By Farish A. Noor
The repercussions of the somewhat clumsy attempt by some sections of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS to call for the investigation, and possibly banning, of the Muslim women’s rights group Sisters in Islam are still being felt today. Many questions have arisen in the wake of the proposal that was passed without debate at the recent General Assembly of PAS: How and why was the proposal passed as one of the ‘non-debated proposals’ in the first place? Why was it not vetted properly and why was it tabled at all? What does this say about the internal cohesion of PAS and its internal discipline? Does this proposal reflect just a faction of opinion among PAS members, or is it actually representative of the party as a whole? And what does this mean with regards to PAS’s avowed claims to be a modern party that supports the democratisation process and dialogue with others?
It is hard, to say the least, to believe that a party can be supportive of democracy if it starts by calling for the banning of NGOs even before it comes to power…
For now however we are left to watch the internal and external drama of PAS unfold as the party seeks to re-consolidate itself after what was clearly a hectic assembly for all. The lingering question of where PAS really stands, and where it goes from here though will have to be addressed sooner than later.
To help answer this question, we would like to propose a quick re-visit to the history of PAS from the 1980s to the present to illustrate a simple yet important point: Namely, that the Malaysian public has never had much appetite for violent, extreme and exclusive political discourse and behaviour, be it from PAS or UMNO.
In the 1980s, some of us will remember that PAS was heavily engaged in a fiery war of words with its nemesis UMNO. The leaders of PAS then – notably Yusof Rawa, Hadi Awang and Mat Sabu – were at the forefront of attacking and condemning the leaders of UMNO – notably (now Tun) Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim. It was during this period that UMNO and PAS both jointly raised the political temperature in the country, leading to the controversial kafir-mengafir episode where both sides were accusing the other side of being hypocrites (munafik) , secular and un-Islamic. This culminated in a number of bitter incidents such as the killing of Ustaz Ibrahim ‘Libya’ Mahmood at the village of Memali in 1985 and the controversy around the book ‘Hadis’ by Kassim Ahmad some years later.
PAS had then gone onto overdrive with its fiery polemics against UMNO, and the infamous proclamation of Hadi Awang that accused PAS’s opponents of being the enemies of Islam had done wonders to transform the image of PAS into that of a violent and extremist party. At the elections of 1986, the result of this overheated rhetoric were obvious: PAS’s share of the vote dropped to 15.3 per cent and Parliamentary seats to 0.6 per cent, winning only one seat.
Then, as now, PAS was trying to court the support of the non-Muslims in Malaysia through the Chinese Consultative Councils (CCCs) of PAS, but to no avail. The Malaysian public demonstrated that they were not able and willing to tolerate the violent oppositional dialectics of UMNO and PAS, but were more worried about PAS’s language of jihad and kafirs.
Fast-forward to 2002 and we see a similar scenario in the off-ing. In the wake of PAS’s victory at the elections of 1999, an over-confident PAS took it upon itself to once again play the role of the ‘defenders of Islam’. In 2002 Muslim writers, academics and NGOs (including Sisters in Islam) were once again attacked and accused of all manner of things. In the same year, PAS declared its support for the Taliban in the most blatant manner when PAS members demonstrated in front of the US embassy with posters and banners that read “Taliban are our brothers”.
The rest of the Malaysian electorate, however, was not inclined to think of the Taliban as their brothers, and once again PAS was badly damaged at the elections of 2004…
These incidents demonstrate a simple fact: That the Malaysian public may vote for PAS as a reaction against UMNO, but this does not mean that the vote is a vote in support of an Islamic state, liberal-bashing or Taliban-supporting. Consistently the Malaysian public has shown that whenever PAS (or UMNO) resorts to extreme communitarian politics and discourse, its votes will swing in the other direction.
PAS, like all political parties, has to learn the simple lesson of representative politics, and realise that the vote given to PAS in 2008 was given by the Malaysian public to the Pakatan Rakyat and what the Pakatan stands for; which is a new, freer, more democratic and plural Malaysia where diversity is respected and enhanced. The call for the investigation and possible banning of a Muslim women’s NGO like SIS on the spurious basis that it is ‘un-Islamic’ beggars belief, and makes a mockery of the Pakatan’s efforts thus far. But the ones who have the most to lose are the members of PAS themselves, who should always study their own history to learn from the past in order not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
PAS has indeed come a long way, and no doubt will remain on the scene for a long time to come. We hope and pray that as it develops and evolves, PAS will evolve in tandem with the new spirit of the new Malaysia that we are trying to build, and not against it. Having learned from its history, PAS should not condemn itself to becoming a historical relic instead.
PAS is not ready for the modern world……could be a liability for PR’s struggle for change, justice and equality.
Many of their members know little apart from feeling threaten by change and globalisation.
I had never trusted PAS and never will. DAP got it right from the beginning. Too many Taliban wannabes in the party. There may be some moderates in PAS but unfortunately too few to make a difference. When they wanted our votes, they said nice things and appeared to be softening in their extremism but it’s all pretense. PKR and DAP should think carefully. I get the feeling that after the next GE, they would abandon the coalition and form the next government with Umno. No doubt not all will be happy in PAS but the endgame is PAS will be able form the government on their terms, including the PM position whereas they might not get their way if they remain in PR. Certainly no PM post for them. Think about it. It’s not impossible. If fact, it’s going to be the most likely scenario. So my advise to all is to cast your votes very carefully or you’re going to be in for a nasty surprise.
For the protection of Federation Constitution stated Malaysia is secular states, we must NOT trust the PAS and vote them, they don’t respect the Federation Constitution, they only interest their benefits and advantage.
You vote PAS and UMNO, Malaysia are racist and corrupted states.
Their core reading, it is no sin to be a liars telling lies for their benefits.
They do not respect truth, justice and democracy.
More and more Malaysians are becoming aware that religious and racial extremisms are the country’s biggest threats. It seems that both the biggest religious and racial parties have to use religion and race to further enhance and salvage their political fortunes respectively. No doubt our country is Muslim majority, but the important thing is, never allow the extremist faction to triumph over the moderate Muslim faction, or there will be no hope for us. This applies to the biggest racial party, too.
