Pakatan Rakyat: agreeing to disagree
Hmm…I wonder what the Muslim MPs from PKR and Barisan Nasional are going to do. Would they help save Pakatan Rakyat by blocking the Hudud bill? Most interesting is it not?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
My skirmish with Anwar Ibrahim first started when I met him during his 2010 trip to London. We discussed a range of issues, which I reiterated during a public forum also attended by Tian Chua of PKR and Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim of DAP and warned them to not take our support for granted and that we can easily withdraw that support if they fail to deliver their election promises.
In a forum in Australia later on, Anwar was asked about our disagreement and he responded that he is not able to always agree to everything that we are demanding. What he failed to explain was that we were not asking him to agree to what we were demanding. We were just asking him to fulfil what had already been agreed back in 2008 and not yet delivered.
Hence Anwar’s comment was misleading and was meant to make us look unreasonable, too demanding, and not practical. In short, in a very polite way no doubt, Anwar was telling us to fuck off.
The skirmish heightened when I responded to his response in a TV3 interview in Australia and whacked him for his mala fide. He was not being honest and was not revealing the facts behind our disagreement. We were not making new demands. We were asking him to deliver what had been prior-agreed two-and-a-half years earlier.
Is that unreasonable? Would that not be a breach of contract and are we not entitled to ask that the contract be honoured?
One of the issues we discussed was regarding Khalid Ibrahim, the then Menteri Besar of Selangor. I pointed out that there were promises made in 2008, which are yet to be delivered.
Anwar replied that Khalid is stubborn, will not listen to him, and has a huge ego. Hence Khalid does what he wants to do and will not listen to what Anwar tells him.
I then replied if Khalid is really the problem, as Anwar alleges, then Selangor needs a new Menteri Besar. But then we need to know what is it that Anwar told Khalid to do and which he refuses to do. We need details because at the end of the day Anwar is the Economic Advisor of Selangor so would the shortcomings not fall on Anwar rather than Khalid?
Then came the 2013 general election and Pakatan Rakyat appointed Khalid as the Menteri Besar for a second term. And then Tony Pua of DAP announced that Khalid is the best Menteri Besar that Selangor ever had, a man who is very hard working and honest.
Tony Pua’s statement and the fact that Khalid was given a second term contradicted what Anwar said two-and-a-half years earlier. So what, then, is the truth?
The second issue I discussed with Anwar back in 2010 was regarding the Pakatan Rakyat consensus and the agree-to-disagree policy of the opposition coalition. A consensus means all three must agree to a certain policy while agree to disagree means all three cannot agree so they agree that they will not agree.
This sounds very suspicious and appears like political double-speak. How can you have a marriage on that basis? Sooner or later something is going to break. What if you agree to disagree on the issue of the appointment of the Menteri Besar? What if you agree to disagree on the issue of the Islamic State and the Islamic laws of Hudud? What if you agree to disagree on the issue of seat allocations during the general election?
There are many issues that you need to sit down and discuss and come to an agreement. And since you need a consensus you need all three to agree. But if you cannot come to a consensus then you agree to disagree. But if you agree to disagree how do you move forward? Do you then do it or do you not do it?
We must agree now (I am referring to 2010) and settle all those issues. We cannot sweep them under the carpet and hope they will never pop up again. You have said you are not happy with Khalid. Does that mean Khalid is going to be dropped as Menteri Besar come the next election in 2013 and will not be given a second term?
So they agreed to disagree on the subject of the Selangor Menteri Besar. And we have seen one year later what this agree-to-disagree policy has done to Pakatan Rakyat in Selangor.
They agreed to disagree on the subject of Hudud. Now we are seeing what is about to erupt in Kelantan. DAP no longer wants to attend any Pakatan Rakyat meetings if PAS pursues its Hudud agenda. PAS said it is going to pursue its Hudud agenda come hell or high water (and the water is certainly high, not only in Kelantan but in many parts of Malaysia as well).
So, are they, therefore, going to agree to disagree that Pakatan Rakyat is no longer going to hold meetings?
Some in DAP want PAS to leave Pakatan Rakyat. Some in PAS want DAP to leave Pakatan Rakyat instead. Some in DAP want the Kelantan Menteri Besar to leave PAS. Some in PAS want DAP to shut the fuck up. And PKR will agree to disagree with both PAS and DAP.
That was what I said back in 2010 is going to happen if Anwar does not address this issue. And Anwar’s response is that he cannot agree to my ‘demands’. But then this is not what I am demanding. This is what Pakatan Rakyat needs to do to remain viable. And if Pakatan Rakyat refuses to address this then its viability becomes questionable.
Anyway, I suspect it is already too late to address this issue. It is, as the Malays would say: nasi sudah jadi bubur. Too many things have been said by too many people. And many of those statements are hurtful and have inflicted deep wounds.
It appears like a divorce is inevitable. The question is, who is going to be the one to file for divorce, DAP or PAS? One will have to leave and the other one remain in Pakatan Rakyat as a two-party coalition with PKR. That is the only future for Pakatan Rakyat.
But Pakatan Rakyat can still more or less be saved. And the way to save it would be for Parliament to reject the Hudud bill. Then PAS cannot implement Hudud in Kelantan. This will make DAP happy and PAS can save face by saying that it is not their fault that Hudud cannot be implemented in Kelantan.
But for this to happen, the Muslim MPs in PKR and Barisan Nasional must oppose the Hudud bill. However, if the PKR and Barisan Nasional MPs who are Muslims support the Hudud bill, then Kelantan will see Hudud implemented in the state and DAP will have to decide whether it is still a member of Pakatan Rakyat or not.
Hmm…I wonder what the Muslim MPs from PKR and Barisan Nasional are going to do. Would they help save Pakatan Rakyat by blocking the Hudud bill? Most interesting is it not?
