Blogger Wan Saiful has presented a very well-written entry, pointing out some problems he had with my You’ll Never Walk Alone and You’ll Never Walk Alone (2). Quoting him,
Denigrating the syariah, too, is not a way forward. She should realize that there are many people out there who are progressive but still believe in syariah. As a Muslim, it is my democratic right to want the syariah, and if we were to work together, appreciation of others is a must.
Throughout my You’ll Never Walk Alone and You’ll Never Walk Alone (2), I did not bring up the issue of Syariah, much less denigrating it. Syariah together with Common Law as part and parcel of the legal system in Malaysia, on principle poses no problem to me at all, eventhough I might have some issues on it’s detailed implementations. It is neither my nor Keadilan’s intention to abolish or alter the Syariah system we currently have.
I also did not say those Muslims who want Syariah cannot work towards such a target within democratic platform. All I have done is :
- presenting my opposition to the inhumane part of Hudud, and
- stating that votes for Barisan Alternatif was severely reduced because one of its component parties adopted Hudud as their policy.
Yes, I agree totally that appreciation of the others is a must. Also, try to appreciate what attracts and drives away votes, if one wishes to win elections.
While working in a coalition, PAS cannot unilaterally produce policy statements if they know others will not agree. Publication of the Islamic State document was a mistake and steps must be taken to mend the damage.
That’s what I have been telling Elfie, that BA component parties had agreed prior to GE 99 that Hudud would not be part of Joint Manifesto. And there was no separate BA manifesto for individual states either. So Trengganu state government has breached the BA Joint Manifesto 99 by tabling Hudud, Qisas and Takzir bill in the state legislature unilaterally without discussion, much less agreement, from its BA partners. Mungkir janji is the reason why DAP left BA, and that BA was widely rejected in GE 04. I am extremely glad that not all Pas members are as irrational and unreasonable as Elfie 
All the component parties must study what the voters’ preference is before proposing a policy, similar to the market researches done by companies before a product is introduced. If a box office poison that frightens away more voters than it can attract, such as Hudud, is included, is there any wonder why was not only Pas itself but its ally as well being rejected ?
DAP should realize that the majority of the Malays still see it as a chauvinistic Chinese party. And, just like PAS should be careful when using the term Islamic when labelling its policies, DAP too should think twice about using the word “socialist”. Despite my commitment to PAS, I also believe DAP has proposed some excellent policies. I have no problems with elements of socialism, Malaysian Malaysia, etc. But the vast majority of Malaysians have a negative impression of these various concepts.
If Umno advocates a policy that prefers some section of the society and discriminates the rest due to their color, in order to enrich their cronies, it’s not wrong for us to call it chauvinist, or what Dr. Syed Husin described as “Ketuanan segelintir Melayu”. I think it’s quite clear whether DAP envisages a Malaysia where everyone is equal, or one where Chinese enjoys more than the rest. Opposition should clarify their policies to reduce misunderstanding.
The consensus is that Bumiputra policy should be replaced by a mean-based affirmative action, where everyone, including the poor rural Malays who are now neglected by Umno, will get appropriate assistance proportional to their need and ability. Does Pas also subscribe to this ?
Regarding Socialism, correct me if I am mistaken, but I guess politically-aware Malaysians should know that schemes such Felda, fuel subsidies, subsidies fertilizer, subsidised public transport (KTMB, RapidKL and domestic flights on Malaysia Airlines) are all Socialist ideas too…
Keadilan is a relatively new party that relies almost absolutely on DSAI. Until today it has not been able to categorically state what it stands for. Both PAS and DAP will definitely survive death of a major leader (or leaders) because they both have a strong enough ideological base. Unfortunately many still see Keadilan as an “Anwar’s party” rather than a force by itself.
Pas and DAP are niche parties banking on the sentiments of pro and anti-Hudud. They do have broader vision, but it failed to reach the audience, partially thanks to their own faults, as well as the manipulated mass media.
Keadilan, on the other hand, envisages to embrace the wish of the all, strives to realise a Malaysis which will be well-accepted by all Malaysians regardless of cultural or religious backgrounds. Quoting party Secretary-General, Datuk Kamarul Baharin, (Suara Keadilan #64, 7 - 17 August 2005)
“Kita tidak projek parti ini sebagai parti dominasi Melayu. Melayu sebagai teras dalam Keadilan adalah kebetulan.”
Nevertheless, this shows that Keadilan as another option apart from Umno and Pas, is now enjoying a wider acceptance among the majority group in Malaysia, who now begin to appreciate the importance of justice, human rights, equality, freedom of religion and meritocracy etc. That is exactly what Bob meant when he said,
capture the imagination and support of the majority Malay Muslim constituency from the grip of PAS’ ideology.
Pas has so far married Reformasi to Hudud, therefore a lot of pro-reform voters were forced to vote BN in order to avoid a living-hell ala-Taleban (this is the general concept of what an Islamic state is, isn’t it ?). Keadilan is merely offering another chance to Reformasi, which will not be haunted by Hudud.
Whichever way I see, support for this will mostly come from the pro-reform and anti-Hudud group, who are currently not supporting Pas anyway. Therefore there’s no reason why people like Elfie should worry.
In the mean time, we as politically conscious citizens should work to reduce the tension, not add to it. We have to ensure we do not create issues that may divide BA further.
Just wish to add that, the single most important factor why BA was divided, is Pas’ insistence in the inhumane part of Hudud, which is a box-office poison that has upset many pro-reform voters and derailed Reformasi. So, the question now, how many times we must be defeated before we learn the lesson ?
There must be a comprehensive study on what the people really want. If it can be statistically proven that the majority of people on a particular state do not want syariah, then the state manifesto should clearly state that BA will not force the syariah upon the people. But if support for syariah can be proven, then BA component parties should work together to give the people what they want.
Syariah have already existed in all 13 states and 3 federal territories of Malaysia, as well as in neighbouring Singapore, Brunei and Acheh. According to most of the Keadilan leaders I know, the Syariah law we currently enjoy is sufficient.
A free and fair state with high regards for justice, equality and human rights is in line with the Islamic principles. But one where corruption is widespread, efficiency is low, justice is lacking, torture is rampant, competitivess is weak, I doubt it can be very Islamic no matter how many jilids of 7th century Kanuns they enact.
But just to answer you, I agree that a referendum should be held to seek the citizens’ preference on Hudud. so voters can choose whether they want Hudud without sticking to party lines. I agree so due to my belief in democracy, and it has nothing to do with my personal opposition to the inhumane part of Hudud.
Despite so, I do not agree that law should differ from state to state, or from district to district, or from mukim to mukim. Law must be uniform, that’s why the Federal government is now streamlining the Syariah laws of all the states. Perhaps another referendum should be held just to seek public opinion on whether all states should be subjected to a uniform law ? 
Do you call it justice, if convicts of a same crime are to be given different sentences, just because of the different locations within the same country where the crime was committed ? As criminal law has been stipulated in the Federal Constitution to be a federal matter, so be it. Reformasi is about restoring law and order, not distorting law.
I agree with all other arguments of Wan Saiful