If the West can ensure Iran behave and not acquire nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and Europe, then there is a strong likelihood that religious extremism will have its limit. The rise of PAS has more or less to do ith the developments in the Middle East. The Iranian revolution in 1979 sa the overthro of the pro-est hah of Iran and the triumphant return of Ayatollah Khomeini from eile to Iran. Luckily for the moderate countries in the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq ar lated from 1982 to 1987 put a stop to the rapid rise of extremism Ilam.
The TDM era also helped to stamp out Islamic extremism in the country but unfortunately there has been an apparent increase in racial extremism. It is not so frightening if it is a see-saw situation – when see more racial extremism, we see less religiou extremism taking place, and vice vera.
We just pray that both racial and religious extremisms will not reach their heights of glory, and thus putting a stop to all social and economic developments in the country.
///It is hard, to say the least, to believe that a party can be supportive of democracy if it starts by calling for the banning of NGOs even before it comes to power…///- Dr Farish Noor.
Since the word “democracy” started 2000 years ago in Greece, it has since meant different things to different people. Even Hitler claimed his Nazi party democratic : do did communist parties whether in China, Vietnam or Cuba.
PAS’s version of ‘democracy’ is from Islamic perspectives – and not the same as Farish’s. Farish’s version of it – tolerating NGO’s like Sisters-in-Islam, freedom of expression or to dissent, diversity etc – is associated with Western liberal values, such as free markets, individual rights and secularism.
Whilst it is not surprising at all that PAS will not accept SIS, what is surprising is that PAS shows its hand so early in the game before it arrives at the gate of its objective via PR.
The fault of Hadi’s faction – is that it is not sabar (patient).
From examples elsewhere (Algeria, Iran etc) it is not uncommon for fundamental Islamic groups to work with secular parties and liberal democratic parties in opposition front and alliances to win via ballot boxes or fight in the streets to oust corrupt, dictatorial/military regimes. After ousting the common enemy from power, these groups then grabbed power to establish their version of Islamic State.
So why show your hand so early in the game (even before the next GE) and frighten your non suspecting liberal and secular allies in PR coalition and their supporters? Problem is they don’t see film “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”.
Taqiyya derived from Sharia allows pragmatism/dissimulation in exceptional circumstances of self preservation to make alliances with non believers, to even pretend to subscribe for something one does not agree just so to attain one’s long term objectives.
This is not unique to Islamic jurisprudence – western common law jurisprudence shares this based on concept of “Necessity”.
We recall Justice NH Chan discoursing on this Doctrine of Necessity when he mentioned the case of Dudley and Stephens under thread subject “Even when you do the right thing, it is still wrong” in earlier part of this blog.
In that case 3 men in English yacht, Mignoneue castaway in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope had no food, water and could not have survived if they had not killed the weakest – cabin boy – and fed on his body and blood.
Rescued later they were charged for homicide and were later given reprieve from gallows based on Doctrine of Necessity as defence – “Homicide is also justifiable from the great universal principle of self-preservation, which prompts every man to save his own life preferably to that of another, where one of them must inevitably perish.” In words of Mr Justice Stephen (on the Laws of England (1st edn, 1841).
So too Taqiyya (for self preservation extended from a person to the ideal of Islamic state) – the Islamic equivalent of Necessity in Western jurisprudence.
PAS has taken DAP for a ride. thanks to PAS, UMNO looks set for a new lease of life.
Don’t be so happy TomThumb for your Umno.It’s PR’s strategy to penetrate and weaken your Umno.Let’s watch who’s laughts the loudest at the end of the day.
Taqqiya is a 15th century concept, so don’t spread your alarmist teachings here. You may be a QC Wannabe, but you are definitely not an Islamic scholar.
You’re just a modern day anti-Islamist.
Those who spread the dangers of Taqqiya are true anti-Islamic extremists.
Godfather, ‘Taqiyya is a 15th century concept…’
Many practices and beliefs widely held today involve concepts originated in the past.
‘Probability’, as it is understood today, is a 17th-century concept.
Many Christian doctrines and practices associated with them were formulated in the Council of Nicea in the fourth century. Does it mean that they are no longer believed or practised by Christians today?
It is nice Godfather can understand Jefferey’s usually long philosophical messages…responding with a reply..to expose a braggart too.
Lee Wang Yen…All religions have many sects and are practicing what they think fishes can be caught and controlled.
Never forget..Christianity derived from Judaism and Islam is so close to Christianity in many ways.
Lets not go into an argument on religion…when bottom line…all are teaching good for the souls.
It is what suited to modernize Malaysia..that matters most.
Sorry, off-topic, From chedet.co.cc
///1. Why is it that when I defend UMNO or the Malays I am labelled a racist but not when others speak up for Chin Peng?///– TDM
Assuming that TDM looked for an answer to the above question rather than making an argument, I will try to explain.
When people speak up for Chin Peng, say regarding his request to return to Malaysia, what has been the basis for their support? If the Chinese support Chin Peng for no other reasons than the fact that Chin Peng is Chinese, then they should be called racist. But if the reasons for their support are not based on the fact that Chin Peng is Chinese, and hence support was not on race, then they cannot be called racist. One the other hand when a person thinks that Chinese can only support the return of Chin Peng because of race, then that person has a racist tendency, if not a racist per se.
When a person defends Malays for no other reason other than race, then he is certainly a racist. That is because the basis for defence could not be based on right or wrong. When a person defends UMNO, the reasons for such defence should also be known. If he defends UMNO for actions which they could be criteria for determining right from wrong, then he should not be classified as racist. However if he defends UMNO because it is an organization for Malays, and he defends it on the account of race and membership, then he is racists.
UMNO is known to champion racist policies, so one is seldom wrong to call a person who defends UMNO as racists.
If the government policy states that people who belong to low income category should collective own 30% of the corporate sector equity, with the criteria properly established based on means, it is not a racist policy. But UMNO policy states that Malays should own 30% of corporate equity; that is racist.
When government choose to reserve certain percentage of place in educational institution based on race that could be benevolent racist if that percentage is low, so that people of the endangered races could participate. When the government decides to reserve 90% of the places in matriculation and Mara institution of higher learning to Malays, the government is discriminatory racists.
When the government makes handouts to the poor without consideration on the ethnic background of recipients, it is commiseration. When the handouts are given only to one race, it is racism.
Government regulations specifying that a certain percentage discount should be given to Malay purchasers of houses are racist and discriminatory. Those regulations started during TDM reign.
