Why PR will not take disciplinary action

ARCHIVES 2009

By adminK On Oct 26, 2009

The case of Hasan Ali and Zulkifli Noordin

When comparing Hasan’s and Zulkifli’s cases, it is worth recalling that Umno, despite support for Datuk Ahmad Ismail, suspended his party membership for three years last year for calling Chinese Malaysians immigrants. How is it that Umno dares to punish a popular local warlord, but PAS and PKR dare not do the same of their members?

By Deborah Loh, The Nut Graph

THEY drive up temperatures within the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and invite criticisms of the fledging alliance to no end, but the likes of Datuk Dr Hasan Ali and Zulkifli Noordin are here to stay.

Both men are self-styled defenders of Islam: PAS’s Hasan against Muslims who drink alcohol, and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)’s Zulkifli against those he perceives as anti-Islam. Hasan’s public criticism of the Selangor government’s Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) in September 2009 drew public scorn, and harsh rebuke from PR colleagues.

There’s one other thing both men have in common: they both seem capable of escaping decisive disciplinary action by their respective parties for the disruptions they cause.

Seven months after Zulkifli stormed a Bar Council forum on conversions to Islam in August 2008, PKR closed the issue without any punishment. In Hasan’s case, PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa pre-empted any expectations of disciplinary action by saying none were necessary because Hasan was merely giving suggestions about Selcat.

Are Hasan and Zulkifli really detrimental to the PR’s cohesiveness? And curiously, why do others feel that disciplinary action is required, but not their own party leaders?

True to themselves

Actually, there shouldn’t be surprise at Hasan’s and Zulkifli’s controversial statements, considering their previous party affiliations. Past experiences in Umno for Hasan, and PAS for Zulkifli, must surely colour their perspectives.

It explains Zulkifli’s salvos against those he deems to be lesser Muslims, like Sisters in Islam, and those whom he feels wrongly encroach on Islam, like Wanita MCA chief Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun. Even fellow Members of Parliament who differ on Islam are not spared. As an MP, he has a personal jihad to move constitutional amendments to further elevate the status of Islam in Malaysia. He has proudly exclaimed that he is a “Muslim first” and “lawyer second”. In the present parliamentary sitting, Zulkifli has again submitted a private members bill to amend Article 3 of the Federal Constitution to clearly define Malaysia as an Islamic state.

Selangor PAS commissioner Hasan has championed banning the sale of beer, butted heads with fellow executive councillor Ronnie Liu over the same issue, called for mosque officials to arrest Muslims who drink alcohol, and also wants future action against Muslims working in breweries. In essence, he is not deviating from his current party’s Islamist stance, even if other PAS politicians have a more practical stand on alcohol consumption.

By criticising Selcat‘s methods of questioning, which he said were embarrassing for civil servants, Hasan can trump his friendly ties with public service employees, a job he too once held. He can show, too, that he defends “Malay [Malaysian] institutions” like the civil service.

But surely Hasan and Zulkifli are aware that being in the PR causes their personal views, expressed in public, to have repercussions on the alliance? Their parties are in a coalition that espouses pluralism, equality and transparency. The consequences in Hasan’s case are arguable graver, for he is part of a government in the most modern, urbanised state which the Barisan Nasional (BN) is desperate to wrest back.

Why, then, do they keep saying things that put them at odds with their PR colleagues, and with public expectations of PR politicians? Just as Zulkifli was once speculated to be defecting to Umno, Hasan is now accused of being an Umno lackey trying to destabilise the PR-led Selangor government.