Malaysians are too stupid to notice

By MT Webmaster Last updated Nov 26, 2014

If so, then PAS should not also have a personal view regarding MAS serving alcohol unless that is also the view of Pakatan Rakyat. And if this is not the view of Pakatan Rakyat that would mean DAP and PKR agree with MCA and disagree with PAS, which expressed its own view and not the view of the opposition coalition.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“MCA slams PAS’ continued call for MAS to stop serving alcohol”, said The Star today (READ HERE).

There are some who are of the opinion that MAS has been suffering ‘bad luck’ for so long because it serves liquor on board its flights.

Anyway, just to digress a bit, during one of my umrah trips, I said ‘beer’ when the steward asked me what I would like to drink. I was joking, of course, but the steward was not when he replied, “Sorry, sir, but all inbound flights to Jeddah are not allowed to serve alcohol so we have to lock it up. On the return flight, however, we can serve alcohol once we have taken off.”

So there you have it. Even on pilgrimage flights they have liquor on board. Only that they can’t serve it but have to carry it anyway under lock and key so that they can serve it on the flight out of Saudi Arabia.

But that is not what I want to discuss today because I have written about this matter a number of times in the past. What I want to discuss, instead, is the statement by MCA.

This was a statement by MCA (whacking PAS for asking MAS to stop serving alcohol). But MCA is a member of Barisan Nasional, which Umno is also a member of. So is this just MCA’s view alone or is it Barisan Nasional’s view? And if it is Barisan Nasional’s view does this mean this is also the opinion of Umno and does Umno endorse what MCA said?

Let us assume that this is just MCA’s view alone and not Barisan Nasional’s view since MCA did not declare that it is speaking on behalf of the coalition. Does this, therefore, mean that MCA can express its own view even if this view is not endorsed by the other coalition members, Umno included and in particular?

If the policy is: each coalition member can express its own view even if the other coalition partners do not share or endorse this view and even if this view is opposite to that of the other coalition members, this means there will be two or more views — one for each member of the coalition and another for the coalition itself.

Now, this is very important and should be something that is made clear. If this is the policy then what we have is freedom of opinion. You are free to express your opinion even if the others in the coalition do not share or agree to this opinion. Hence what is happening is MCA gave its opinion even if Umno or any other members in Barisan Nasional may not share this opinion.

That is a win for freedom of opinion. MCA can say what it feels even if Umno or Barisan Nasional may not feel the same way. The problem with this, however, is that people might mistake MCA’s view as Barisan Nasional’s view. Hence Umno has to clarify whether this is MCA’s view alone or Umno’s view as well.

Umno, therefore, will have to state whether it agrees or disagrees with MCA. If it does, well and fine. Then MCA is expressing Barisan Nasional’s view, unless some other non-Umno members of Barisan Nasional would like to disagree with MCA. If Umno does not share MCA’s view, then it has to state that it agrees with PAS and disagrees with MCA.

I am using this latest statement by MCA just as an example because it is in the news today. But it does not need to be about MAS serving alcohol. This would also apply to other ‘sensitive’ issues such as 1MDB, Chinese schools, citizenship, the NEP, the Allah word, Bahasa Malaysia Bibles, and many more (and we all know there are tons of sensitive issues in Malaysia).

Now, regarding Pakatan Rakyat. MCA whacked PAS on the statement it made about MAS serving alcohol. Is this just the view of PAS or the view of Pakatan Rakyat? Hence do DAP and PKR agree or disagree with what PAS said?

Let us assume that this is just the view of PAS and not the view of DAP, who is also in Pakatan Rakyat. Does DAP then agree with MCA or agree with PAS regarding MAS serving alcohol on board its flights?

And if DAP agrees with MCA and disagrees with PAS, what is PKR’s view? Does PKR agree with PAS regarding MAS serving alcohol or does PKR agree with DAP, which in turn agrees with MCA? Or is PKR abstaining and does not have any views on the matter?

If the policy in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat is that each coalition member can have its own personal view and that this view does not necessarily represent the view of the coalition, we can accept that. After all, this is what freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are all about and is the foundation of a democratic society, which is what Pakatan Rakyat is fighting for anyway.

So there is my view and there is our view. And my view may contradict our view. And both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat practice this democratic right and freedom of opinion and expression. Hence Malaysia now practices what we would call civil liberties, the right to disagree.

This, as I said, is important and needs to be clarified because now we come to the next issue, the statement by Umno as reported by The Malaysian Insider, “Umno fears Sedition Act’s repeal will affect core struggles, says Hisham” (READ HERE).

In that news report, Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein said, “Umno is concerned that the repeal of the Sedition Act would affect the party’s core struggles: the rights of Malays, Islam, and the monarchy.” That means Umno wants the Sedition Act to remain.

So, again, the question is: is this Umno’s view alone or is this the view of Barisan Nasional? And if this is the view of Umno alone, does this mean the other members of Barisan Nasional, MCA included, disagree with this? And if they disagree can we, therefore, assume that MCA and the other coalition members of Barisan Nasional, as Pakatan Rakyat is fond of saying, agree to disagree?

Once this has been established, that in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat they have a policy that each coalition member is allowed its own view, even if this view is opposite to the view of the coalition, that would lay to rest many of the other controversies as well.

For example, PAS did not agree with DAP and PKR as to whether Khalid Ibrahim should be removed as the Selangor Menteri Besar and if he was removed whether Dr Wan Azizah Ismail should replace him.

Some in DAP feel that PAS should be kicked out of Pakatan Rakyat for not ‘uniting’ with DAP and PKR on the Selangor MB issue. If so this would mean coalition members are not allowed personal views. They are only allowed the views of the coalition.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK