Zaid: Form new coalition to defend secular Malaysia

 

MCA, DAP, MIC and East Malaysian parties must form a new coalition with Malays who want democracy and rule of law, says former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim's Facebook page.

"About time Malaysians say enough is enough. Our country is secular and that's how it must continue to be. Worth fighting for," states another one of his posts.

In his blog, Zaid launched a scathing attack on Muslim leaders in Peninsular Malaysia, saying that what has gone wrong with the country must be attributed to their failures.

Their counterparts in Sabah and Sarawak, he noted, were not fixated on "Islamising" the country.

According to Zaid (right), Muslim leaders in the peninsula suffer from what behavioural psychologists call "the inadequacy syndrome".

"This is manifested by these leaders' constant need to enhance their own self-esteem, even though they end up creating bigger problems as a result.

"They feel unappreciated and therefore need to posture more in the extreme to gain the desired recognition. They can only be sedated by giving them the rope to hang DAP, suspend Malaysiakini and bring about Islamic criminal laws to replace the Penal Code," he added.

Zaid said that Muslim leaders in Umno and PAS were weak and unwilling to admit that this country was founded on the principles of a secular democracy.

"Yet they are also afraid to embrace the Islamic theocracy that’s demanded by Islamists for fear of losing their comfortable lifestyle and privileges. This hypocritical uncertainty is causing all sorts of problems to the system of governance.

"If we are a democracy then we must protect basic human rights. Our civil court system must be the superior one when it comes to determining the application and constitutionality of all laws in the country.

"If, on the other hand, we are an Islamic state first, then human rights are subject to the overriding power of Muslim laws and tenets. The Syariah courts must then determine and establish first legal principles," he added.

'We cannot live in this charade forever'

These fundamental issues, Zaid stressed, must be decided once and for all.

"It's not enough for the BN to let MCA do the talking for them, ostensibly defending a secular government while Umno continue their double act of being pro-Islam. Similarly, DAP leaders defend secular principles on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat while Anwar Ibrahim and PAS stick to the Islamist agenda.

"These Muslim leaders are a weak bunch, fearful of being honest with the people because what's paramount for them is holding the seat of power. The people should realise that they have been fooled for a long time, and must now collectively stand up and be counted. We cannot live with this charade forever," he added.

Zaid also took Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar (right) to task for his statement on the custody dispute between a non-Muslim woman and her convert ex-husband.

"The police admitted openly that they are not able or willing to act against anyone who disobeys a court order, apparently because they were told that there are two conflicting orders on the same subject matter – one from the Syariah courts and the other from the civil courts.

"A senior police official declared that a father could not possibly abduct his own son, regardless of what the court says. This same policeman will one day say that a husband could not possibly rape his wife, or that any sexual crime requires four witnesses, regardless of what the law says," he said.

"Now the police have become the ultimate interpreters of the laws of the land. No one dares to correct them or to interpret for them. They have become what they are because our politicians are always afraid to stand up for the right thing.

"These Muslims leaders don't dare table the necessary changes to the laws on civil marriage or to Muslims family laws in Parliament (which were amended years ago and are still waiting for Parliament to pass them)," he added.

There is only one legal system

Zaid pointed out that the strange perception that Malaysia has a dual legal system is false.

Personal laws for Muslims, explained the lawyer turned politician, are part of the main system and not meant to override the main body of laws in the country.

"Yet no one is prepared to publicly declare that the civil High Court is the superior court under the constitution. The Syariah courts are limited in terms of its jurisdiction and applicability. It is only for Muslims in selected matters.

"It's illogical to say we have two systems coexisting in parity when they are totally different in scope and power. Our civil courts must be able to make a ruling to determine if the Syariah Court has applied the law correctly; otherwise, what we get is the chaos we are seeing today," he added.

Zaid said if these "weak Muslim leaders in the peninsula" want to put syariah above all else, the leaders in Sabah and Sarawak need to take a stand.

"The right thing to do is amend the federal constitution and declare that Islamic laws are the foundation of all laws. Then the Syariah Court will be superior to the High Court. We might not even need the High Court by then.

