Country vs State

It is interesting to read the debates taking place at Bob, Rajan and Shin, with Menj joining in to add more heat. When Bob asked the question “NEP for whom?” another blogger replied by saying that PAS would probably introduce an “Islamic Economic Policy” if they were to win. This sparked a debate that became more wide-ranging, eventually ending up with a competition of who hates PAS the most. Shin was rather childish in her comments on the topic – constantly using the acronym PIS when referring to PAS. Her comment “we cannot blame the PIS members you see, because had they been able to think, they wouldn’t have been in PIS in the first place” is condescending. Denigrating the syariah, too, is not a way forward. She should realize that there are many people out there who are progressive but still believe in syariah. As a Muslim, it is my democratic right to want the syariah, and if we were to work together, appreciation of others is a must. In any case, the problem in debates like this is the fact that no one is willing to critically look at themselves and ask if it is themselves who are actually the problem. How will it be possible for Keadilan, PAS, DAP and other opposition parties to unite if their members are constantly bickering against each other? As a PAS member, I should be asking myself, what should I do to make PAS more accommodative to others in opposition. I expect those from Keadilan and DAP to do the same. Surely that is much better than a Keadilan member denigrating DAP, a PAS member slandering Keadilan, or a DAP member belittling PAS. How much longer are we going to point fingers at others, forgetting that it is us that may be the problem? I would argue that everybody has to change their attitude if they want to form a strong coalition – and a coalition is a must if we were to defeat BN, itself a coalition of many parties. PAS must change its attitude and realize that it is no longer enough to just initiate a relationship. They must work to maintain and strengthen that relationship too. While working in a coalition, PAS cannot unilaterally produce policy statements if they know others will not agree. Publication of the Islamic State document was a mistake and steps must be taken to mend the damage. DAP should realize that the majority of the Malays still see it as a chauvinistic Chinese party. And, just like PAS should be careful when using the term Islamic when labelling its policies, DAP too should think twice about using the word “socialist”. Despite my commitment to PAS, I also believe DAP has proposed some excellent policies. I have no problems with elements of socialism, Malaysian Malaysia, etc. But the vast majority of Malaysians have a negative impression of these various concepts. Just like PAS, DAP too must tread carefully. Keadilan is a relatively new party that relies almost absolutely on DSAI. Until today it has not been able to categorically state what it stands for. Imagine if DSAI were to die tomorrow. Both PAS and DAP will definitely survive death of a major leader (or leaders) because they both have a strong enough ideological base. But will Keadilan survive? If we were to take things a bit further, imagine if both DSAI and Wan Azizah were to die tomorrow. Can you imagine what would happen to Keadilan? Who will take over the presidency? Unfortunately many still see Keadilan as an “Anwar’s party” rather than a force by itself. We as members must remember that the leaders of our parties have a duty to represent our views. If we continue with the negative views of each other, we cannot blame party leaders if they merely reflect the situation on the groud. After all, each party has a specific audience to entertain and to keep happy. If we in the audience continue to foster negativities, we cannot blame party leaders if efforts to strenghen the BA falter. It is not totally their fault. We have to look at ourselves too. Once the opposition parties, especially Keadilan, are able to properly articulate their main principles, it is important for them to sit down and thrash things out. We cannot expect things to be resolved within one or two years. In the mean time, we as politically conscious citizens should work to reduce the tension, not add to it. We have to ensure we do not create issues that may divide BA further. Not so long ago, there were talks about enhancing federalism in Malaysia. This is one viable option for BA. The states should be allowed to legislate according to the wishes of its own citizens. BA components should then produce one national manifesto plus more specific state manifestos. Prior to that, there must be a comprehensive study on what the people really want. If it can be statistically proven that the majority of people on a particular state do not want syariah, then the state manifesto should clearly state that BA will not force the syariah upon the people. But if support for syariah can be proven, then BA component parties should work together to give the people what they want. At the national level, I don’ think it is prudent to campaign for a national implementation of syariah. I suppose the term Islamic State (Negeri Islam) is the right phrase to use. Not Negara Islam (Islamic Country).