The following were my comments in the discussion column, in response to RPKs comments. For "perspective", I've also included parts of the article and the relevant comments. The last comment was however censored, and I really don't know if I mentioned anything "offensive" - pls enlighten me if you could .... so here goes excerpts from RPK's article .....
"We were blessed with good news last week when it was announced that the opposition had already come to an agreement on the seat allocations for Penang Island. We were told that PAS, DAP and PKR had agreed on how to carve up the state. And in the event that the opposition does win enough seats in Penang to form a state government, then DAP would be given the post of Chief Minister."
"Has an agreement been reached for these states as well?"
"Before this question could be answered, DAP surfaced to officially declare that the party does not have any electoral pact with PAS. Why the need to deny that an agreement has been reached for Penang? Okay, maybe Gerakan had 'revealed' that a secret pact between PAS and DAP exists. But the voters were elated. They were happy that an electoral pact, secret or otherwise, had been made. The voters expressed no problems with the announcement that DAP has 'gone to bed' with PAS. But DAP appears to see this as a problem and has publicly denied it."
"So what is DAP's game plan? Is DAP committed to the opposition cause or is it but a mere Trojan Horse? It boggles the mind that we, those who are not in the front-line of politics, can see the need for racial unity while the DAP leaders have this impression that all it needs is Chinese support and the Malays can go to hell."
Let's go the the comments ....
written by Raja Petra, January 17, 2008 | 17:42:57
Dear hiro, Malays, including PAS members/leaders, are prepared to work with DAP in spite of DAP's 'NO TO 929' campaign. This is the anti-Islamic State campaign (929 means September 29, the date Mahathir announced that Malaysia is already an Islamic State). The Malay voters do not boycott PAS and PAS does not demand that DAP first of all drop the 'NO TO 929' campaign before it will cooperate with DAP. Heck, the PAS-PKR Malays even carry the yellow balloons with 'NO TO 929' written all over it (see the photos in the freeanwar.com website). DAP, however, said it will not even sit at the same table with PAS unless PAS first of all drops the Islamic State issue. PAS has never raised the Islamic State issue in more than 4 years but that is still not good enough for DAP. And DAP has always upheld the 'Malaysian Malaysia' slogan and calls for an end to Malay rights and special privileges and the PAS-PKR Malays still wear DAP T-shirts and help carry DAP flags and yellow balloons. We love DAP in spite of its opposition to the Islamic State and Malay rights and special privileges. Why can't DAP love us in return with no conditions attached.
...written by Raja Petra, January 17, 2008 | 17:48:04
Dear Jefus, the 'horse trading' should be about NO THREE-CORNER FIGHTS. And this must be agreed BEFORE the election and not after. If the opposition can win in spite of three- or four-corner fights, then why the need to horse trade later? We agree to be able to win. If we can win without agreeing then no need to agree.
............
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 19:40:53
We love DAP in spite of its opposition to the Islamic State and Malay rights and special privileges. Why can't DAP love us in return with no conditions attached.
=====================
Pete,
You are being a tad unfair here aren't you?
Let's just say I had an "opponent". He promotes me when it suits him, but has made a public declaration that he wishes to kill me, although I haven't done the same.
I'd love my opponent too, if he could put me in power ..... forget the placards and balloons - I'd even publicly carry him!!
But would I want to declare my "love" in public, if he's promised publicly, to kill my constitutional way of life, just to "kill" a common "enemy" who does recognize my lifestyle?
What credibility would I have, should I do it?
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 19:47:05
BTW, I think DAP needs to wean themselves off the anti-NEP rhetoric, and come up with an alternative affirmative economic plan that is acceptable to all.
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 20:48:20
teo siew chin wrote:
>Wouldn't the ones in the opposition who strongly object to PAS be suspected to be the Trojan Arses?]]
You said it, Teo. As I said before, first party to say bad things about their fellow opposition gets the brickbat. No exceptions here.
LChuah
===================
Chuah - I'm disappointed with your comment!
It isn't about "talking bad things" - it is about using the system to subvert our secular constitution!!
Would you wanna publicly declare your love for somebody who promises to subvert what you stand for, and praises you for "opportunity" and convenience?
...
written by cabearth, January 17, 2008 | 21:07:45
DonplayGod writes:
"Those are not the main worries, man. The main worries are: the womenfold have to cover up from head to toe(in this hot weather?), women are not allowed to go out alone, unless escorted by some relative, and if PAS practises Taliban Islam, women are not allowed to go to school or even go to work, non-Islamic religions are banned, as in Taliban Afghanistan, and even in Saudi Arabia etc. etc. etc."