"It would then also be opportune to declare that the Quran is the highest law of the land and that the federal constitution is subject to it. At least then we would know where we stand. These leaders must not be allowed to continue confusing everybody, including our policemen," he added.

Go all the way on hudud

As for hudud, Zaid said the issue has resurfaced with Muslim groups and politicians in the peninsula wanting hudud to be implemented but no such call has been made in either Sabah or Sarawak.

"Not one leader in Umno or PAS has so far dared to oppose this motion. All right, let's do it for the entire country then, and for all Malaysians to feel the full effects of Islamic criminal law. I am okay with this as long as it applies to everyone.

"What I find objectionable is the attitude of these weak leaders. Why the ridiculous suggestion to move a Private Members Bill to achieve this objective? Why is the law being made applicable only in Kelantan? Why exclude non-Muslims from the application of hudud? If you are genuinely fighting for Islam, go all the way," he said.

"Let the PM/DPM move the Bill and let Anwar support it. Let's go full steam ahead and ensure all Malaysians are subject to the same laws and punishments. Stop pussyfooting around the issue. Why should non-Muslims be excluded?

"It's this exclusion that has made non-Malays, particularly DAP, gung ho and comfortable with PAS. DAP wants PAS to get to power because that will help them gain power as well, and they are comforted by the promise that hudud will not be applicable to them.

"They are no different from the MCA leaders in the BN, whose job is to make sure the laws are not applicable to the Chinese. Who cares about the Malays and the Muslims who do not want hudud?" he added.

Spread of pluralism concept in Malaysia worrying - Islamic scholars

ISLAMIC thinkers today expressed their worry on the spread of religious pluralism in the country which according to them if left unchecked could waver the faith of Muslims, especially among the younger generation.

Therefore, they hoped all Muslims irrespective of their professions and status in the community should play their roles with the Islamic religious authorities in the states to fight the concept so that the position of Islam as the official religion continued to be preserved as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Former Kedah Mufti, Datuk Syeikh Hassbullah Abd Halim, who expressed his concern, said the understanding of religious pluralism concept was that all religions had similar values in the eyes of God.

"This is against the Islamic faith and it could lead to disbelief.

"I see the effort to disseminate religious pluralism among Muslims getting more widespread. As Muslims who love their religion, they should act within their own capacity," he told Bernama.

Syeikh Hassbullah said to fight the concept, Muslims in the country should unite and return to the true Islamic path as prescribed by Prophet Mohamad.

Young Scholars Secretariat (Ilmu) working committee chairman, Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya said pluralism was an understanding which adopted extreme tolerant attitude based on western perspective.

"I am waiting for the National Fatwa Council to issue a clear fatwa (edict) on the understanding for Muslims to refer to," he said.

He said the fatwa need to be implemented with strict religious action and enforcement to eradicate such ills effectively.

National Mosque Imam Azhar Tuarno said the younger generation should be careful with the concept of freedom, especially involving the Islamic faith.

He said this was in view of the development of borderless technology now which enabled communications among people to be easier and more liberal. -Bernama

Is Malaysia a secular or Islamic state? It depends

An Islamic state can be defined as a type of government in which the primary basis for government is the Syariah, or Islamic law. Here, the Islamic law reigns supreme, as it is derived from the Quran, the Muslim holy scripture, and the Hadith, a record of the Prophet's deeds and words. At the centre of the Islamic state concept is the implementation of the hudud.

Salim Othman, The Straits Times (Singapore)

One fundamental question gripping Malaysians today is whether Malaysia is a secular or Islamic state.

The issue came to the fore when de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz remarked in Parliament last month that "Malaysia has never been determined or declared as a secular state", and that the word "secular" was not even present in the Federal Constitution.

The minister stopped short of saying Malaysia is an Islamic state, in his reply to a question by a Member of Parliament from the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP).

His remarks were made in the context of ongoing polemic between the DAP and its rival, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), on the question of hudud - the Islamic penal code - and the goal of the DAP's coalition partner, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), to establish an Islamic state.

This has emerged because the Chinese party is warning voters that a vote for the DAP equals a vote for the PAS, which means a vote for an Islamic state and hudud. This is to scare non-Muslims away from voting for the DAP, because of the implication that the PAS would turn Malaysia into an Islamic state and introduce hudud if the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition - which includes the PAS and the DAP - forms the government after the general election due by April next year.

The MCA is capitalising on the fear of hudud's harsh punishments. It is also reminding voters of the danger that non-Muslims, who form 40 per cent of the population of 28 million, would be relegated to being second-class citizens if Malaysia becomes an Islamic state.

But the reality is quite different. There is only a remote chance that hudud will ever be implemented by the PAS if the PR were to take over the government, as the Islamic penal code and the concept of the Islamic state are not in the agenda of the coalition.

It is also unlikely to happen in a country where only 60 per cent of the population are Muslim. This is because hudud law can take place only if a constitutional amendment is made to provide for the strict Islamic penal code. That would need an endorsement by a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

While this secular-Islamic state debate may be purely a smokescreen in the tussle for votes between the opposition and the ruling party, the issue has rekindled interest in the identity of the country some half a century after its independence.

Did Malaysia's founding fathers envisage the country to be what it is today?

There is no consensus as to what kind of state Malaysia has become since its independence in August 1957 - whether secular or Islamic.

One definition of a secular state is that it upholds the concept of secularism whereby a state or country is neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. It treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and avoids preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over another. More importantly, a secular state does not have a state religion or equivalent.

An Islamic state can be defined as a type of government in which the primary basis for government is the Syariah, or Islamic law. Here, the Islamic law reigns supreme, as it is derived from the Quran, the Muslim holy scripture, and the Hadith, a record of the Prophet's deeds and words. At the centre of the Islamic state concept is the implementation of the hudud.

Both Malaysia's first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and third prime minister Tun Hussein Onn had said Malaysia is a secular state, contradicting Datuk Seri Nazri's remarks in Parliament that the country had no secularist roots.

Tunku Abdul Rahman had referred to Malaysia as a secular state, and not an Islamic one, on a number of occasions, including one when he told the Parliament on May 1, 1958: "I would like to make it clear that this country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood; we merely provided that Islam shall be the official religion of the State."

But after 55 years of independence, Malaysia does not quite fit the standard definition of a secular state because Islam is declared the religion of the federation.

At the same time, the Constitution guarantees non-Muslims the freedom to practise the religions of their choice - but they cannot preach these to Muslims.

The state is therefore not neutral to religion as it gives preference to Islam. Malaysia's secular Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, allows certain aspects of Islamic laws to be implemented in the country, hence blurring its status as a secular state.

Is Malaysia then an Islamic state as declared by the country's fourth prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in September 2001?

Dr Mahathir, who had previously described Malaysia as an Islamic country, declared Malaysia to be an Islamic state to ward off attacks from the PAS, which had accused Umno (which has a Muslim membership base) of not fulfilling its religious obligation to set up an Islamic state.

Dr Mahathir argued that Malaysia could be an Islamic state even without the implementation of Islamic law. But this goes against most theories of the Islamic state which hold that the Syariah, in which the hudud is a significant component, lies at its heart.

But the former prime minister, who was against hudud as propounded by the PAS, maintained that Malaysia was an Islamic state as shown by its acceptance as a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The grouping includes countries which do not implement the hudud.

Dr Mahathir's concept of an Islamic Malaysia is the result of his Islamisation programme during his two decades of premiership. The expansion of religious bureaucracy is abundantly evident; so are the controls exerted on citizens' rights in the name of Islam, such as a prohibition against the use of the word "Allah" for God by Christians, a restriction on Malay bibles and a ban on proselytisation of Muslims.

Indeed, Malaysia has become so Islamic that even civil courts have ceded their jurisdiction to the Syariah courts in disputes involving Muslims under the country's dual legal system.

