Why the U-turn now?

PAS’s position has never changed all those years -- it supports the implementation of Hudud. DAP’s position has also never changed all those years -- it opposes the implementation of Hudud. However, in 1990, DAP refused the marriage with PAS. In 1999 it entered into a marriage. In 2001, it asked for a divorce. In 2004, it refused a marriage. Then, in 2008, it again entered into a marriage.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

No hudud without constitutional change, says MP

(Bernama, 28th July 2012) - PAS’s aspiration to implement hudud law in the country was impossible unless the party is first able to amend the Federal Constitution, according to a DAP lawmaker today.

DAP national chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw, who is also Kepong member of parliament, said it was not easy to amend the constitution as it required a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

“To implement hudud, there must be an amendment in Parliament. They know it is impossible to get a two-thirds majority in Parliament,” he said.

He said that to date, the Syariah Criminal Law Enactment (II) 1993 (Hudud Law) passed by the Kelantan State Assembly in 1993 could not be enforced.

He said this when asked to comment on the statement by Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who is also PAS spiritual leader, who reiterated on Wednesday the party’s stand to uphold its struggle for hudud although it was not agreed to by DAP.

According to Tan, the hudud issue was a complex one especially in a country that was made up of a plural society and it should not have been raised.

“Let’s not raise matters that can cause disorder especially on those which cannot be implemented,” he said.

Meanwhile, Yayasan 1 Malaysia chairman Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that PAS’s stand on hudud despite not getting DAP’s consent showed both the parties had many differences and were not in concert.

Chandra, who is also International Movement for a Just World (Just) president, said the parties only co-operated because they had a common enemy who prevented them from seizing power at the state and federal levels.

“This shows that their relationship is opportunistic because they want to be in power and for no other reason,” he said.

********************************************

(22nd September 2001) - In a shock decision today, the DAP announced its withdrawal from the opposition Barisan Alternatif coalition, citing irreconcilable differences with fellow member PAS over the Islamic state issue.

In an emergency meeting this afternoon, the party's central executive committee resolved to quit the BA, with 13 votes in favour of the withdrawal, two against and three abstentions.

The motion was: "In view of the failure of DAP and PAS to resolve the Islamic state controversy, the CEC resolves that it is no longer tenable for DAP to continue in the Barisan Alternatif and the DAP ceases to be a member of the Barisan Alternatif."

********************************************

(31st July 2002) - Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu has inked his approval of the PAS state government's much debated Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment after being briefed on the bill last week.

According to Terengganu Menteri Besar Abdul Hadi Awang's press secretary Zahari Mohd today, the Sultan gave his consent after hearing explanations from state ministers last Thursday.

"Before the Sultan signs any amendment to the state constitution, the state government is required to give the necessary explanations on the law," said Zahari when contacted.

The bill, which evoked strong criticism from various quarters, was passed by the state assembly during a sitting on July 8.

********************************************

The Hudud issue will just not go away. Back in 1993, the PAS-Semangat 46 State Government of Kelantan passed the Syariah Criminal Law Enactment in the Kelantan State Assembly. This was one of the reasons why DAP refused to form a coalition with PAS in the 1990 General Election. DAP feared that PAS would implement Hudud if they won the election.

In the 1990 General Election, Semangat 46 had one coalition with DAP on the West Coast called Gagasan Rakyat and a separate coalition with PAS on the East Coast called Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah or APU. Hence the opposition -- PAS, DAP and Semangat 46 -- faced the 1990 General Election with two different coalitions.

Six years later, in 1999, DAP came together with PAS and Parti Keadilan Nasional to form a coalition called Barisan Alternatif. By then Semangat 46 had been wound up and most of its leaders had gone back to Umno. Barisan Alternatif actually did quite well in the 1999 General Election where they not only retained Kelantan but won Terengganu as well. They also won 45 seats in Parliament.

Actually, 1999 was not the best performance for the opposition in terms of Parliament seats. In 1969, the opposition won 49 out of 144 seats (34%) and, in 1990, 53 out of 180 seats (29%). In 1999 it was only 23% of the seats in Parliament. Of course, 2008 was the best ever at 82 out of 222 seats, which came to almost 37%.

Now, when DAP agreed to an opposition coalition in 1999, they knew that PAS intended to implement Hudud. PAS had, in fact, tried to do so six years earlier in Kelantan. Hence PAS has never dropped its Islamic agenda. So DAP went to bed with PAS with its eyes open.

