Why is PAS not relevant?

By MT Webmaster Last updated Aug 27, 2014

PAS is being told they must respect the wishes of the majority. I can go along with that. However, what about the wishes of the majority in PAS? Do what they also wish not count? Why are the wishes of the majority in PAS not relevant?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Law expert Dr Abdul Aziz Bari said PAS should not propose two (or more) names for the post of (new) Selangor Menteri Besar because this will invite palace interference.

I suppose Dr Aziz is insisting that PAS propose just one name, like what DAP and PKR have done, to avoid this interference. Hence if just one name is proposed, that of Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, this will avoid any interference from the palace in the choice of who should be the MB.

I find a few things wrong with this.

First, Anwar Ibrahim and other Pakatan Rakyat leaders have always been telling us that the opposition coalition will only act on consensus and would never do anything unless a consensus is reached. One example would be the Islamic State or the Sharia laws of Hudud.

PAS wants an Islamic State and Hudud laws to be implemented in Malaysia. DAP and PKR, however, do not. So, because no consensus has been reached on the matter, what PAS wants cannot be done.

Pakatan Rakyat cannot agree to the Islamic State and Hudud laws that PAS wants because this is what PAS wants and not what DAP and PKR also want. It must be three-zero or nothing at all.

This, says Pakatan Rakyat, is very crucial because the coalition does not do things like Barisan Nasional where what Umno wants goes and what the others want or do not want is not relevant.

In the case of the replacement of the Selangor Menteri Besar this same spirit is not being observed. It is PKR that wants the MB replaced and DAP supports PKR in this matter. PAS, however, does not. This means no consensus has been reached.

But this is not stopping DAP and PKR from pushing the issue. What PAS wants or does not want is not relevant. Even if PAS does not agree to this but as long as PKR and DAP do then this would be regarded as a consensus.

This makes the matter very confusing. When does Pakatan Rakyat need a consensus and when does it not? And in what way would a consensus be considered as having been reached? Does the consensus rule apply to all things or just to things that DAP and PKR want? And is PAS important to this consensus or is it a consensus just as long as DAP and PKR say so?

Second, when would His Royal Highness the Sultan be considered as interfering and when would he not? And how do you define interfering?

For example, an agency under the Selangor state government confiscated some Bibles. Can the Sultan command (titah) that the Bibles be released or would this be considered as interference in state administrative matters since Selangor does have an EXCO member in charge of religion who technically reports to the state cabinet headed by the Menteri Besar?

HRH the Sultan also commanded that the religious authorities stay away from massage parlours, which are mainly non-Muslim-owned. Should the religious authorities ignore the Sultan for this ‘interference’ and go raid all the massage parlours in Selangor and arrest the people there and close them down?

Another matter to consider is DAP, PKR and PAS have a sort of electoral pact. This electoral pact is called Pakatan Rakyat but is not a registered or legal entity like Barisan Nasional. It does not have a constitution or elected officials.

Hence whatever they decide in Pakatan Rakyat is merely an understanding, almost like a handshake. This handshake is not legally binding. If it were legally binding then PAS and PKR would have violated the agreement to not engage in three-corner contests and instead engage Barisan Nasional in a one-on-one.

But in a number of elections this was not observed and there is no legal recourse to address this breach of agreement. That is because it was merely an understanding with no legal standing.

Can PAS, therefore, be told what it can and cannot do? And if PAS does not do what DAP and PKR wants then what? What laws or legal agreements has PAS violated? What legal action can you take against PAS?

The fourth issue would be PAS is a legal entity while Pakatan Rakyat is not. Can a non-legal entity like Pakatan Rakyat tell a legal entity like PAS what it can and cannot do? Does not democracy mean freedom of choice? So does PAS not have freedom of choice? Why has PAS’ freedom of choice been withdrawn just because DAP and PKR want things done a certain way?

I understand that DAP and PKR want Khalid Ibrahim kicked out and replaced with Dr Wan Azizah for whatever the reason that may be. But must PAS lose its democratic rights just to please DAP and PKR?

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK