christians towards PAS so that they would vote for BN instead.

Of interest here is the use of supernatural-based rationale against another supernatural-based position. Even in the realm of the supernatural, supernatural rationale is problematic. It was so problematic that criticisms came in fast and harsh. What was supposed to be an insignificant statement on Twitter became a considerable embarrassment for Lee and he was forced to retract his statement and apologize.

Lee’s was a case where a person spoke on behalf of a god. He is, of course, not unique. Many members of PAS have taken the tone where the Islamic god wants this and that. Still, they are more or less Islamists and it is only expected of them to use religion to justify their political ambition. Nevertheless, they do struggle to justify the goal of an Islamic state while trying to widen their appeal and achieve their national ambition of wrestling Putrajaya from Barisan Nasional. Rather than appealing to supernatural reasoning, PAS has in the past tried to promote some of its ideal by stressing universal concepts like justice instead. If the 2008 general election is any indication, then secular methods are more successful than ones inspired by divine diktat.

And recently, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, president of PKR, said that her husband Anwar Ibrahim is a person granted by god to Malaysians to become our leader. As if the obvious needs pointing out, it is not hard to see how the fortune of Anwar is closely related to PKR. Maybe after criticism regarding PKR’s recent direct election, she thought that the outdated concept of divine right might justify Anwar’s position. Well, it did not work. She burnt her fingers. The wolves of Barisan Nasional pounced on her and she deserved it.

In each case, if they had resorted to the more rational path, they would have been less susceptible to ridicule. Saiful’s legal counsel could have presented convincing evidence in court. Lee could argue that an Islamic state may discriminate individuals based on creed. Wan Azizah could instead say that Anwar Ibrahim’s leadership is indispensible, for instance.

But no. They had to tickle the pink unicorn. Whether the unicorn has been entertained, we will never know. What we do know is that if they had chosen the more rational path, they would have been less susceptible to ridicule.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on December 13 2010.

Categories
Politics & government

[2067] Of focus on Islamic credential is both exclusive and plastic politics

A contest between PAS and UMNO within conservative Malay settings is more likely than not a race to the bottom. It inevitably degenerates into a deplorable inquiry regarding which between the two political parties is more Islamic than the other. While doing so, PAS effectively resorts to exclusive politics that is clearly inconsistent to its assertion that PAS is for all. If the Islamist party is really for all, it needs to adopt a more inclusive approach in engaging UMNO.

In the past, the question of who could enter heaven became a campaign material. Back in January 2009 during the Kuala Terengganu by election, the implementation of hudud gained currency as an election issue.
The most recent example of exclusive politics happened when the top leader of the party, Nik Aziz Nik Mat labelled Islam as practiced by UMNO as plastic.

UMNO did employ the same tactic of inclusive politics with respect to Islam. When PAS finally gathered its weight to say no to the idea of both sides cooperating with each other, UMNO accused PAS of doing a great disservice to the Muslim community.

In the beer controversy in Selangor, UMNO ridiculed PAS for kowtowing to DAP and while doing so, questioned the Islamic credential of PAS.

The ugly debate is an exercise at exclusive politics because it prevents non-Muslims as well as secular Malays from relating to PAS, and UMNO for that matter. While the mudslinging between PAS and UMNO on their Islamic credential can be hilarious at times, it is ultimately damaging to both.

Previously when information could be contained, exclusive politics worked. A party could appeal to local electorates and ignore the rest. Messages could be tailored to be inclusive at one time and exclusives at others. Inconsistency was not much of a great concern, especially so for UMNO since they controlled the media.

These days however, as the common wisdom goes, information flows freely. As a result, any entity with national aspiration does not have the luxury of playing to such exclusive politics. Continuous emphasis on Islamic credential as it is happening has the potential of eroding the possibility of realising national aspiration, which, for PAS, ultimately leads to becoming part of the federal government.

It terribly mocks the slogan ”˜PAS for all’ that it campaigned on earlier and in many cases, as the liberal elements in PAS try to project to wider Malaysian audience.

The truth is that this emphasis on Islamic credential, at the manner at it is done, with apologies to Nik Aziz Nik Mat, is plastic. The punches and counterpunches on Islamic credential are all about form and less about substance.

It is plastic — empty, worthless — because beyond that rhetoric lie no concrete solutions to problems besetting Malaysian society. It does not address the economy, crime, corruption, health and a gamut of other factors that affect the life of Malaysians.

Worse, that debate, as we are witnessing through the press — traditional or online, establishment or otherwise — is more often than not an attempt at negative campaigning. That creates a victim and that victim is Islam itself. Unfair as the association may be, it is hard for the common masses to not to generalise when individuals who claim to represent the religion, on both sides of the fence, failed to be mindful of their words, even as they enter the month of Ramadan.

The route that should be preferred by both sides is one that contains inclusive messages with substance.

PAS should really concentrate on matters that everybody, regardless of religious or irreligious beliefs, can relate to without much consternation. Such matters can be about good governance coupled with concrete policies that can benefit all that it wishes to pursue while being part of the Penang state government.

Surely, good policies that incorporate such universal values and its implementation come far closer to realising whatever ideals Islam promotes than the act of claiming to be a better Muslim and deriding others while at it. Universal concepts and values such as justice and trustworthiness better fit for the idea ”˜PAS for all’. These universal values are present in Islam and PAS can capitalize on it.

PAS already has a working formula. The liberal element in PAS — liberal in a sense more liberal than the rest in PAS and not liberal in classical terms — for instance has focused on the concept of justice rather than harp on the divisive controversial issue of Islamic state. They realised that the idea of Islamic state is only a mean with non-exclusive and non-exhaustive form, while equality and justice is an end and a substance.

That, as some would argue, is the essence of ”˜PAS for all’.

PAS should consult its liberal element on that.

It should not be confused between means and ends. To confuse the two is to confuse between form and substance, and doing so, engaging in exclusive and plastic politics that is all about appearance.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on August 24 2009.