TDM cannot be that unintelligent as being unable to recognise what racism is. It might be because racism has been his reflect action. It is just like a person sitting in the toilet got used to the foul smell.
As I said to him at his blog, when I was able to comment in the past, he could have scaled greater height had he not been bogged down by his Mamak origin if he just accepted it without pretending to be Malay. The country too could have advanced. But he had made his choice, and now, nearing the end, he still prefers to be known as racist.
Lee Wang Yen:
Do you still cover your modesty with a leaf ?
Why don’t you post the wikipaedia definition of Taqqiya so that modern day thinkers can think whether this is still a practice or not amongst Muslims?
I don’t understand why those who spread the dangers or Taqiyya are true anti-Islamic extremists. How could someone who spreads the dangers of a certain practice in Islam be anti-Islamic extremist?
I guess what you mean is that those who spread the idea or belief or notion that Taqiyya is dangerous are true anti-Islamic extremists. While this makes sense (compared with the above), Godfather owes us an explanation.
(Notice the key difference between spreading the danger of Taqiyya and spreading the idea/notion/belief that Taqiyya is danger: To do the former, you need to practise Taqiyya in a way that leads to some bad consequences. To do the latter, you need to tell people that Taqiyya poses a threat the the well-being of a community. )
If most reasonable people think that Taqiyya (deceit) is really dangerous, why is Jeffrey an anti-Islamic extremist if he spreads the idea that Taqiyya is dangerous?
If most reasonable people think that corruption is dangerous for the wellbeing of a community, can we say that those who spread the idea that corruption is dangerous are anti-xxx extremists?
I do not deny that PAS, like all political parties, has its extremists, and that these extremists should be rejected. On our part, if we were to propagate our fears of Islam based on outdated theories and outdated practises not seen in the modern era, then we are no better than those extremists in the first place.
Malaysia has no place for bigots, whether they are from PAS or whether they are from the obvious anti-Islamist sects.
Jeffrey warns us about PAS’ possible use of Taqiyya.
But has he said or implied that ‘since Taqiyya is bad/dangerous, Islam per se is bad/dangerous’?
Even if Jeffrey has propagated fears of Taqiyya, please do not twist it and say that one who propagates fears of Taqiyya is the one who propagates fears of Islam.
You’re only justified to say this when you have evidence which shows that the one who propagates fears of Taqiyya also believes that Taqiyya is practised by most Muslims or that Taqiyya is essential to Islamic doctrines and practices.
For all you know, the one who propagates fears of Taqiyya may think that Taqiyya is practised by certain type of Muslims, to which many PAS leaders and members can be identified.
Godfather says that he does not deny that there are some extremists in PAS but pleads that we should not reject PAS out of hand simply because there are some bad apples.
This is in principle a fair point.
Well, some BN/police supporters will tell you that they do not deny that there are some corrupt and extreme guys in BN/police but plead that we should not reject BN/police simply because there are bad apples.
Godfather may retort that the difference lies in the ‘fact’ that most BN leaders are corrupt and/or extreme, but only a tiny fraction of PAS leaders are extremists.
Well, this is something we need to substantiate. I do not claim to know the answer. But we certainly need something more than mere allegations.
Do we seriously think that only a tiny fraction of PAS leaders hold extremist views?
Many admirers of Nik Aziz will be taken aback (and probably take back their admiration) if they know his views about women.
oops…’…WITH (strike out ‘to’ from ‘to which’) which many PAS leaders and members can be identified’
MR. PATHETIC TOMTHUMB AKA ONE OF 3 STOOGES,
“# TomThumb Says:
Today at 10: 02.09 (4 hours ago)
PAS has taken DAP for a ride. thanks to PAS, UMNO looks set for a new lease of life.” – THONG THONG IN A DUMB MIND, THAT’S WHAT YOU ARE. YOUR MIND HAS NOTHING OTHER THAN CRITICIZING DAP. OUT OF YOUR MOUTH ONLY DAP DAP. THANKS FOR THE CHANTING SLOGAN.
MR. MONSTERBALL, IN FACT, WE HAVE TO THANK THIS THONG THONG DUMBBELL FOR DAP CHANTING! HA HA
PAS has taken DAP for a ride. thanks to PAS, UMNO looks set for a new lease of life. dumbo
Look, dumbo, we only criticise the parties we care and love. We don’t care about UMNO.
All I said was that “Taqiyya derived from Sharia allows pragmatism/dissimulation in exceptional circumstances of self preservation (comparing it with even western concept of “Necessity”) to make alliances with non believers, to even pretend to subscribe for something one does not agree just so to attain one’s long term objectives. It is a necessary notion to reconcile/justify (from Islamic morality perspectives) the otherwise undesirable act of a party dedicated to the establishment of an Theorcatic Islamic State to act in cooperation with political parties of non believers upholding opposite secular values and opposing establishment of Theocratic State. It is like an internal “defence mechanism” sanctioned by Sharia to resolve conflicts of values amongst believers working with non believers.
Where did I say anywhere “Taqiyya” is per se dangerous and bad to be branded “anti-Islamist” as Godfather would twist it for others to believe???
Secondly, what has ‘Taqiyya being a 15th century concept…’ got to do with anything when I just said in another blog thread that the concept of Sedition Act practised today is derived from Elizabethen Era????
The basic strategy to give concessions to temporary inconsistencies for the attainment of larger ultimate agenda is not 15th century and even peculiarly Sharia- it is practised and embraced as a political strategy by political groups determined to effect change and come to power at all costs, such political groups being not confined to preserve of Islamic fundamentalist groups but all otehr groups whether communists, secular or revolutionary……
Thirdly, to warn against ideology of PAS’ theocratic agenda is to warn against a particular sect called Fundamentalist Political Islam influenced by the Wahhibi sect of 19th century of which the Iranian Revolution led by cleric Khomeini started in Iran, influencing some places within Middle East including Afghanistan talibans. It is different brand of Islam from that which is practised elsewhere (say) in mainstream Indonesia and Malaysia.
So how could a warning against a political ideology based on Islamic Theocracy as that espoused by PAS (practised say by the Afghanistan’s Talibans, Iranians or Saudis) and not necessarily practised in other countries of Islamic majorities (Indonesia & Turkey) be twisted to be Islam or Islamic faith in general?
From these, it will be clear that Godpapa is neither a thinking/ logical person nor a person inclined to a reasoned discourse – but a mere rabble rouser of hate speech, trying to discredit postings of certain posters that he is determined to discredit for the sake of discrediting by whatever intellectually dishonest and twisting means (eg brandinmg a person “anti-Islamist) that may persuade those who don’t examine his postings critically.
Let’s examine what I said. All I said was that “Taqiyya derived from Sharia allows pragmatism/dissimulation in exceptional circumstances of self preservation (comparing it with even western concept of “Necessity”) to make alliances with non believers, to even pretend to subscribe for something one does not agree just so to attain one’s long term objectives. It is a necessary notion to reconcile/justify (from Islamic morality perspectives) the otherwise undesirable act of a party dedicated to the establishment of an Theorcatic Islamic State to act in cooperation with political parties of non believers upholding opposite secular values and opposing establishment of Theocratic State. It is like an internal “defence mechanism” sanctioned by Sharia to resolve conflicts of values amongst believers working with non believers.
Where did I say anywhere “Taqiyya” is per se dangerous and bad to be branded “anti-Islamist” as Godfather would twist it for others to believe???
On the other question of, what has ‘Taqiyya being a 15th century concept…’ got to do with anything – how does that advance an argument when I just said in another blog thread that the concept of Sedition Act practised today is derived from Elizabethen Era????
Even the western democratic traditions we know today of separation of power etc started in 17th and 18th centuries philosophers like baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill (on Freedom of Speech) etc Are they irrelevant today? Stupid argument, that put forth by Godpapa.
The basic strategy to give concessions to temporary inconsistencies for the attainment of larger ultimate agenda is not 15th century and even peculiarly Sharia- it is practised and embraced as a political strategy by political groups determined to effect change and come to power at all costs, such political groups being not confined to preserve of Islamic fundamentalist groups but all other contemporary groups whether communists, secular or revolutionary……
Thirdly, to warn against ideology of PAS’ theocratic agenda is to warn against a particular sect called Fundamentalist Political Islam influenced by the Wahhibi sect of 19th century of which the Iranian Revolution led by cleric Khomeini started in Iran, influencing some places within Middle East including Afghanistan talibans. It is different brand of Islam from that which is practised elsewhere (say) in mainstream Indonesia and Malaysia.
So how could a warning against a political ideology based on Islamic Theocracy as that espoused by PAS (practised say by the Afghanistan’s Talibans, Iranians or Saudis) and not necessarily practised in other countries of Islamic majorities (Indonesia & Turkey) be twisted to be Islam or Islamic faith in general?
In the premises of the above explanations, it is then clear that Godpapa is neither a thinking/ logical person nor a person inclined to a reasoned discourse – but a mere rabble rouser of hate speech, trying to discredit postings of certain posters that he is determined to discredit for the sake of discrediting by whatever intellectually dishonest and twisting means (eg branding a person “anti-Islamist) that may persuade those who don’t examine his postings critically.
I am only addressing ideology of PAS’ theocratic agenda based on a particular sect called Fundamentalist Political Islam influenced by the Wahhibi sect of 19th century of which the Iranian Revolution led by cleric Khomeini started in Iran, influencing some places within Middle East including Afghanistan talibans. It is different brand of Islam from that which is practised elsewhere (say) in mainstream Indonesia and Malaysia. Why should a warning against a political ideology based on Islamic Theocracy as that espoused by PAS (practiced by the Iranians, Saudis and, say, Afghanistan’s Talibans destroying by dynamite the largest and tallest Buddha statues) – and not necessarily practised in other countries of Islamic majorities (Indonesia & Turkey) – be twisted by Godpapa to be warning against Islam or Islamic faith in general?
In the premises of the above explanations, it is then clear that Godpapa is neither a thinking/ logical person nor a person inclined to a reasoned discourse – but a mere rabble rouser of hate speech, trying to discredit postings of certain posters that he is determined to discredit for the sake of discrediting by whatever intellectually dishonest and twisting means (eg branding a person “anti-Islamist) that may persuade those who don’t examine his postings critically.
While that ‘strategy’ is practised in many secular settings, I’m not sure whether other major theistic religions sanction it. At least Christianity does not.
Notice the key difference between spreading the danger of Taqiyya (in terms of advancing a certain agenda not agreed to by other coalition partners) and spreading the idea/notion/belief that Taqiyya is danger (per se) – Lee Wan Yen.
How could a person like Godfather, whose foot is always in his mouth -a mental impediment that he blames on language not being a first language to articulate his thoughts- understand such subtle difference, when clearer and more obvious ones he also sometimes cannot grasp, in his hurry to discredit whats being said for sake of discrediting??? :)
I’m not sure whether DAP leaders think that in politics it is morally acceptable to pretend that one accepts something which one does not really accept (for example, pushing for 1Malaysia when UMNO has not really given up the notion of Malay supremacy), so as to survive.
By the way, being aware of the possible use of Taqiyya on the part of PAS does not mean that DAP and PKR cannot work with PAS to oust UMNO-BN. Unless PAS has jumped ship, PR remains the only realistic option to topple BN in the near future (4 years or so). It is pragmatically ok (whether it is morally ok is another issue) to work with an insincere partner to beat a common enemy if that is the only realistic chance to do so (as long as the partner continues to think that the common enemy is really their enemy) insofar as we are aware of the possible insincerity or ‘strategy’ of our partner and do something to protect ourselves from being trapped.
///On our part, if we were to propagate our fears of Islam based on outdated theories and outdated practises not seen in the modern era, then we are no better than those extremists in the first place/// – Godpapa at 13: 59.11 (1 hour ago)
The wrong thinking here is that what are outdated theories and outdated practices will remain outdated all times.
Can they not be revived? Only the ignorant think not.
For example:
Wahhabism is a conservative/funadamentalist sect attributed to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia. He advocated a return to the practices of the first three generations of Islamic history. It was initiated to purge Islam of innovations and practices considered to be shirk in Islam. Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab died in 1792
For a time it was outdated.
When price of oil in the mid-1970s tripled Saudi Arabia, having the world’s largest reserves of oil began to spend tens of billions of dollars throughout the Islamic world reviving and promoting Wahhabism.
The real revival was 1979 revolution in Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini. Osama bin Laden after that. A lot of precepts of Wahhabism are central to the rhetoric of Khomeini/Osama bin Laden.
What started in 1792, remained dormant until revival in the 1970s. It has been increasing in influence ever since.
If we have no choice but to work with an insincere partner who harbours some hidden agenda, it is good to be aware of it rather than deceiving ourselves into believing that our partner is really sincere and has given up her unacceptable agenda (e.g. setting up an Islamic theocracy in Malaysia), when we have good reason to think that she has not.
By alerting us to the possible use of Taqiyya on the part of PAS, Jeffrey is doing a great service to PR supporters who reject Islamic theocracy in Malaysia.
PAS is one politic organization same like DAP, MIC, MCA, UMNO, PPP, PKR and others. Each parties have their own agenda for this country. If PAS make their own decision, it is their right. Same also if UNMO make decision want joint Pakatan Rakyat. What ever Pas want do event split from Pakatan Rakyat and join UMNO that is their own way. DAP, PKR or MIC, MCA, others to make statement dispute PAS decision is not correct way. Last month you sleep in on pillow maybe others month you split. Who know, we never oath promise for life and death together in politic.
Oops… ‘…the idea/notion/belief that Taqiyya is dangerOUS…’
sorry!
“By alerting us to the possible use of Taqiyya on the part of PAS, Jeffrey is doing a great service to PR supporters who reject Islamic theocracy in Malaysia.”
Ooooo, Jeffrey’s fart has no smell.
What the QC Wannabe has done in his endless pontifications is just to reveal what he truly is – an anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot. You don’t need to highlight an archaic Islamic practice in this era to reject Islamic theocracy.
By the way, it is ok to criticise or question the doctrines and/or practices of a particular religion.
Doing so per se does not make one a bigot. A bigot is one who refuses to even allow others to voice out their sincere disagreements or criticisms. Of course, a sincere criticism could be misguided or simply wrong. So when a believer of a particular religion hears a sincere criticism of his religion, the appropriate response is to explain or invite other apologists to explain why that criticism is misguided, if it can really be shown to be misguided. Threatening the critics with ISA or calling for ‘ban’ is the worst kind of response that reveals deep-seated insecurities about the truth of the religion.
For example, Christians are urged to defend their faith with gentle answers and good behaviour, not by issuing threats or barging into a forum discussing issues of Christian faith:
‘…but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame…’ (1 Peter 3: 15)
Taqiyya is not an archaic practice. It originated in the 7th century, but that does not mean that it is archaic.
The theory of probability originated in the 17th century, yet it is far from being an archaic theory.
As in the case of the theory of probability, Taqiyya is certainly not archaic if by ‘archaic’ you mean ‘something is no longer in use’.
If by ‘archaic’ you mean ‘something that originated in the ancient time, what has the historical origin of x to do with whether x is currently being used/practised?
Many of our mathematical concepts are even more archaic (in the sence of having originated in the ancient time) than Taqiyya.
oops… ‘…(in the senSe of…’
///You don’t need to highlight an archaic Islamic practice in this era to reject Islamic theocracy/// – Godpapa.
Yes, but an archaic Islamic practice (whether 15th century Taqiyya or 19th century Wahhabism upon which modern day fundamental political Islamist ideology share common precepts) is highlighted if only to rebut your contention that what is archaic in past centuries is no longer applicable or could not be revived, and therefore should not be raised as a factor for consideration. See the illogic of our response.
///What the QC Wannabe has done in his endless pontifications is just to reveal what he truly is – an anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot.///
However I have in posting Today at 15: 22.58 (1 hour ago) explained why “Taqiyya” is useful for furthering a certain theocratic agenda in terms of reconciling to supporters/believers why certain compromises with non believers are necessary in terms of cooperation to push for final agenda. And it has also been clarified that there a key difference between spreading the danger of Taqiyya (in terms of advancing a certain agenda not agreed to by other coalition partners) and spreading the idea/notion/belief that Taqiyya is danger (per se).
It has also been amply explained that warning against a particular POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of theocracy justified on interpretation of faith prevalent in some countries of muslim majorities (eg Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan) but not embraced in other countries of muslim majorities (eg Indonesia, malaysia, Turkey) is standalone extraneous and unconnected with the Islamic faith (in general) of which there are different competing interpretations.
So what is the basis of accusation of “anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot”? No reason? You feel it so?
If I accuse you of being a PAS cybertrooper here – without reasons – then I am a bigot but if you accuse me as “anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot”, when there is no basis and not even a cogent rebuttal to the explanations given by me, then it is you who has proven yourself a the biggest bias bigot, taking strong positions without any let alone proper/reasoned basis of thought and accusation.
I think that is so clear.
“Ooooo, Jeffrey’s fart has no smell” (Godfather) – yes, agreed, especially when compared to the breath from your mouth that smells like a skunk’s posterior
Why? Well it is fantastic that in the face of reasons and explanations given, for which not a single, let alone cogent rebuttal or contradiction has been offered, you could still shamelessly hurl baseless accusation like “anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot” without bothering of its lack of basis.
Your major contribution to this blog is to behave as an antidote to Reason, having an accusation to everything and rationale to nothing!
Take one example of what the Godpapa had said – “You don’t need to highlight an archaic Islamic practice in this era to reject Islamic theocracy”.
Yes, although one could reject Islamic theocracy (in present times)without having to highlight an archaic Islamic practice of past era, however it was Godfather himself who first raised the contention that one should not raise archaic practice (whether 15th century Taqiyya or 19th century Wahhabism) to argue present circumstances, thereby making that practice (whether archaic or relevant now) an issue.
From simple example one can see how he raises an issue, when you address the issue with explanation that he could not offer a reply, he turns around and ironically berate/ridicule you for responding to an issue that he himself first raised, forgetting and sweeping under the carpet that he raised the issue.
The explanation clearly shows the temper of mind of this man : illogical, unfair and impervious to reasons.
, was revived in 1970s especially after Iranian Revolution (“Explanation”).
(2) So though one could reject Islamic theocracy without highlighing I don’t have The Explanation above is to rebut his contention that what is archaic in past centuries is no longer applicable or could not be revived, and therefore should not be raised as a factor for consideration. See the illogic of our response
Please ignore last parts beginning ” was revived in 1970s especially after Iranian Revolution (”Explanation”)”.
As Jeffrey and I have shown clearly in our past postings, our rejection of the establishment of an Islamic theocracy rests on the fundamental inappropriateness of an Islamic theorcrarcy in a pluralistic society such as Malaysia, and has nothing to do with Taqiyya.
We do talk about Taqiyya. But we have not associated Taqiyya with the reason we reject or one should reject the idea of setting up an Islamic theocracy in a pluralistic society.
These are separate issues.
“If by ‘archaic’ you mean ’something that originated in the ancient time, what has the historical origin of x to do with whether x is currently being used/practised?”
Hey, kid, just answer my previous question: Are you still using a leaf to preserve your modesty or have you moved on ?
Do you still use the Pythagorean theorem? Do you think that people today should still use the Pythagorean theorem?
Some x’s originated in antiquity are obsolete (e.g. leaves as a means of preserving modesty).
Some x’s orignated in antiquity are still widely used today (e.g. the Pythagorean theorem).
Conclusion: x’s historical origin per se has nothing to do with its current relevance.
The Cambridge Kid quotes Peter chapter and verse about slander. He doesn’t realise that it is his legal advisor, the braggart and show-off QC Wannabe, who is slandering Muslims by spreading the word that Taqqiya is dangerous.
At 13.54.05 the Cambridge Kid asked rhetorically:
“f most reasonable people think that Taqiyya (deceit) is really dangerous, why is Jeffrey an anti-Islamic extremist if he spreads the idea that Taqiyya is dangerous?”
Then, at 15.22.58 today, the show-off asked “Where did I say anywhere “Taqiyya” is per se dangerous…..”
Everybody, including the Cambridge Kid, knows what the show-off means with those foot long postings which can be distilled into mere scaremongering tactics against Islam. You guys should coordinate your rebuttals better.
“Conclusion: x’s historical origin per se has nothing to do with its current relevance.” Cambridge Kid
Agreed. All I am saying is Taqqiya today has no relevance, and certainly not in Bolehland, so why dredge up the origins of this practice ?
Alright boys, I gotta go as my hourly rate is definitely higher than that of the QC Wannabe.
All I want to add to the comment of Farish Noor above is that the Malaysian public doesn’t like extremists, whether it is from PAS or from UMNO or from DAP. Yes, we should always strive for meritocracy and for transparency but we should not have this superior or holier-than-thou attitude. We may have a first class honours degree from Oxford or Cambridge, but that doesn’t give us the right to talk down to people, to dismiss people summarily. We may be endowed undeniably with eloquent English but we must be patient enough to let those who are less eloquent have their say. All these attributes are motherhood and apple pie, but they must be constantly reinforced in a multiracial country like ours. Extremism begets extremism, and in the end all parties become blind, as quoted by Gandhi-ji.
I was just egging the QC Wannabe and the Cambridge Kid on. They are smart and good people, but they still lack in humility and tolerance. Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values.
///Do you still use the Pythagorean theorem? Do you think that people today should still use the Pythagorean theorem?///
That is a truth consistent with the assumptions. It can only change when the brains work differently.
You have either misunderstood or twisted my conclusion.
What it says is that your inference that Jeffrey is spreading fears of Islam ‘based on outdated theories and outdated practises not seen in the modern era’ from your so-called fact that Taqiyya is a 15th century concept is fallacious.
In that inference (as in your oft-repeated question, ‘Are you still using a leaf to preserve your modesty?’) , you illegitimately assume that the fact that an x originated in the past shows that x is no longer believed/used/practised today.
This is a fallacious inference. You can’t assume that Taqiyya is not practised today by Muslims just because it started in or was practised in the 15th or 7th century. If you care to check, you’ll find that Muslims still practise Taqiyya today.
There are plenty of examples to show that your inference is fallacious. The fact that many Christian doctrines were formulated in the Council of Nicea in the 4th century does not mean that they are not longer held today. The fact that the probability theory was developed in the 17th century does not mean that they are obsolete today.
Of course, some ancient practices are obsolete. Your oft repeated mention of the usage of leaves is a case in point. But the above examples show clearly that historical origin in itself does not indicate that something is no longer practised today. Thus, the inference that Taqiyya is not used today because it was used centuries ago is fallacious.
Godfather either misunderstands or deliberately twists my conclusion to make it say something I do not say (and cannot be responsibly interpreted to say), that is, ‘the historical origin of Taqiyya shows that it is not relevant in Malaysia today’.
No, that cannot be what I mean if my conclusion is seen in its context. The context shows that what I mean in that conclusion is that ‘one cannot conclude or infer that something is not used/practised/believed today simply on the grounds that that thing originated in the past’.
Godfather has a tendency to misrepresent others’ views and then accuse others of writing long postings when those who have tasted his misrepresentation either elaborate a simple point or make the same simple point in several different ways either in response to his misrepresentation or in an attempt to prevent his misrepresentation.
// I was just egging the QC Wannabe and the Cambridge Kid on. They are smart and good people, but they still lack in humility and tolerance. Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values// – Godfather.
“egging” means “to encourage or incite to action”. It means, even when big issues are at stake, he is arguing for the sake of arguing – which is trivialising discussion here. Focus is not on merits/demerits of message – but trying to inculcate “humility and tolerance”.
And then the patronising remark “Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values” as if “older” necessarily implies widom (humility & tolerance) when some more rigid, dogmatic, intolerant and even senile. It also makes the implicit – questionable – assumption that he is older.
Is this not an irony when the Arrogant who says “Alright boys, I gotta go as my hourly rate is definitely higher than that of the QC Wannabe” preach Humility?
“Godfather has a tendency to misrepresent others’ views” – Lee Wang Yen. This (misrepresentation) is a tendency that for one so inclined, the years in growing older only afforded more practice to turn misrepresentation into reflex and a state of art.
His idea of (humility & tolerance) is to be humble and tolerate his misrepresentations, mis-statements, ridicules and insults, crooked and fallacious arguments, assumptions without basis thrown at any one on any issue as and when he feels at liberty to do so – without correction and check.
Humility and Tolerance means giving him a free rein like Mafia Godfather to engage in all these undesirable practices in an open forum of participators within the “family” of opposition supporters – without dissent.
His choice of nick/handle (Godfather) is calculated.
Ever seen the film “The Godfather” an American 1972 crime thriller based on the 1969 novel of the same name by Mario Puzo, directed by Francis Ford Coppola starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan etc?
There was a scene (don’t know whether Godfather II or III) in which Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), tells brother Fredo to never take sides against the family again after Fredo tries to stick up for Moe Green when Michael is talking to him. (Never mind whether Fredo doing the right thing or not) or Corleone family doing wrong thing – “Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.”
Must be our Godpap’s favourite lines. Very telling! :)
In the film, he had a lonely death. He just fell off the chair in the Rose Garden.
“Public doesn’t like extremists” and many people don’t like your lax form of Islam either Mr. Noor – Go and learn your religion before you attempt to preach it to other, more qualified Muslims who don’t share your anti-Muslim and pro-secular agenda!
As Hadi recently said: “If you are not a fisherman, you cannot talk about fishing. It’s the same with SIS, if you do not have knowledge about Islam, you cannot talk about Islam,”
SIS is a secular and an extreme feminist party that intially began as a moderate NGO seeking to address the imbalances of the rights of women in the Malaysian context. They then turn ugly by mis-representing Islam and totally twisting the very sources that provide for Islamic legislature. None of their members are qualified nor learned in any of the sciences of the religion and therefore, they remain ignorant to think they can address women human rights without consideration for the cultural pollution that they foolishly link to Islam.
moderating has finally come into play but the wrong people are being moderated. lol.
I’ve never trusted PAS from the very beginning as I’ve told u in my blog. When I said if choice btw UMNO/PAS, vote undi rosak, people said – vote PAS – better than UMNO. But I don’t believe in both.
The only PAS guy I like is Dato’ Seri Nizar.
The argument between Jeffrey/Lee Wang Yen as one party and Godfather as the other party only gives me these impression:
1. Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen were both suspicious about the sincerity of PAS in policy making for protection of the interest of non-Muslim people and of the women if Pakatan Rakyat is to continue include PAS as the component party of the coalition for forming a Federal Government in the future.
2. Godfather is keen to see a much closer tie among the component parties of Pakatan Rakyat because he is filled with the political fervour of wanting Pakatan Rakyat to form a Federal Government in the soonest possible future. Therefore Godfather will tend to rise up quickly to rebute anybody who makes a comment which is deemed to be able to cause damage and deterioration in the relationship between any two component parties within Pakatan Rakyat, such as between DAP and PAS.
3. While Godfather may not be so academically trained in logical reasoning as compared to Legal Counsel Jeffrey and Logics Expert Dr Lee Wang Yen, Godfather’s political enthusiasm and loyalty to party are some precious value which is very much sought after by a party which insists on upholding its political principle like DAP.
4. I do not know Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen personally. However, from the comments of these two gentlemen, whether posted today or posted in the past, I could strongly feel that these two gentlemen had taken up a political position to strongly oppose PAS as a political partner of DAP. Even though they might have softened their position a bit during the initial stage of Perak Impasse after seeing the good performance of Nizar in cooperation with DAP state leaders of Perak, both Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen basically still posed a susceptible attitude towards PAS.
5. Perhaps Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen should try to mix around much more often with PAS leaders in order for them to get a better hold on the religious thinking pattern of PAS leaders. Religious dogma or doctrine is never something which is never changed. If religious dogma or doctrine can remain something very static and long-lasting forever, then we will never be able to see the divisiveness between Sunni Sect and Shiite Sect of Islam, and the disunity among different denominations of Christian Churches throughout the whole world!
Anyway, please cheer up everybody. We don’t find a second Khomeini too often too easily! Let’s pray that PAS leaders will turn wise to reject any extremism!
“Godfather’s political enthusiasm and loyalty to party are some precious value which is very much sought after by a party which insists on upholding its political principle like DAP”
granddaddy’s blind faith and blind loyalty does injustice to the pursuit of liberty, equality and equal justice for all.
like i said if he wants the cheerleader post he would have to fight for it as there are many contenders here on this blog although most times they do not know what they’re cheering for. that’s what is wrong with dap supporters who frequent this blog to post trash.
Onlooker:
All you need to do is to make the suggestion that the narcissistic QC Wannabe and his sidekick the Cambridge Kid ” try to mix around much more often with PAS leaders in order for them to get a better hold on the religious thinking pattern of PAS leaders”.
These anti-Islamists will come at you not with just one retort, they will come after you with continuous foot-long postings condemning PAS, condemning you, and in the process reveal their true colours – their air of superiority over others, their condescending attitude towards other faiths, their overriding desire to see PR split up. Regular readers to this blog can attest to this.
///These anti-Islamists will come at you not with just one retort, they will come after you with continuous foot-long postings condemning PAS, condemning you, and in the process reveal their true colours – their air of superiority over others, their condescending attitude towards other faiths, their overriding desire to see PR split up. Regular readers to this blog can attest to this./// – Godfather.
The above is a classic specimen of rabble-rousing.
In case you say that English is not your first language I need to explain: to rabble rouse is to arouse collective emotions by leveling incitive and instigative accusations against selected targets convenient for such a purpose, never mind that the accusations are neither supported by facts, cogent arguments nor reasons.
The interest of the rabble rouser is not quest of the truth or facts on any issue – he gives two hoots on that except where it serves his agenda – but merely to leverage on and exploit the collective sentiments of readers in this blog (frustrated with excesses of the BN over the years and placing hopes on Pakatan Rakyat to end them) and making their bile of the audience rise to the brains.
There can therefore be no meaningful exchange between the rabble rouser (a small time blog demagogue wannabe) constantly inciting passions (maybe as a means to vent his own frustrations) and those others who discuss with a view to ascertain the balanced truth.
However why should we be let off a rabble rouser?
He is engaged in a combination of conscious and unconscious ways in the very same demagoguery, twisting, misrepresenting others’ positions, making false accusations as the very same racists, extremists and bigots on the other side of the political fence that he vehemently condemns here. Not only are such methods hypocritical but they are also dangerous.
Think about it.
Every party in the Opposition is important…..they need to stick together for the next election.
This is our best opportunity for significant change and you don’t want to wait another 10 years….whether from BN or PK.
“He is engaged in a combination of conscious and unconscious ways in the very same demagoguery, twisting, misrepresenting others’ positions, making false accusations as the very same racists, extremists and bigots on the other side of the political fence that he vehemently condemns here. Not only are such methods hypocritical but they are also dangerous.” Narcissitic QC Wannabe
Since I condemn you as an extremist and bigot, I’m glad you accept the point that you engage in the same demagoguery, twisitng, misrepresenting others’ positions…
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That’s why I also want to expose the danger of listening to a crapshooter who does not deny that he writes eloquently.
sotong Says: Every party in the Opposition is important…..they need to stick together
We go round and around on this point. Malaysia’s ‘first past the post’ system forces unattractive choices on the opposition. DAP and PKR could reject PAS, but the consensus (I think) is that this would cost them the next election – possibly even before the next election if PAS were to be forced into UMNO’s arms like a bitter ex-girlfriend. If DAP and PKR maintain their alliance with PAS, there is some hope of success at GE13, even if some suggest it may be a short honeymoon.
Life is full of difficult choices, and people will inevitably use whatever means at their disposal to achieve their ends – whether there’s an explicit set of instructions on the matter in their favourite work of fiction or not. I think Farish makes a good job of putting a reasonable point in his article. The point is that PAS, for its own ends, should pay better attention to the reasons for its recent success. The wider issue of Pakatan Rakyat’s choice of running mates is moot, as there simply is no choice. This isn’t a proper parliamentary democracy: second place is a total loss.
“This isn’t a proper parliamentary democracy: second place is a total loss.” (OrangRojak)
As a foreigner living in Malaysia, OrangRojak probably sees things much clearer than we the Malaysian people, regarding the choice of running mates for Pakatan Rakyat.
Even though the police are often criticized for making baseless accusation on the Opposition Party members, the ISA can still be frequently invoked by the BN-dominated Special Branch Police to put the members of Opposition Party into solitary confinement in the ISA Detention Centre and the Sedition Act can also be occasionally used to harrass the political leaders of Opposition Party by the BN-dominated Department of Commercial Crime or the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police Force. What choice does the Opposition Party still have if it is not to overthrow the BN Federal Government by hook or by crook?
Lee Kuan Yew never denied the opportunities of engaging a political cooperation with the leftist socialists or communists during late 1950s and early 1960s when People’s Action Party of Singapore was still in the infant stage of its party development and was still not able to grasp the political power by its own strength without the support and assistance from other popular leftist leaders and the trade unionists. However, Lee Kuan Yew’s cooperation with the leftists and the trade unionists never turned PAP into a communist party.
Perhaps, those principled gentlemen like Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen should learn to take the risk of partnering with a susceptible partner if overthrowing Barisan Nasional has been set as the top priority over other considerations in the course of struggle for achieving success in their political cause!
Since Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen are good in using the technique of logical reasoning in order to arrive at a persuassive conclusion during a discussion, why don’t Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen give it a try to persuade Nik Aziz and Husam Musa to willingly declare an open renounciation or quietly give up any possible extremism element in the political ideology of PAS? There is no need for Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen to criticize fiercely on the logical flaw which may have been found in the comment of Godfather, for Godfather always speaks out of a revolutionary passion in favour of his favourite party DAP.
The political fervour or the so-called revolutionary passion which could generally be found in the revolutionists of French Revolution and American Revolution is the essential factor contributing to the success of a noble political cause. (I don’t quote October Revolution of Russia and Chinese Revolution as the historical events which already displayed the importance of revolutionary passion as a contributing factor to the success of a political cause, lest if I don’t avoid Russia and China I may be accused by Dr. Mahathir as a Communist sympathiser or a Chinese Chauvinist Racist.)
Some 75% of those 2,000 plus who voted on Ong Tee Keat’s blog wanted MCA to leave BN. The result implies that all those who are able to post the votes but did not take part would hold the same position, a 75-25 split.
Najib said that the result was academic, which should mean that MCA would not act on it.
Why did Najib think that the result was academic? By saying so, Najib recognised that the percentage would represent the opinion of the people, and most probably the Chinese who may or may not be MCA members. Najib knows now that hardly 25% of Chinese would support MCA comes the next election. Najib might have known all along that Chinese did not vote MCA, but he did not possess this clear ratio. Najib knew also that the low support MCA commands is a result of UMNO policies which made MCA unpopular. That policy direction had been set since May 13, and has been getting more discriminatory over time. UMNO could have relaxed its imposing discriminatory racist policies if he had been interested to get Chinese to support MCA. UMNO and Najib are not interested in that outcome.
When Najib said that the results were academic, he might also mean that MCA would not act on the result. The accuracy of the result was never called to question. It is that Najib knew that MCA would stick with BN like a beggar.
I have said in the past that MCA should leave BN. In fact MCA should cease to be a political organization, but to stay on as a NGO to serve the interest of the society. The current MCA leaders are free to join whichever party outside BN. As a NGO, it can still monitor government policies and uses its influence comes next election.
MCA was worried that if PAS joined UMNO, then the Malays will be the ruling party and the others would be in the opposition. MCA had not realised that the Chinese in the cabinet served only to window dress. It is time that UMNO answers its policies based on merits, rather than following TDM’s formula that those policies were supported by MCA and hence the Chinese, to discriminate against the Chinese.
Ong Tee keat should act on the result. He should tell UMNO either to go back to Pre-1969 days with the Provision of review for Article 153 reinstated, or leave BN.
Like I said before there’s a “pakatan” within PR to create serious political damage to Umno/Bn in order to win in the next GE. A kind of a Trojan Horse drama to crush the enemy within the enemy.You guys need not have to unduely critisize PAS proposal unity talk with Umno as PR’s strategy is to weaken if not cause serious damage to Umno/Bn before taking head on to win the war ie 13th GE.You guys know too that in politic there’s no permanent friend as well as no permanent enemy.Politic is also an art to win the hearts and minds of friends and foes to your side to win the ultimate war at any given time. I think PR is currently doing just that and maybe more. In politic two are not enough,you need huge crowd to determine your final success.I would suggest PR to consider this slogan ” Need solution,vote PR “.
Loh Says: The result implies …
… only something about visitors to OTK’s website. I might be prepared to wager RM50 that 10% of those votes were cast by monsterball.
I agree with Loh on the fate of the MCA – if only because I think there should be no place for racist organisations in politics. People can be conservative though. There’ll always be popular support for the MCA as long as explicit racism is permitted (much less mandated) in Malaysia. Is it time for a Malaysian Heritage Party?