With Umno and PAS breaking up, the time for change has come

By MT Webmaster Last updated Aug 12, 2015

It is good if the new coalition would not leave these issues vague and sidestep them. We need to know what this new coalition stands for and what Malaysians are going to get by supporting it and voting for it in the next general election. We no longer want any surprises. We need to know what we are getting ourselves into to avoid all the issue of the past.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

DAP has announced that a new coalition is about to be launched. Although names like Save Malaysia, Pakatan Rakyat 2.0, Pakatan Rakyat Baru, etc., have been bandied about, the actual name of this new coalition has not been announced yet.

Lim Kit Siang said that the new Islamic party, Gerakan Harapan Baru (GHB), is also in the process of being formed and should be launched in the next few weeks. Invariably this new Islamic party is going to replace PAS in the new opposition coalition.

“This will be another milestone in the political history of Malaysia, for the formation of a new inclusive and open-minded Islamist political party will mark the culmination in the realignment of political forces in the country and the advent of a new political coalition to replace Pakatan Rakyat – whether Pakatan Rakyat Baru, Pakatan Rakyat 2.0 or any other name to be decided – to carry the torch for a Malaysia Baru,” Lim Kit Siang said.

Lim Kit Siang said they were also prepared to work with the Team B in Umno and added, “This is why despite our political differences I am prepared to work with Tun Mahathir and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.”

Umno and PAS have to take serious note of this new coalition that is going to include the disgruntled group from both parties. They should not too hastily brush it off as a non-starter because they will be doing so at their own peril. Those Umno and PAS people who are going to form new parties that will become members of this new coalition, on the other hand, must be prepared to adjust themselves to a major paradigm shift of mindset for it to work.

So both sides need to take stock and accept the reality that time for change has come, from all sides of the political divide.

There are weaknesses in both Barisan Nasional and the recently deceased Pakatan Rakyat. Even hardcore Pakatan Rakyat supporters saw this but tolerated it in the spirit of accepting the lesser of the two evils. That means they saw the ‘evil’ in Pakatan Rakyat but considered it lesser than the evil in Barisan Nasional.

Pakatan Rakyat was also a mismatch of parties that had opposing ideologies. To overcome these differences and give an impression that a bridge had been built to ride over these differences, they espoused the doctrine of ‘agree to disagree’.

Even as far back as 2010 we had warned Pakatan Rakyat that agree to disagree is not a long-term solution. It is only a band-aid to temporarily cover the wound but eventually a permanent solution needs to be sought. If not the wound would fester and gangrene would set in. And once that happens you would suffer from blood poisoning and most likely die.

And that is what happened to Pakatan Rakyat.

Now that PAS has broken up and Pakatan Rakyat has been put to sleep, plus Umno may most likely break up as well and the disgruntled group may cross over, this is the perfect opportunity to start again from scratch and form a new coalition that works minus all the baggage of the old Pakatan Rakyat (and Barisan Alternatif before that).

We must remember that Barisan Alternatif failed. Then when they formed Pakatan Rakyat they did not remove all those obstacles that caused the failure of Barisan Alternatif. So Pakatan Rakyat, just like Barisan Alternatif, failed as well. Hence it would make sense that if the new coalition does not address these issues and still adopts the same doctrine as the earlier two coalitions, both which failed, then this new coalition is going to fail as well.

What was the reason Pakatan Rakyat failed and Barisan Alternatif before that did as well? Well, these are issues that the founding fathers of the new coalition need to address. But the first issue, that seems to be the reason why DAP is most upset with PAS, would be the Islamic laws of Hudud.

Actually, Hudud is just part of the Sharia. So to talk about Hudud we actually need to talk about the Sharia. While there is no problem about the family, marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., laws part of the Sharia, the other laws should be studied and probably removed.

Hudud basically deals with crimes. We already have common laws that deal with robbery, rape, theft, fraud, corruption, murder, assault, and so on. So Malaysia does not need a second set of laws. What Islam (Hudud) declares as a crime is already a crime under common laws. It is only regarding the punishment that Hudud may disagree with common laws.

So the Islamists and the Secularists in the new coalition can sit down and discuss what punishment we should be talking about. What I am saying here is that Hudud and the common laws already agree on what constitutes a crime. They only disagree on the form of punishment. So sit down and agree on the punishment and the common laws can be amended to address the issue of punishment without changing the name of the common law or call it Hudud.

For example, if someone steals a mobile phone from Low Yat Plaza should he or she be jailed for six months or should his hand be amputated? If someone commits murder should he or she be hanged or should he or she be decapitated with a sword in a public square after Friday prayers?

A crime is a crime but how do we punish that criminal? That is what the members of the new opposition coalition can sit down and discuss and once they have come to an agreement announce to the world they have come to an agreement and not that they have agreed to disagree. Then there would no more confusion and grey areas that would put the new coalition at risk of yet another breakup.

Okay, those are regarding crimes that both Hudud and the common laws agree are crimes (robbery, rape, theft, fraud, corruption, murder, assault, etc.). Then there are crimes that Hudud says is a crime but the common laws do not say is a crime.

These would be crimes such as apostasy, gay unions, drinking, gambling, not praying, not attending mosque on Friday, not fasting, eating pork, and so on. For example, anal and/or oral sex is a crime under the common law and you can get jailed up to 20 years if convicted. But in Islam those are not crimes as long as it is between husband and wife. So should the law that makes anal and oral sex a crime be repealed?

Apart from good governance, civil liberties would also be the focus of the new coalition. The new coalition must make clear what it means by civil liberties. At the moment there are many laws that deny Malaysians their civil liberties. And these laws need to be removed.

Freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of information, and more, are definitely going to be part of the new coalition’s struggle. That, in fact, has always been so even for the old coalitions. However, what about the other civil liberties? Is the new coalition going to uphold those as well?

To forbid Muslims from leaving Islam or to forbid Muslims from gambling, drinking, entering into gay unions, engaging in sex outside marriage, and much more are a breach of our civil liberties because then we would be talking about Hudud.

If we are rejecting Hudud then we should not just reject the Hudud punishment for those crimes but what Hudud constitutes as crimes as well. We cannot say we reject Hudud but just reject the punishment under Hudud and still accept the Hudud interpretation of crimes.

The disagreement thus far has been regarding the form of punishment. That is too superficial. We need to agree on what, in the first place, constitutes a crime. And, that, we are not doing. So, with or without Hudud it does not matter if even without Hudud our civil liberties are being denied.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK