People voted for PAS because of its moral standing
I WOULD like to respond to Wong Chun Wai’s article “Be careful what we wish for” (Sunday Star, Nov 8) as I feel that it is my responsibility to correct some of his misunderstandings about Islam based on secular world view.
I was surprised by his expression of PAS leaders “…who, with their flowing robes and turbans, cut deals for power and position just like any other politician”. I do not know his intention; whether he was trying to highlight the flowing robes and turbans or PAS’ strategy to come into power?
If he was trying to highlight the robes and turbans, he was definitely trying to signal something.
If he was trying to highlight the dealing for power, is it so strange for a political party to make deals in its accession to power?
Is it wrong for PAS as a registered and legal political party that believes in democracy as a means to come into power to make deals and to offer people its political manifesto?
Unless Wong’s basis was that “religion and politics cannot mix”, I can’t understand why another party can do so but PAS cannot especially when we maintain that Islam is a synthesis of politics and religion.
Notice the word synthesis, there is plenty of meaning there if Wong could spare sometime in the library to read more on the notion of synthesis Islam offers as a way of life to one’s needs in this world and the hereafter.
Wong’s allegation against PAS’ commitment to democracy and the constitution is outdated and creates confusion to readers, especially non-Malays and intentionally gives a negative impression that PAS is outside the framework of the constitution and champions something alien to fellow Malaysians – like the Saudi Arabian style of things?
Wake up Wong! Are you telling readers that the Malaysians, including the Chinese and Indians, who voted for PAS are voting for a Saudi style of government and are helping to chip off the secular aspects of the constitution?
Just for the record, they voted for PAS because of its moral standing and a clear view to bring Malaysians together to fight corruption and they loath the Barisan way of doing things.
Because PAS is an Islamic party, the moral standing we enjoy is shared by Malaysians today – I mean all Malaysians, not just Malays and Muslims.
Finally, the issue of a liberal society Wong was commenting on.
What defines liberal? Is it a concept where religion has no political and societal role?
Or is it a concept where parallelism is the basis of toleration? Where does liberalism stem from?
What about the constitution that stipulates Islam as the Federal religion?
What about Malay rulers as the symbol of Islam and their authority?
What about other voters’ right in wanting Islam as an integral part of a multiracial society?
I believe Wong will not miss out addressing some of these questions before he came to a conclusion that “the liberal lifestyle enjoyed by all Malaysians is at stake if progressive and liberal forces continue to lose their battle”.
The only thing I agree with is when he mentioned “but those who use God’s name should beware that they too can suffer a similar fate because they are mere mortals like everyone else”.
How correct your sentence is at the end of the article although I cannot agree with your kick-off and the body of the article.
DR MUHAJID RAWA, KUALA LUMPUR (TAKEN FROM THE STAR)