Then, soon after the 1999 General Election, PAS did the same in Terengganu. And this resulted in DAP leaving the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif. In 2004, DAP faced the general election outside the opposition coalition. And that was the worst performance for the opposition in Malaysian political history. They were reduced to just 21 out of 219 seats in Parliament, or 9.6%.

The opposition practically got demolished.

In 1990, DAP did not want to go to bed with PAS because of Hudud. And, in 1993, DAP was proven right when PAS pushed for Hudud in Kelantan. In 1999, DAP agreed to go to bed with PAS in spite of these same concerns. Then, two years later, DAP asked for a divorce for the very same reason -- Hudud. In 2004, DAP went solo. In 2008, DAP, again, agreed to a marriage with PAS.

While DAP and PAS have both been very consistent in their stands regarding Hudud, the same cannot be said about their relationship -- refuse a marriage, enter into a marriage, seek a divorce, refuse a remarriage and finally get remarried.

PAS has always made it clear that it is agreeable to a marriage even if DAP is opposed to Hudud. DAP, however, said it refuses a marriage unless PAS first agrees to drop its Hudud agenda. PAS never did drop its Hudud agenda and DAP agreed to a remarriage in spite of that.

Although DAP can be said to be very consistent in its opposition to Hudud, it has not demonstrated the same consistency regarding its stand of no marriage unless PAS first drops its Hudud agenda.

I expected DAP to announce that it is going to withdraw from Pakatan Rakyat if PAS does not agree to drop its Hudud agenda -- like DAP did ten years ago when the same issue cropped up. But DAP is not doing this. Instead, DAP is saying that PAS is dreaming and that it can never implement Hudud unless it first amends the law in Parliament and to do this PAS will need a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which it can never have for obvious reasons -- the reason being PAS will never win two-thirds of the seats in Parliament when they are contesting only one-third the seats.

Now, I have been saying this since more than ten years ago. But when I said this more than ten years ago I was met with vicious resistance. The stand then was if PAS does not agree to drop its Hudud agenda then DAP must not go to bed with PAS. Karpal Singh said that DAP would not even sit at the same table with PAS, let alone form a coalition with that Islamic party. Then, in 2008, they relented and entered into an opposition coalition that included PAS.

The situation has never changed. It is still the same. PAS is committed to Hudud while DAP is opposed to Hudud. So what is it that has changed instead? Why was Hudud an issue in 1990, 1994 and 2004 but not in 1999 and 2008?

Okay, now DAP says it is not an issue because it cannot be done even though this is still the agenda (or dream) of PAS. But it could not be done back in the 1990s either. And it could not be done in the 2000s as well. So what has changed?

Back in 1999, I said never mind if PAS talks about Hudud. They can only talk about it. They can never implement it because they will first need to amend the law and to do this you need a two-thirds majority in Parliament. And because PAS is an Islamic party they need to talk about it. If they do not talk about it then they will become irrelevant. An Islamic party that drops its Islamic agenda would cease to be an Islamic party. If we force PAS to drop its Islamic agenda then we would be allowing Umno to kill it.

But when I said this I got whacked good and proper. This was not an argument that was acceptable to the Chinese, in particular those DAP supporters. But now it appears that argument is acceptable after all. In fact, that is the same argument that the DAP leaders are using.

Why are the DAP leaders now saying what I said more than ten years ago? What has changed? What is the situation now that was not the situation more than ten years ago? When I say that I get called all sorts of things. But when the DAP leaders say the same thing this is political wisdom.

I still remember what the DAP supporters said back in 1999. They were downright nasty with their comments. It became so bad that I withdrew from any further debate on the matter.

Even the late MGG Pillai was disgusted about the whole thing. He told me that the DAP supporters have so much hate in their hearts that they are beyond reasoning. The best thing, suggested Pillai, was to avoid these people altogether and allow them to live in their own little world. Uncle Lee and Mr Chee can probably relate what happened because they were following the debates at that time.

So be careful with what you say. The nasty things you said back in 1999 have come back to haunt you. You now need to eat your words because what you are saying today was exactly what I said back then. And the nasty things you are saying today may also come back to haunt you some time in the future. You may be forced to say some of the things I am saying today with regards to various issues.

That is what happens when you use sentiments and emotions instead of reasoning to argue your case. You end up doing a U-turn and finally say the same things you were violently opposed to more than a decade ago.

I love it when I have the last word and can say, “I told you so!”