Out of the box

Can you see that these people are ready to abandon Umno and BN but they are looking at Anwar as the alternative to Umno and BN. Why can’t they see beyond Anwar? Why can’t they see that the alternative to Umno and BN is Pakatan Rakyat and not Anwar?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
My ‘habit’ when writing my articles is to puff on my cigar while listening to my favourite music channel, http://player.magic.co.uk/.
Unfortunately, in some parts of the world, you may not be able to tune in to this channel (as it is blocked) but for those who can please switch on your speakers and listen to the greatest of the great music, my kind of music, while you read this article.
And for those who can’t tune in to this channel, migrate to England where you can.
There are some who still do not get what I was trying to say in yesterday’s article: Bridge over troubled water. I suppose this is what we would call ‘mental block’, a syndrome of our brain being programmed to think only one way and where we are not capable of thinking any other way.
 Malays call this ‘katak bawah tempurung’ -- translated as ‘frog under a coconut shell’. The English would say ‘boiling a frog slowly’.
Today, I am going to talk about thinking and doing things ‘out of the box’. You could also say this is like getting the frog to break out from the confines of the coconut shell -- or getting the frog to jump out of the water before it reaches boiling point.
Basically, what this means is we need to break out of the mould and not allow ourselves to think and do things the way the government or Barisan Nasional wants us to think and do things. We need, as what Freddy Mercury said, to break free.
Let me give you an example of one issue, the issue of the church thing in Penang.
DAP has been accused of hosting a gathering of Christians where they allegedly swore an oath to make Christianity the official religion of Malaysia so that a non-Muslim can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Now, have you noticed how deafening the silence was? PKR and PAS maintained an eerie silence other than accuse Utusan Malaysia of propagating Umno’s agenda and asking the government to take action against this Umno controlled newspaper.
Is that the best PAS and PKR can do in coming to DAP’s defence? It is almost like they are washing their hands of the matter and are leaving DAP to handle this matter all by itself.
Why did Pakatan Rakyat not remind the rakyat that Malaysia is a secular state and that Islam is only the official religion of Malaysia and that Malaysia is not an Islamic State?
No one, not even if they control more than two-thirds majority in Parliament, can remove Islam as the official religion. Only the Rulers can do this and we have ten Rulers (one Agong, one Yam Tuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, one Raja of Perlis and seven Sultans).
So, even if DAP controls more than 148 out of 222 seats in Parliament, they can’t remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia and install Christianity as the new official religion.
Anyway, how can DAP control more than 148 seats in Parliament when it contests less than 80 seats? Even if DAP contests 100 seats and wins all the 100 it contests (which is not possible plus PKR will not allow it to contest more than one-third the seats) it is still short of 148 seats.
Why did Pakatan Rakyat not argue this and use this argument to defend DAP?
So there you have it. There is no way DAP can make a deal with the church to remove Islam as the official religion and make Christianity the new official religion of Malaysia. Even if PAS and PKR agree to this (which they will not) it still can’t be done because the power lies with the ten Rulers with whom Islam comes under.
And you can’t amend the Constitution to change this. This is the absolute power (kuasa mutlak) of the Rulers. And if you try to illegally amend the Constitution to remove the powers of the Rulers as far as Islam is concerned, then the Agong, who is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, can declare an emergency, suspend Parliament, and get the army to ‘restore order’.
Why did Pakatan Rakyat not argue this and use this argument to defend DAP?
Secondly, why would DAP need to remove Islam as the official religion and make Christianity the new official religion to be able to install a non-Muslim prime minister? Don’t you remember what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said? He said that there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that says the prime minister must be a Malay-Muslim.
In short, there is nothing illegal if a non-Malay-non-Muslim becomes prime minister of Malaysia. The Constitution only says that the Agong shall appoint a prime minister who has the majority confidence of the house, that’s all. So why the need to remove Islam as the official religion? We can have a non-Malay-non-Muslim prime minister even if Islam is the official religion of Malaysia.
Why did Pakatan Rakyat not argue this and use this argument to defend DAP?
Okay, next example, the issue of Anwar Ibrahim’s porn video.
PAS is being very careful about taking a stand on this matter and they are leaving it to the court to decide. Why must the court decide this? PAS must state its stand, period.
Pakatan Rakyat is playing right into Umno’s hands. They are being very cleverly divided on this issue. They are worried that if they express support for Anwar and it turns out that it is really Anwar in that video then they are all going to end up with egg on their face.
Why do we need the court to decide this matter? Is sex with another woman who is not your wife a crime? If it is then Chua Soi Lek should be in jail instead of being made the President of MCA. And Chua Soi Lek admitted that it is he in that video, mind you.
You might say it is a crime as far as Islam is concerned. Okay, then take this issue to the Shariah court. Can the Shariah court take action against Anwar? The answer is of course ‘no’, not unless Anwar admits to the ‘crime’ or there are four witnesses to the crime.
The bottom line is the Shariah court can’t do a damn thing, and neither can the common law court. So what is the issue here? If based just on allegations then many more people, especially those in Umno, would be behind bars.
The issue is not whether it is or is not Anwar in that video but whether Anwar is able to run this country and do a better job than the government we currently have. Anwar’s sex life is not going to determine the future of Malaysia and the future of our children and grandchildren. That is what we should focus on.
Let me go to a third example. Many people say that ‘if not Anwar then who?’ In other words, they see only Anwar as the suitable candidate to lead the opposition.
I normally oppose this statement and of course they view this as my ‘anti-Anwar’ stance. Actually, this has nothing to do with my anti-Anwar stance as much as my ‘anti-not out of the box’ stance. We need to think out of the box. We need to break free.
If we close our minds and think that only Anwar and no one else can lead the opposition, what would we do if something happens to Anwar? We would panic. The opposition would disintegrate. Everything that we worked for would come to an end.
So we need to psyche ourselves in that there IS life after Anwar. If something happens to Anwar life would go on. The opposition would not collapse. The cause can go on with or without Anwar.
In the old days, wars centred on the leaders. So when you take out the leaders all resistance would end. If the leaders were killed the army would surrender. No one had the spirit to fight on.
Why do you think Umno is so bent on destroying Anwar? They know that many in the opposition look to Anwar and only Anwar as the opposition leader. So if Umno can destroy Anwar then the opposition can be destroyed.
That is why I am opposed to this ‘if not Anwar then who’ doctrine. We need to show Umno that there are many Anwar Ibrahims in the opposition. They can destroy Anwar and ten Anwars will emerge in his place. Destroy these ten Anwars as well and another 100 Anwar’s will rise up.
Those who scream ‘if not Anwar then who?’ are actually signing Anwar’s death warrant. You are the reason why Umno wants to destroy Anwar. Remove Anwar as the crucial factor and Umno will find there is no longer any value in destroying Anwar.
We used to say ‘if not Ustaz Fadzil Noor then who?’ Then Ustaz Fadzil died and we panicked. But then we found that there is life for PAS after all even with the death of Fadzil Noor. And today we say even if Ustaz Hadi Awang goes PAS will not die. There are many more in PAS who can replace Hadi and maybe even do a better job.
The same goes for DAP. You mean without Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh DAP is dead? There are many in DAP who are ready to take over and may even bring DAP to new heights. Lim Guan Eng is one name that comes to mind.
That is what I call thinking out of the box, breaking free, looking at things from a different perspective.
You might think you are doing Anwar a favour by making him indispensible. Actually you are giving him a death sentence. Anwar becomes more valuable dead than alive. It’s as simple as that.
Another reason I oppose this ‘if not Anwar then who?’ doctrine is because this same doctrine is used in the ‘if not BN then who?’ argument.
Many people feel that only BN can run Malaysia. They feel that without BN the country would be in trouble. And I find that the people who argue ‘if not Anwar then who?’ are the same people who would say ‘if not BN then who?’
So it is all about Anwar versus BN. It is either Anwar or BN. And that is dangerous because if something were to happen to Anwar, or these people lose confidence in Anwar, then they would all go back to BN.
I have many friends who say that they are fed up with Umno and BN but they have no confidence that Anwar can do better. Why compare BN to Anwar? Why not compare BN to PR?
Can you see that these people are ready to abandon Umno and BN but they are looking at Anwar as the alternative to Umno and BN. Why can’t they see beyond Anwar? Why can’t they see that the alternative to Umno and BN is Pakatan Rakyat and not Anwar?
This is going to be the problem the opposition is going to face come next election. The voters are going to evaluate Anwar and will overlook what good Pakatan Rakyat can bring to Malaysia. It is okay if they see the good in Anwar. But if they don’t like what they see in Anwar then Pakatan Rakyat is in deep shit.
When friends ask me ‘if not Anwar then who?’, I reply Nurul Izzah. There is a moment of stunned silence before they reply: Nurul is too young, Nurul is not ready yet, Nurul needs more time, and so on.
“Okay, so who then?” I ask them. They reply that they do not see anyone other than Anwar.
“Okay, what happens if they put a bullet in Anwar’s head?” I ask them. They have no reply.
What is this? Are we all a group of young chicks who will die if the mother hen dies? Come on! There are 28 million Malaysians out there and four million are in the opposition. You mean there is no one who can lead the opposition if they assassinate Anwar? You mean we close down Pakatan Rakyat the day they place Anwar in his coffin and put him in the ground?
The more you say ‘if not Anwar then who?’ the more determined they will be in destroying Anwar. But if we say to hell with Anwar because there are 100 other Anwar’s who can take over then Umno will be at a loss. They can kill one Anwar but they can’t kill 100 Anwars.
Get it? Think out of the box for a change. Break free. Try to start looking at things from another perspective.

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM8Ss28zjcE