The secular-or-Islamic debate will emerge from time to time as the issue will be raised by the ruling party or opposition to score political points with voters.

And this is not a matter only between the Malay parties Umno and PAS. Increasingly, non-Malay parties are also caught up with the issue as their constituents remain wary of the Islamic-state concept and the implications of the country becoming more Islamic.

Pakatan divided on secular state issue

While DAP insists Malaysia is a secular state, PKR says it is a non-issue while PAS says the matter is best debated when the political climate is more 'free'.

KUALA LUMPUR: Pakatan Rakyat MPs are divided on the issue of whether Malaysia is a secular state or otherwise.

While DAP insists that Malaysia is a secular state, PKR and PAS MPs were non-committal, saying what matters most is to rejuvenate Malaysia democratic space.

Yesterday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz told the Dewan Rakyat that Malaysia is not a secular state as the Federal Constitution is “silent” about it.

But the Padang Rengas MP did not state if Malaysia was an Islamic state either.

However, he added that the country had been using secular laws which had been brought over from before Independence, through Article 162 of the Federal Constitution.

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua was not impressed with Nazri’s answers and accused the minister of being in denial syndrome, to serve the political interest of Barisan Nasional.

“It’s like saying you’re neither a man nor woman,” said Pua.

The DAP publicity chief also said that Nazri’s refusal to recognise Malaysia’s secular constitution was a clear attempt to influence the Malay voters.

“There is nothing wrong with a secular state having Islam as the official religion. It just means that everyone is free to practise their own religion,” said Pua.

Respecting the constitution

Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar said that BN had always used the secular state and Islamic state argument to confuse the masses for its own political advantage.

“I think it’s a bait. As far as we are concerned, we will continue to uphold and respect all that is enshrined in the constitution,” said Nurul.

Whether Malaysia was a secular state or otherwise, Nurul said it was a non-issue.

“The point is that our constitution has helped navigate Malaysia as a moderate Muslim state. The most important thing now is to improve our democratic state to realise our potential to be a beacon of democracy,” said the PKR vice-president.

Meanwhile, PAS’ Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad said that it was best for everyone to leave the debate at an academic level as some quarters may politicise the matter for their own agenda.

“I also think that it’s best for us to debate the matter when the environment is more free. Currently, the situation is too politicised.

“So, it’s more important to get a good government to power that will make the enviroment more conducive for discussions and debates,” said Khalid.

When pointed out that two former prime ministers and a former chief justice had declared Malaysia as a secular state, the PAS MP said that the statements were made based on the situation back then.

“Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn interpreted the constitution in the way consistent with whatever they were doing then.

“As for former chief justice Salleh Abas, you must remember that when he was a Terengganu exco, he agreed to the tabling of Syariah enactments by then PAS state government,” said Khalid.

Malaysia a secular state contrary to Nazri’s remarks, say law experts

The Malaysian Insider
by Debra Chong and Ida Lim

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 23 — Malaysia is and has always been a secular state even though not expressly stated in the Federal Constitution because the country’s supreme law and founding document is secular, several law experts say as debate continues to storm over the mainly Muslim nation’s status.

The legal pundits refuted minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s remarks in Parliament yesterday that Malaysia is not a secular state because it had never been declared or endorsed as such and is wholly absent in the Constitution though he stopped short of labelling the country an Islamic state.

“It’s absolutely untrue,” said Tommy Thomas, regarded as one of the country’s foremost authorities on constitutional law.

“To me, to say that Malaysia is not a secular state because the Federal Constitution does not say so is a real, oversimplistic argument. Just like the Federal Constitution does not say Malaysia is an Islamic state,” he told The Malaysian Insider last night. 

The veteran lawyer, who had studied the subject and presented an essay debunking Malaysia as an Islamic state at the Malaysian Law Conference seven years ago, said his research had shown that the country’s forefathers and the legal experts who helped draft the Constitution had intended the country remain secular even as it acknowledged the individual Malay state Rulers’ rights and power over religious matters which, he pointed out, was for the most part ceremonial.

Thomas pointed to a Pakistani Federal Court judge, Abdul Hamid, who was part of the five-man Reid Commission formed in 1956 to help draw up Malaysia’s Constitution and held the minority dissent on religion, did not go so far as to say Malaysia must have an Islamic state in its Constitution. 

He said Abdul Hamid’s remarks from then was the clearest indicator that the country should remain secular.

Abdul Hamid was the main proponent for including a provision that read: “Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya, but nothing in this Article shall prevent any citizen professing any religion other than Islam to profess, practice and propagate that religion, nor shall any citizen be under any disability by reason of his being not a Muslim.”

Thomas said Abdul Hamid, who was from Pakistan, which had gained its independence from Britain in 1947 — a good 10 years before Malaya — and had an Islamic Constitution that put it squarely as an Islamic state, had noted that such a proviso was “innocuous” and would not cause any “hardship” to anyone, but that the judge’s suggestion was rejected by the Conference of Rulers which was against the idea.

The lawyer of more than 30 years’ experience told The Malaysian Insider he still stands by his 2005 essay titled “Is Malaysia an Islamic State?” which concluded that the country was and remains secular, and that no one has disputed his argument to date.

“No one has ever written in to say it’s nonsense,” Thomas said, who blamed Malaysia’s fourth and longest-serving prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, for sparking the present confusion over Malaysia’s Islamic or secular state status.

The former Bar Council secretary-general noted in his 2005 essay that it was Dr Mahathir who unilaterally declared Malaysia to be an Islamic country in a political speech at the Gerakan party’s national delegates conference on September 29, 2001.

Dr Mahathir had single-handedly negated the secular pronouncements made by his predecessors including first prime minister and the country’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj and third PM, Tun Hussein Onn, by saying: “Umno wishes to state loudly that Malaysia is an Islamic country. This is based on the opinion of ulamaks who had clarified what constituted as Islamic country. If Malaysia is not an Islamic country because it does not implement the hudud, then there are no Islamic countries in the world.”

Thomas’ views on Malaysia’s secularism found strong support with three other legal experts.

Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, who is among the most vocal opponents to the introduction of hudud law, the strict Islamic penal code, took to Twitter yesterday in an immediate response to Nazri’s remark.

“Constitution don’t define lots of things. It doesn’t define democracy, so does it mean we are not democratic?” the former lawyer who started Malaysia’s biggest private practice posed on his microblogging account @zaidibrahim.

“If Malaysia is neither secular or theocratic, then its whatever BN says it is,” said Zaid, referring to the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

Civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan echoed the two law veterans.

“Just because the Federal Constitution does not have the word ‘secular’ does not mean that Malaysia is not a secular state. 

“Just like how the word ‘democracy’ does not appear in our Constitution, yet we are a country that practises parliamentary democracy,” he said in weighing in on the debate that raged in Parliament yesterday following Nazri’s remark.

Syahredzan stressed that Malaysia is secular because the Constitution is secular.

“An Islamic state would place the Quran as the highest authority, but our Constitution provides in Article 4 that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. 

“The validity of laws therefore must be measure upon the yardstick of the Constitution, and not Islamic principles, thus making the Constitution a secular one,” he said in an emailed response to The Malaysian Insider.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court had set a precedent in 1988 when it rejected an argument in the landmark case of Che Omar Che Soh, a Muslim drug trafficker facing the mandatory death sentence, that because Islam is the religion of the Federation, laws passed by Parliament must be imbued with Islamic principles and that the death penalty was void because it was not according to hudud, or Islamic law.

Tun Salleh Abas, who was then Lord President and head of the judiciary, had said in the landmark ruling that “however, we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of the law.”

Universiti Malaya law lecturer Azmi Sharom also agreed with Syahredzan’s view and went a step further to explain the confusing dual-track judicial system that allows for an Islamic or syariah court to be practised alongside the civil courts.

“Malaysia is a secular state in my point of view because ALL laws must be in line with the constitution and the Constitution is a secular document.

“We have a syariah system because a secular constitution allows it. We have Islamic government agencies but their behaviour is governed by the principles of a secular constitution,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

Azmi seemed confident that Malaysia’s secular status will remain unchallenged despite Nazri’s remark yesterday and Dr Mahathir’s 2001 declaration.

“The only way that Malaysia can lose its secular status is through a serious amendment of the Constitution and that will require two-thirds majority agreement in both Houses of Parliament and the agreement of the Conference of Rulers and the states of Sabah and Sarawak,” he said, and added: “Unlikely.”

But Syahrezan was less sure, noting that while legal eagles were splitting hairs over Malaysia’s Islamic versus secular state, a more worrisome trend had emerged in the courts whereby the civil courts appeared to be ceding their authority to the Islamic courts in disputes involving Muslims.

“We are seeing a trend lately to place what the authorities deem as ‘Islam’ on a higher pedestal, even higher than the Constitution itself.

“If the nation is as how the minister described it, ‘founded on the basis of an Islamic government’, then it makes it easier to justify unconstitutional laws and acts because they are ‘Islamic’,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

The up-and-coming lawyer said that the whole debate over the country’s secular or non-secular status was linked to hudud, which is being hotly debated in public in the run-up to the 13th general election that must be called by next April.

“Unfortunately, we seem to be dancing to the tune of those with political motives, who for whatever reasons want Malaysia to be transformed into a theocratic state, or at the very least be seen to champion such a cause.

“The fear is that these will be justified by ascribing extra-constitutional meanings to the words in Article 3, ‘religion of the Federation’, so much so that laws and acts that are unconstitutional would become permissible merely by attaching an Islamic label on them. 

“We may see more and more encroachments into the realm of fundamental liberties, and actions taken by authorities inconsistent with the Constitution or ultra vires their powers all in the name of religion,” said Syahredzan.

Nazri: M’sia not a secular state

At the same time, the minister does not say if Malaysia is an Islamic state.
FULL REPORT

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia, according to the federal government, has never been defined as a secular state.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said this in the Dewan Rakyat today, adding that the word “secular” was not even present in the Federal Constitution.

“…the allocation of the law shows that it is clear that Malaysia has never been determined or declared as a secular state,” he added.

He was responding to a question by DAP-Seremban MP John Fernandez, who asked Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak about the decisions made by the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas in the case of Che Omar Che Soh vs the Public Prosecutor (1988), where secular law came into question.

At the same time, Nazri did not state if Malaysia was an Islamic country.

However, he added that the country had been using secular law which had been brought over from before Independence, through Article 162 of the Federal Constitution.

The article states that laws existing before Merdeka Day 1957 would continue to be enforced.

In his speech, Nazri said that countries such as India, Turkey and the United States were clear examples of secular countries as their respective constitutions defined them as thus.

He said that secular countries did not specify official religions and that their citizens were free to choose whatever religion they liked.

Malaysia, he hinted, was different. He cited the former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz, adding that Islam was not just a set of dogmas and rituals, but a way of life.

He also cited the Federal Constitution with Islam’s position being the religion of Federation of Malaysia.

Kit Siang: It is secular state

Later, DAP-Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang said that though the word “secular” did not arise in the constitution, it did not mean that Malaysia was not a secular country.

Speaking to reporters in Parliament lobby, he said that several documents had reinforced the country’s status as a secular state.

He cited two 1983 The Star reports, and said that former prime ministers Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn had referred to Malaysia as secular states.

Lim also cited the 1957 Reid Constitution and the 1962 Cobbold commission report as evidence that the country was meant to be governed as such.

“…the Tunku said, ‘Don’t turn Malaysia into an Islamic state, because it is a secular state…Islam is the official religion’, and that was supported by Tun Hussein Onn!” he said.

He added that the term “secular” had appeared in pre-constitution reports, and that Malaysia was in a unique position with its focus on Islam.

Malaysia’s position as an Islamic state had been in confusion ever since former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had in 2001, declared that the country was already one.

At the time, it was believed that he had done so to counter PAS’s influence.