Tag: Islamic state

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
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2276] Of it requires an answer

At a recent public lecture in Sydney, Australia, Anwar Ibrahim said he avoids answering which he aspires to: a secular state or an Islamic state. He reasoned that the issue is contentious and unproductive to engage in. He believes what exists instead is a quasi-secular state, and a hypocritical one at that. He went on to state that the problem revolves around hypocrisy. I left the lecture dissatisfied with the message. Immediately after he ended his speech, I began to wonder about the kind of consistency he was looking for.

He argued that part of the reason why the issue is contentious is that both mean different things to different person. For instance, there are opponents of secularism who believe that secularism is anti-religion. That illiberal brand of secularism stifles religions in the public sphere, like what happened in Turkey before. And then there are proponents of secularism who assert that secularism is neutral of religion. Backed by liberal principles, a liberal secular state will treat all religions equally as long as those religions do not infringe on individual liberties. I myself subscribe to this idea.

Being the glue that holds Pakatan Rakyat together, it is completely understandable why he avoids the question. If anybody needs a reminder, DAP and the Islamist PAS are both the main component parties of Pakatan Rakyat. Both have rattled sabers over the matter within the Malaysian context. In Sydney, he stressed the need to build consensus. Fair enough.

The avoidance, however, is problematic when he is critical of the double standards in the implementation of Islamic law in Malaysia, where the rich and influential get away with what Islam frowns at while others get punished. That criticism relies on the idea of equality before the law. Such equality itself is a sound concept. Yet, not all equality ranks equally in terms of preference.

While the application of unequal weight of the law is distasteful, I shudder to think of a situation of equal implementation of Islamic law, especially in its current form in Malaysia. This is because it violates individual liberties — especially for those whom the state considers as Muslims — such as freedom of conscience. That translates into law that states whom a person can marry, what he or she can eat or drink, what a person can believe in, etc. It excessively dictates one’s personal life. An Islamic state that runs on Islamic law necessarily does that.

Religion has always been a personal, private matter for liberals. When religion is a private matter then the state has no say, freedom has more opportunities to flourish. This is why liberals prefer a secular state with respect to any religious state, while holding all other concerns constant. The opportunity for liberty to flourish doubles when there are guarantees for individual liberties within a liberal democratic framework, which addresses the problem of tyranny of the majority.

Criticism of hypocrisy and the existence of preferences in different kinds of equality essentially introduce back the question of secularism and Islamic state. The question does not need to be framed in such a stark contrast. Forget the labels. Ask instead, will religion, specifically Islam, be used to dictate a person’s lifestyle? More specifically, will it be used to dictate a Malay’s lifestyle?

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 November 18 2010.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1295] Of a vote for MCA, et al, is a vote for Islamic state

What seems to be ancient history now, there was a time when DAP and PAS as well as PKR chanced sitting together amicably to face a general election. With an ambition to setup an Islamic state, PAS became the bane of DAP. BN played their cards well by employing guilt by association fallacy and DAP performed badly in that election. Come 2007, this is the chance for DAP — or even PKR if they have the balls — to turn that table against BN.

Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said:

Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state. [Malaysia Not Secular State, Says Najib. Bernama. July 17 2007]

I personally disagree with that assertion but I am tired of playing the same game over and over again that by now, I do not feel the urge to rebut the DPM’s statement. I nevertheless take comfort in knowing that many in the blogosphere, from Jeff Ooi to Haris Ibrahim have done a good job in rebutting the DPM. So, if I were to rebut the DPM again, it would be a redundant work. Instead, I wish to share a delightfully marvelous politically strategic opportunity to create a major schism between members of BN.

Of course, of course. The non-Malay, non-Muslim members of the Barisan Nasional have no doubt condemned or at least begged to differ with Najib’s statement. If they, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, etc, really disagree with Najib and by extension UMNO, they should sever their political ties with UMNO. Words mean nothing without action.

Yet, it is unrealistic to have them to distance themselves from UMNO. Power attracts and things like this are not strong an impetus for them to refrain from tasting the honey that UMNO provides, the honey that makes slaves out of them.

The real gold mine is the supporters of MCA, et al. These people need to be convinced that a vote for MCA, et al, is a vote for Islamic state. The association of MCA, et al, with UMNO itself is suffice a reason to convince those supporters that MCA and others within BN are supporting the formation of an Islamic state.

Do you hear me?

This is the golden opportunity to undress the facade of harmony projects by BN. It is the crack for the alerted to make benefit of. Hear ye, hear ye. There is a crack; large enough a crack and race-based political parties will be obsolete!

Repeat after me: say no to Islamic state. Say no to MCA. No to MIC. No to anything that is BN. A vote for them is a vote for Islamic state where liberty will be disrespected with sheer impunity.