Tag: PAS

Categories
Politics & government

[1721] Of PAS in Pakatan Rakyat

Utusan Malaysia is actively disseminating the idea that PAS should part ways with Pakatan Rakyat. The paper suggests that DAP and PKR are treating PAS disrespectfully and it insists that PAS should quit the political alliance because of that.

The allegation of how PAS being treated is something I only take with a grain of salt. The daily after all has a not-too-innocent reputation of manipulating issues to suit its political bias. The motive of the daily is as clear as daylight.

Clear as it may be, the less than perfect relationship between PAS and their partners in Pakatan Rakyat is for everybody to witness. From the top of my head, the butt incident at the Kelana Jaya protest, the entertainment show at the Sultan of Selangor Cup and logging plan in Kedah are three issues which at least two of the three Pakatan Rakyat members do not find themselves on the same page.

Despite my misgiving for PAS, I do prefer the party to stay within the alliance and not work with UMNO. I voted for it on March 8 with my dissatisfaction against UMNO and Barisan Nasional in mind. Furthermore, I have learned to live with the fact that broad coalition is needed to achieve an end. And to a large extent, this cooperation has seen PAS being considerably contained from pursuing its political goals, much to my delight. My rationale for taking a pragmatic line works and that is not just due to limits imposed on the influence of the Islamist party but also due to the fact that I am content that we now have somewhat a small government.

This has humbled PAS. While indeed PAS has grown stronger in absolute terms, comparatively it does not do as well as PKR or DAP in terms of influence in policies. Prior to the election, I heard of complaints from PKR members of how arrogant PAS were in treating PKR. DAP also gave PKR the same treatment but the post-election scenario has realigned power in a way that PAS now find themselves at the bottom of the peaking order in the tripartite political alliance. This reality check does not bore well with PAS.

The cooperation between DAP and PKR is also something I celebrate. I believe in the merging of the two parties. While I celebrate, the closer relationship between DAP and PKR compared to either party with PAS gives the idea that DAP and PKR are not taking PAS seriously. Whatever PAS think, Utusan Malaysia and other media leaning toward UMNO certainly are trying to create division between the ranks of Pakatan Rakyat by highlighting the distance between DAP-PKR and PAS.

From the very beginning, the media close to UMNO have been trying to get PAS and PKR out of the coalition, stating that Malay unity is under threat. After sometimes, these media have referred to PKR less and less and are concentrating on PAS instead. From Malay unity, these media are concentrating on the sanctity of Islam, allegedly that it is under threat.

This is a beauty of politics I suppose. The narrative changes so quickly that one cannot remember what was the last one. Orwell in writing Nineteen Eighty-Four does not kid us about Oceania and Eastasia have always been friends with each other in warring Eurasia, except that last week, Ocean and Eurasia have always friends with each other fighting Eastasia.

Whatever it is, this is something that PAS has to figure out alone. They could stand their ground and work as part of Pakatan Rakyat or be enticed by offers from UMNO.

It has to be said though that the philosophical difference between the three, especially between DAP and PAS, was identified earlier as an issue that might prevent larger cooperation. Needless to say, bridging the gap requires effort. PAS can either invest in building that bridge or take the easy road to power by joining the likes of UMNO and pretend all that allegations of corruption they made against UMNO were just cheap words of politics.

If PAS leaves, I would certainly sorely miss it. But I would certainly remember it and would vow never vote for PAS again. PAS has only to prove me wrong with regard to my question of Sophie for me to vote against the Islamist party in the future.

Categories
Politics & government

[1577] Of I voted for PAS and I am not apologetic of it

Yes, I did as well as many others.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1568] Of refusing to dance with Sophie

A refrain from voting effectively disenfranchises refraining voters from decision-making processes. When options sit along a political spectrum and the refrain causes candidate standing farthest from specific voters is elected into office, it is highly likely that issue raised by that specific voters will be ignored in favor of issues raised by the supporters of the candidate. As I have explained earlier, this makes voting imperative, especially when the participation rate is high and when the voting outcome affects the voters. Thus, Hobson has been taken out of the equation. While the importance of voting has been established, I have yet to answer the question of how does one vote under the current Malaysian circumstances. Sophie still stares at us.

To do so, we have to establish our goal, be it libertarian or some other thinkings. With two points identified, we then will be able to determine which path to follow.

To answer my dilemma — which many share, I am sure — we cannot solve it by working from the stage of reality to the stage of ideal. To convincingly answer it, we have to take our goals and work it backward.

The libertarian goal is the maximization of liberty and that is my goal. The typical caveat applies but this is not an entry about the definition of libertarianism and so, we shall leave it there and confidently move on.

Prior to the dissolution of the Parliament in February, we had an influential government with a shockingly strong mandate. Subsequent events in the past several years have proven that the mandate had enabled tyranny of the majority; the inferiority of majoritarian democracy to liberal democracy was proven albeit painfully. I have repeatedly emphasized the superior of a liberal democracy to “democracy, Malaysian-style” and so, I will say no more of majoritarian and liberal democracy.

I repeat, an extremely strong Malaysian government resulted in the minimization of liberty. So strong it was that liberties supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution have been grossly violated from time to time. Worse, the Constitution and policies could be amended according to Prime Minister’s mood of the day. A case in point: the extension of the retirement age of the EC chairman.

Given the status quo and the ultimate goal of libertarianism — or at least, the prevention of tyranny of the majority — the immediate goal for the 2008 Malaysian general election is clear. The immediate goal is the reduction of the power of the state. With history suggesting that BN will form the majority in the Dewan Rakyat by default, this translates into voting against BN.

That however does not quite cut it for me. I am facing a choice between having to choose UMNO, which is part of BN, and PAS. Does voting for PAS enhance my liberty?

Ideologically, it does not but pragmatically, it does enhance liberty due to rationale against tyranny of the majority.

At a stall last week, I had a supper with a several individuals and one of them was the respected lawyer Haris Ibrahim. He said, “this is not the time for a debate” in response to question by a Christian whom asked why should she vote for PAS?

Mr. Haris further stated, “do the arithmetic. PAS will not be able to form the government.” PAS is contesting only about 60 seats and it is only expected to win at least 40 seats. With 111 seats level marks the 50% threshold — if PAS is interested in forming a government; assuming BN would sit in the opposition — PAS will have to collaborate with other political parties which do not share the goals of PAS, including DAP.

Compare this to the current unmitigated Islamization process done by BN, led by UMNO.

Unlike UMNO, PAS limited influence can be controlled. UMNO’s influence on the other hand is too enormous to manage. Just observe BN; despite the presence of MCA and MIC as well as other junior partners, UMNO is free to dictate the direction of the coalition while dissent is swiftly punished. Fascism is the word of the day. If I may say so, intolerance for dissent is the reason why parties instead of individuals dominate Malaysian politics. Until these parties are humbled, individual-based politics will not thrive.

The only way I could think of to starve off creeping Islamization is the introduction of political competition in the legislature. This leads to the same conclusion yet again: the reduction of the power of the state.

Finally, when PAS knows that it is getting protest votes from those that do not agree to its Islamism and if PAS is interested in keeping and building its influence, it will have to continue to cater to these voters, which does not the traditional voters of PAS. Eventually, PAS agenda will be toned down.

Thus, the Sophie’s choice is solved without appealing to the rationale of the lesser of the two evils. What I have done is realizing an aspiration to achieve the noblest of all goals with clear conscience. I refuse to dance with Sophie.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1522] Of PAS wants a welfare state but we already are one

PAS earlier said that it wanted to turn Malaysia into a welfare state:

On Saturday, PAS said that it turn the country into a welfare state should it win the coming general election. [PAS Should Explain Welfare State – Muhyiddin. Bernama. January 23 2008]

But our favorite minister said that Malaysia is already a welfare state.

SUNGAI PETANI, Jan 23 (Bernama) — The Barisan Nasional (BN) government has already made Malaysia a welfare state, Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin said Wednesday. [Malaysia Already A Welfare State, Says Zam. Bernama. January 23 2008]

Sadly, I agree.

PAS or BN, either way, we are already screwed. In fact, it is hard to find a local political party that would move away from the idea of welfare state, which usually comes together in a package with central planning policies. But if PAS does not think that Malaysia is already a welfare state, I could only shudder at its definition of the concept, which would probably sit far farther to the left.

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1182] Of the rape of Lojing and the clowns in PAS

Exposé on the rape of Lojing started a finger pointing fest between UMNO and PAS in Kelantan. It was not long before the the state and the federal government started to join the blame game. To a certain extent, given how poor the state is and hence, the lack of resource to protect the natural environment, I am sympathetic of the state. Nevertheless, I am refraining from taking side for I am fully aware that both sides are more interested in looking for brownie points instead of the environment. Yet, I cannot help but ridicule PAS on the way it handles the issue. Instead of engaging in damage control, it makes matter worse for itself, much to the UMNO’s gain.

About a week ago, it was revealed by the minister of the environment Azmi Khalid that the state government — more precisely, the office of the state chief minister (menteri besar; MB) — issued a gag order to the state forestry department on the situation at Lojing. The deputy MB denied the allegation:

KANGAR: The Kelantan government is said to have stopped the state Forestry Department from divulging information on the environmental damage in the Lojing Highlands.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid, who made the claim yesterday, said the gag order had resulted in the ministry not being able to get any information.

“I want the people of Kelantan to know that the Kelantan menteri besar’s office had issued a written directive to the state Forestry Department preventing them from giving any information on the damage in Lojing Highlands.”

Kelantan Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob had earlier denied allegations that the Kelantan government had withheld information about Lojing. [‘Forestry Dept told to keep mum about Lojing’. NST. April 15 2007]

In The Star:

“The statement by the Deputy Menteri Besar that the Kelantan government did not issue such a directive is not true and implies that I have lied. I have written proof as the letter came from the Menteri Besar’s office.

“I urge Datuk Ahmad to retract his statement and check the matter with the Menteri Besar’s office,” he told reporters after closing a handicraft seminar and workshop in Mata Air near here yesterday. [Azmi hits back at Kelantan government over Lojing logging. The Star. April 15 2007]

Later, the deputy MB admitted to the existence of the order after consulting with the MB’s office:

KOTA BARU: Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob made another about-turn yesterday, saying that there had indeed been an order restricting the disclosure of information on forest clearing in the state.

He said the menteri besar’s office had issued a letter dated March 26 to the state forestry director not to divulge details on logging in the state to federal authorities.

[…]

Ahmad, who had denied issuing the gag order, said he was only told about the letter by the menteri besar’s office on Monday. [Deputy MB blames boss. NST. April 18 2007]

In the article, the word another refers to this:

In a sudden about turn, the state government is now claiming that 13,000ha of Lojing Highlands had long been gazetted as a forest reserve.

Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob, contradicting his own statement on Sunday that the government-owned 25,000ha of land in Lojing which had yet to be gazetted under the National Forestry Act 1984, said the 13,000ha had been earmarked as a water catchment area. [Deputy MB’s gaffe over Lojing Highlands claim. NST. April 17 2007]

That means he shot himself in the foot, twice. He should be in a wheelchair now. It is unsure if the shot foot was in his mouth.

Back to the letter, apparently, the letter ordered the forestry department not to divulge information to the public with permission from the chief minister’s office, as clarified by PAS member Husam Musa:

State Public Administration, Economic Planning, Finance and Community Development Committee chairman Datuk Husam Musa said Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, as a state leader, was “well within his rights” to insist on being kept informed.

He said a letter dated March 27 to the department was in fact not a gag order although it ordered the department director to obtain permission from the menteri besar before releasing any information on land clearing in the state. [State says MB ‘well within his rights’. NST. April 19 2007]

Not a gag order? Really? Further in the same article:

“We have no intention of restricting information or vetting them as we are transparent. But the menteri besar must be informed, otherwise there will be chaos.” [State says MB ‘well within his rights’. NST. April 19 2007]

No intention of restricting information? Transparent? Au contraire!

There is no restriction of information if and only if the state does not restrict information!

And yes, that is a tautology.

Moreover, how does the rationale “menteri besar must be informed” rationalize the restriction of information? Would the MB be uninformed if there was no gag order? Stupid is it not?

Also, despite what had happened:

Its secretary, Takiyuddin Hassan, said the party would hire a consultant who would be accompanied by knowledgeable government officials to inspect the development of hilly terrain in other states.

“We are pushing for total conservation of the environment. We are aiming for it in Kelantan, but can other states follow suit?” he said in an interview. [Look at damage in other states first, says Kelantan. The Star. April 1 2007]

The people from PAS will be better off if they take my advice: slow down and think way, way harder before blurting an opinion.