People like DontplayGod are gullible to western propaganda.
In the first place, what people hear abt the Taleban is nothing more than propaganda spread by western media in order to justify the inhuman bombing of innocent Afghan and to allow Dick Chenney's oil pipeline project crossing Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The currrent Hamid Karzai is a US puppet and used to serve under Dick Chenney as an employee.
Taleban is viewed as anti women largely due to their verbal confrontation they once had with Feminists activists in New York. In the forum the feminist leaders were embarrassed and thus launched a massive lie campaign against the Taleban.
In short, many Malaysian were duped into rejecting the Taleban when what the Taleban had done in Afghanistan not only helped the people of Afghan but also the entire world.
Example? They managed to reduce world's supply of heroin by 95% during their reign.
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 21:16:15
Taleban is viewed as anti women largely due to their verbal confrontation they once had with Feminists activists in New York. In the forum the feminist leaders were embarrassed and thus launched a massive lie campaign against the Taleban.
==============
RC,
Could you pls enlighten us as to how Taliban managed to embarrass the feminists?
BTW - you don't intend to promote Talibanisation of Malaysia, do you?
You don't propose hudud,
and an Islamic State governed by the syaria,
abolishing our secular constitution,
and emasculation of the women's rights movements,
do you?
...
written by cabearth, January 17, 2008 | 21:22:41
cruzeiro writes:
"
RC,
Could you pls enlighten us as to how Taliban managed to embarrass the feminists?
BTW - you don't intend to promote Talibanisation of Malaysia, do you?
You don't propose hudud,
and an Islamic State governed by the syaria,
abolishing our secular constitution,
and emasculation of the women's rights movements,
do you?"
Dear Cruzeiro,
Have u actually met any Taleban to confirm your "Talebanization" theory?
What is Talebanization? Can u define it properly?
Also, i thought Syariah is part of Islam. If anyone rejects Syariah, he or she is rejecting ISlam?
Are u anti Islam too?
...
written by cabearth, January 17, 2008 | 21:25:39
dontplaygod writes:
"Hey dude, don't be too fast to reply, before you understand fully what I have written. I said, when the Muslim Malay populaltion is more than 80%(85%?....), don't you think then that PAS, and even UMNO can contest on their own without bothering about the other races? Your dream Islamic state can then be a reality!! Get it. And what is there to stop PAS and UMNO Muslim Malays from uniting for a common cause, i.e. to turn Malaysia into a full-fledged Islamic state?"
What's wrong with u Dontplaygod?
If the 80-85% wishes to have Islamic law in this land, will you deny their democratic rights to have one?
What you're saying it's OK to practice democracy as long as it adheres to secular principles. In other words, Muslims must adotp secularism while abandoning their faith and beliefs?
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 22:09:50
Dear RC,
I'm against anything that intends to subvert the secular constitution by abusing the very spirit that it stands for - I call those who intend to do that Cheats and liars.
If Islam as you define it falls under that category, you are free to draw your conclusion about my stand.
Now, you don't propose and Islamic state, do you?
Please answer questions, instead of dishing out questions, RC.
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 22:17:30
BTW, by "talibanisation", I meant the idea that women are denied equal rights and education, beheadings or firing squads for "perceived adultery", tribal laws, rape victims being persecuted, chopping of limbs and what not - mind you - these things, most if not all are quite true about the Taliban rule.
I however, do not propose that these actions are all condoned by Islam unconditionally.
(On democracy - remember that it may be the rule of the majority, but it's true test is in it's protection of minority rights)
...
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 22:20:13
Let us go back to the days of Tunku - tolerant, respectful and understanding. The concept of one's race being more superior is already gone. We are all Malaysians esp those born after 31 Aug 1957.
============
Yes - Tunku and also Hussein Onn were against the concept of an Islamic State!!
...
written by cabearth, January 17, 2008 | 22:34:53
cruzeiro says:
"Dear RC,
I'm against anything that intends to subvert the secular constitution by abusing the very spirit that it stands for - I call those who intend to do that Cheats and liars. If Islam as you define it falls under that category, you are free to draw your conclusion about my stand.
Now, you don't propose and Islamic state, do you?
Please answer questions, instead of dishing out questions, RC."
