Yes, in 2008 we agree to support Pakatan Rakyat. But the support came with certain conditions attached. You are, of course, free to renegotiate these terms and conditions if you want to and rescind what has been agreed. In a democracy this is allowed. But then, in a democracy, we are also free to look at these new terms and conditions of our relationship and decide whether we want to accept them or not.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
“Dear RPK, I find your articles actually getting
more and more racist. What is this about?” asked one reader by the name
of ‘Nanda K’. Well, violence begets violence, as the
saying goes, and racism begets racism. Racism requires two hands to clap
and is the opposition any lesser racist than, say, Perkasa?
Have a look at this newspaper cutting:
Why
must the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim say ‘Melayu masuk DAP PR lagi
kuat’? Is DAP a non-Melayu party, meaning a Chinese party? Is that why
if Melayu join DAP then PR would become stronger -- because the Malays
would dilute the Chinese in DAP? What if the Malays do not join DAP?
Would DAP then remain a Chinese party and hence PR would become weak?
The
statement ‘Melayu masuk DAP PR lagi kuat’ is itself a racist statement.
It shows that even Pakatan Rakyat plays the racial politics game just
like Barisan Nasional. Can’t you all get this through your thick head?
So
who is the racist here? I or the Pakatan Rakyat leaders who talk about
Malays, Chinese, Indians, etc? When you talk about it that is okay. When
I talk about it I am a racist. If you stop talking about Malays,
Chinese, Indians, natives, and so on then I can also stop talking about
it. But if you continue talking then I have every right to also keep
talking.
That is called democracy.
Sure,
my articles of late have been about Hudud. But I am writing about Hudud
only because the Pakatan Rakyat leaders are arguing about Hudud. If
they can argue about Hudud, if this is their democratic right to agree
to disagree, then in what way have I lost my democratic right to also
talk about Hudud?
Isn’t this what democracy is all about, to respond to what people say?
Look at the Bernama
news item regarding Karpal Singh below. PAS said that Karpal opposes
Hudud because he is a non-believer. This appears to have upset Karpal a
bit and he stressed that he is a believer.
What
is a non-believer? Is a non-believer someone who does not believe in
God? Then he would be called an Atheist, not a non-believer. An Atheist
does believe. He believes that God does not exist. Hence he is a
believer, a believer in the fallacy of the existence of God.
Or
is a non-believer someone who subscribes to a different religion to
yours? Such people do believe in God. They go to church or a temple to
pray. They believe that God exists. The only thing is they follow a
different path to yours. But they are a believer who does believe in the
existence of God. Hence should these people be labelled as
non-believers?
In the run-up to the March 2008 General Election, we launched The People’s Declaration, which
was endorsed by six non-Barisan Nasional political parties, the three
Pakatan Rakyat parties included. And this is what it said regarding the
plan to Promote National Unity:
We
will initiate measures to build and foster unity among the various
ethnic and religious groups, having as our aim the evolution of a people
with the common aspiration of justice and equality for all. To that
end, we will:
• immediately dismantle
any and all remaining practices of “divide and rule” in public
administration from the days of the BN administration;
• cause to be established a Ministry in charge of Non-Islamic Religious Affairs;
•
put in place an affirmative action programme at Federal and all State
levels to eradicate poverty and marginalization from amongst the weak
and backward groups irrespective of race, social background and
religion;
• pay special attention to
the Orang Asli in the Peninsula and all the indigenous groups in Sabah
and Sarawak, and amend various laws and regulations pertaining to them
so that justice is served, including establishing a Commission to
protect Native Customary Rights (NCR) land and to resolve disputes
relating to such lands while respecting their traditions and customs;
• strengthen national integration by restoring the rights and privileges that were promised to the people of Sabah and Sarawak;
•
establish an independent Ethnic Relations Council, reporting directly
to Parliament to help in building a united Bangsa Malaysia;
• establish a Commission for Shari’ah Law at the Federal level;
• reduce the influence of party politics in the respective State Religious Councils, mosques and other religious institutions;
• allocate land for graves and places of worship for all faiths without any discrimination;
• increase inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogues to strengthen mutual understanding among the people; and
•
encourage the development of a Malaysian culture based on common moral
values and ideals. This requires an open attitude towards the diversity
of cultures of the various ethnic and sub-ethnic groups in the country,
taking account of the country’s history and evolution.
I
am very clear on what my agenda is. And my agenda is in writing. And we
asked Pakatan Rakyat to endorse this agenda, which they did.
More
than two years later, in 2010, we launched the Malaysian Civil
Liberties Movement (MCLM) and in a talk in London with Anwar Ibrahim,
Tian Chua and Tunku Aziz Ibrahim, we raised the issue of The People’s Declaration and emphasised that we were not happy with what we viewed as Pakatan Rakyat sidestepping this matter.
That
public chastisement of Pakatan Rakyat was not well received and
thereafter MCLM was boycotted. It appears that what we proposed above,
amongst many others, and which we thought had already been agreed upon
prior to the March 2008 General Election, was no longer the game plan.
That
is okay with me. Malaysia is, after all, a democratic country and no
one can be forced to agree to something they do not believe in. Well, a
democracy works both ways. Just as you are under no obligation to agree
to what you do not believe in, I too am under no obligation to agree to
what I do not believe in.
However, while you
are free to accept or reject whatever you want, I do not appear to have
that same freedom to do what you do. In the run-up to the March 2008
General Election, we made it very clear that we will support Pakatan
Rakyat subject to certain conditions. And one of these many conditions
included an end to racial politics and a separation of politics and
religion.
Yes, in 2008 we agree to support
Pakatan Rakyat. But the support came with certain conditions attached.
You are, of course, free to renegotiate these terms and conditions if
you want to and rescind what has been agreed. In a democracy this is
allowed. But then, in a democracy, we are also free to look at these new
terms and conditions of our relationship and decide whether we want to
accept them or not.
As far as I am
concerned, we entered into a marriage contract. And this marriage
contract was very specific. If you wish to terminate this marriage
contract then I am at liberty to reassess the marriage and decide
whether to continue with the marriage or end it.
Which part of this concept do you not understand?
Today,
Pakatan Rakyat is still allowing race and religion to interfere with
the plan to reform the country after promising back in 2008 that all
this nonsense will end. In that case, since you have done a U-turn on
what we agreed upon, does that not also allow me the right to do a
U-turn as well?
Agreements that were
bilaterally agreed cannot be unilaterally changed. That is the long and
short of it all. And if those of you reading this piece are too stupid
to understand this concept then you deserve another 50 years of
Umno-Barisan Nasional rule.
**********************************************
Karpal reminds PAS of welfare state goal
(Bernama)
- Any attempt by PAS to espouse hudud law in the country now would
reflect poorly of the decisions made during the last PAS Muktamar, DAP
chairman Karpal Singh said today.
He said
PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang had, during the party’s 57th
Muktamar last June, publicly stated there was no mention of Islamic
state in the al-Quran but there was mention of welfare state.
He said this communicated that PAS had given up its aim to set up an Islamic state and opted for a welfare state.
In a statement here today, he said hudud was not included in the Pakatan Rakyat’s common policy framework Buku Jingga.
“Likewise, it will not be included in the common manifesto of Pakatan Rakyat, it cannot be,” added Karpal.
He
was commenting on a statement by PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan
Tantawi that Karpal was a non-believer based on his (Karpal’s)
consistent stand in rejecting the hudud.
Karpal
said: “No one, no party, no organisation can claim to have monopoly of
God. I must state, with all the force at my command, that I believe in
God.”
No comments:
Post a Comment