So to you, secularism is higher then democracy? Plus, no where in the MAlaysian constitution that states clearly of the secularist nature of our Constitution.
Not a single unequivocal provision anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, it's like i asked, if 80-85% of the people of this country wishes to replace the estadblish an Islamic state, will u deny their democratic rights?
Again, i'm beggining to see your double standard. You don't stand for democracy, yous tand for secularism and u want secularism to be shove down every single Muslim's throat if u have your way.
Plus, Islam has existed in multi culture and religous soceity for a long time. Islam pioneered such concept long before secularism.
Why rely on secularism so much, Cruzeiro?
Your double standard is as clear as Angelina Jolie's pimple
...
written by cabearth, January 17, 2008 | 22:38:03
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 22:17:30
BTW, by "talibanisation", I meant the idea that women are denied equal rights and education, beheadings or firing squads for "perceived adultery", tribal laws, rape victims being persecuted, chopping of limbs and what not - mind you - these things, most if not all are quite true about the Taliban rule. "
Cruzeiro,
You're as confused as Richard Nixon's US Medical reform program.
You don't even know the difference between Islam, Taliban, tribal courts and rules and not to mention lies and untruth promoted by western medias against the Taliban.
You need to go back and reexamine the facts before coming out with crappy statements like the above.
In short, you don't even know:
a. What Talibanization means?
b. Have they really existed before or not?
TQ
ps Islamic syariah is not only practiced in Afghanistan. It's also practiced in Saudi, Sudan, Pakistan, IRan, Acheh and many more places in the world not touched by Taleban.
...
written by cabearth, January 17, 2008 | 22:42:25
written by cruzeiro, January 17, 2008 | 22:20:13
Let us go back to the days of Tunku - tolerant, respectful and understanding. The concept of one's race being more superior is already gone. We are all Malaysians esp those born after 31 Aug 1957.
============
Yes - Tunku and also Hussein Onn were against the concept of an Islamic State!!
Yes, let's go back to the Tunuku and TUn Hussein Onn and support their "Ketuanan Melayu" concept which was started by Tunku and continued by TUn Hussein.
I read a Tunku's interview 2 years before he died, in which he declared his utmost support for Islamic State.
...
written by renoir, January 18, 2008 | 00:14:28
cruzeiro wrote:
>Chuah - I'm disappointed with your comment!
It isn't about "talking bad things" - it is about using the system to subvert our secular constitution!! Would you wanna publicly declare your love for somebody who promises to subvert what you stand for, and praises you for "opportunity" and convenience?]]
Cruz, my fellow Christian: Churchill once said that when you're young and not a liberal, you've no heart. But when you're old and not a conservative, you've no brain. What he meant was that, ultimately, we gotta do what's possible, not fantasize what's impossible. Reality says that the Opposition will not win the next GE. They'd be very lucky to even deny BN a two-thirds majority. Thus the possibility of PAS establishing an Islamic State is as likely as DAP setting up a democratic socialist state - somewere between zero and subzero. So why make a fuss about the kind of government the other might establish when neither has the ability? Isn't that nothing more than grandstanding, not to say a form of currying favor with BN?
I'm not asking anyone to publicly declare his love for anyone else - unless the object is Keira Knightley - rather, what I'm suggesting is that no opposition party should publicly attack a fellow opposition party , even by inference, as there's much more to criticize the government that has brought our country to such a sorry mess. Just point out, should anyone suggest that DAP is having a pact with PAS, that the accuser must insane to suggest that such a charge could hide 50 years of misrule. PAS should answer in somewhat the same manner, should the establishment attack it for having a pact with the secular DAP - just mention that a just, non-Islamic party is much more favored in the eyes of the Prophet than a party that makes a mockery of Islam.
LChuah
...
written by cabearth, January 18, 2008 | 01:36:09
The way i see it heres the thing
a. First, everyone is afraid of the so-call PAS'es "islamic state". Yet no one knows exactly how the Islamic state looks like.
b. Or PAS actually intends to implement the Islamic state immediately after they get into power
c. and PAS did say that islamic state will not be IMPOSED and only can be implemented with the consent of the people
d. The way i see it, PAS will subject the decision for Islamic State to a referendum in which a 75% approval rating will be required
e. And, what abt the fact that Malaysia is already an Islamic state announced by BN? How come the Chinese and Indian still votes for BN in large numbers despite Malaysia already taken the Islamic state identity?
f. As for Syariah laws as promoted by PAS, i fail to see why non muslims are concerned about it because non muslims is not subjected to the law altogether. Remember the Quran says "No Compulsion in religion".
g. As for issues related to religous identity of a deceased non-muslim but claimed to be a muslim by religous authority, i propose the setting up of a special tribunal consisting of members from Mahkamah Syariah and those of the civil court to determine the status of Islam of the deceased. That way both side can settle the issue equivocaly.
...
written by teo siew chin, January 18, 2008 | 09:06:16
hahahahahaha Renoir, u r funny man! "...not fantasize what's impossible..." - totally agree with you on that. I'd say you guys should reserve your fantasies for say...Keira Knightley - that bag of bones? nah, bad taste! go for more meat!!
Cruzeiro need to log on to more porn-sites (RPK can help with that?
) just so to work out that angst hehehehe.=====================
(The following got "censored" automatically for some reason - maybe too long a reply)
LChuah,
I'm not asking anyone to publicly declare his love for anyone else - unless the object is Keira Knightley
=========
First and foremost, let me apologize for my ignorance - I'll google Keira Knightly after this (TSC - she's a pornstar, huh?)
In my statement earlier, the reason I mentioned it was becos RPK asked "why don't they love us" (with reference to the public denial by DAP) without really dissecting the issue.
But I do get your point. Yours too TSC!
Now RC,
Pls find it in your heart to forgive me, my ignorance about "taliban's true progressive nature" - I wasn't talking about them per se. I was referring to the popular idea/concept about the Taliban/ Saudi (Wahabbi/ Salafi) "brand" of Islam, reinforced with the declarations.
I'm well aware about the fact that "Islamic syariah is not only practiced in Afghanistan. It's also practiced in Saudi, Sudan, Pakistan, IRan, Acheh and many more places" - thank you. I'm impressed with the number of progressive syaria ruled states that you mentioned, and I wouldn't go further on that matter.
"So to you, secularism is higher then democracy? Plus, no where in the MAlaysian constitution that states clearly of the secularist nature of our Constitution. ....
Why rely on secularism so much, Cruzeiro?
Your double standard is as clear as Angelina Jolie's pimple"
Ha ha - you do have a sense of humor!
No lah - I'm not for secularism over democracy. You've misunderstood me. I do recognize the virtues of "Secularism". However, without being rooted in theologically based morality, it is bound to get corrupted - man will be lost Morally.
On the other hand I also recognize the evils that a theocracy can bring about.
While secularism can has the freedom to be "flexible" thus enabling pluralism, a theocracy doesn't - be it Islamic, Hindu or Christian. This is where secularism has an edge over theology, where statecraft is concerned.
To say that I prefer secularism over democracy, in a sense, I confess that you would be correct under certain circumstances - democracy is only a formula by which the people may rule, but it doesn't guarantee justice (just as any other system). A Theocracy on the other other hand, sooner or later, is definite to lead to repression of "infidel" communities.
You wrote, "Yet no one knows exactly how the Islamic state looks like."
Precisely - shouldn't they be articulating their ideas better, considering the fears of other communities? It isn't really sufficient that they say it for mass appeal (of Muslims) and be clueless about it, right?
For further info on my opinions on this matter, you may read what I wrote with regard to the "PAS Dilemma", [url]http://cruzinthots.blogspot.com/2007/12/thots-on-pas-cooperation-and-vote.html[/url] , [url]http://cruzinthots.blogspot.com/2007/11/pas-factor-viable-alternative.html[/url], and [url]http://cruzinthots.blogspot.com/2007/11/class-politics-other-option.html[/url]
Please be sure that these aren't hard and fast opinions - they are debatable.
Thanks.
==============================
For those who may wonder as to who RC is, it is just referring to cabearth.
Anyway, RC (nor RPK) never gave me a straight answer to any of my questions, about the dilemma that PAS has created for DAP, to appease the Muslims.
What I question here is,
"Who now is the 'Trojan Horse' that RPK wishes to highlight?
Who is being divisive by not articulating a concept that they hope to sell to the voters?"
Is it DAP who makes a constitutional stand against the NEP without articulating the alternative?
Or is it PAS who declared the desire to create an Islamic state, (which could possibly mean the rewriting of the Constitution) using the "secular spirit" and processes enshrined in the Constitution- the ideas which also haven't quite been articulated to reassure the non Muslims?
I leave it to the reader to decide, and possibly "reassure/ enlighten" me with regard to the matter at hand.
