Well, it seems that from what Nasaruddin Tantawi's statement shows, it seems there are some within not just PAS but other parties in the Alternative front that is not in league with what was agreed upon in 2008 just before the general elections. Two weeks before the general election was held on 8 March, 23 February that is to be exact, all the main non-BN parties have stated their agreement on the People's Declaration.
In fact, this declaration has been mentioned several times back by a few people including RPK himself. PAS endorsed it already one week earlier on 16 February (see Malaysia Today archive here). Just to refresh ourselves that PAS has agreed to that, the party representative who was there on that day was Dr. Siti Mariah Mahmud (MP of Kota Raja) that declared in front of the crowd that gathered at the SABM house back then that they have accepted the People's Declaration.
And just to prove that I affirm what was written previously by Pete in "We need political reforms, not just electoral reforms," here's a picture of the each of the representatives declaring their affirmation on that day. Figures who said so were Chegubard, Ronnie Liu, Wee Choo Keong and even PSM's Arul was there then.
From what I read back on the People's Declaration, there is no explicit mention of implementing an Islamic state nor implementing hudud laws. This can never happen unless PAS decides to contest 148 seats in the Parliament, which many quarters do not think that PAS can do it on their own might.
Surely everyone knows about the two Nasaruddins and how they are in favor of the so called Project Unity with their arch-rivals UMNO. Nuff said.
It's actually fine to let the people decide on whether to use which set of law. It's as identical to the Australia's 1999 referendum where 55% still favor the country to remain under Britain's crown. In my opinion, having two sets of laws will tend to confuse people, with a few instances of a case involving a non-Muslim in particular. This has created confusion and the longer judicial process since there will be a stage where there is a need to determine which set of law to be used.
Ok, maybe PAS says agree to disagree in reaction to the situation above, but having a min-level goal is a satisfactory level for every party involved.
Actually, the right addin - way of life - which matches the proper ideals of not just the Islam religion but other religions, minus those tedious and complicated things that "you must do this and that" is actually sufficient enough and of course you have already have achieved the basic goal of what PAS and other parties would want.
The one that is closest to the situation of secular / hudud law is Kemal Ataturk's implementation of Turkey. It fascinates me that he had a clear firm hand that religion should be kept out of every day administration, even though he himself is a Muslim. To his mind, there is a certain believe that the Ottoman law and sex segregation prevented social interaction between men and women - required to further advance the country.
Reference: Kemal Ataturk's Modernization Efforts (1926-1930)
Surely everyone knows about the two Nasaruddins and how they are in favor of the so called Project Unity with their arch-rivals UMNO. Nuff said.
It's actually fine to let the people decide on whether to use which set of law. It's as identical to the Australia's 1999 referendum where 55% still favor the country to remain under Britain's crown. In my opinion, having two sets of laws will tend to confuse people, with a few instances of a case involving a non-Muslim in particular. This has created confusion and the longer judicial process since there will be a stage where there is a need to determine which set of law to be used.
Ok, maybe PAS says agree to disagree in reaction to the situation above, but having a min-level goal is a satisfactory level for every party involved.
Actually, the right addin - way of life - which matches the proper ideals of not just the Islam religion but other religions, minus those tedious and complicated things that "you must do this and that" is actually sufficient enough and of course you have already have achieved the basic goal of what PAS and other parties would want.
The one that is closest to the situation of secular / hudud law is Kemal Ataturk's implementation of Turkey. It fascinates me that he had a clear firm hand that religion should be kept out of every day administration, even though he himself is a Muslim. To his mind, there is a certain believe that the Ottoman law and sex segregation prevented social interaction between men and women - required to further advance the country.
Reference: Kemal Ataturk's Modernization Efforts (1926-1930)
Back to the current situation - , national level hudud is not likely to happen in years to come. It is best to have it separated out to be dealt with just religious matters. The argument are that many people are simply not ready to accept another alternative set of law from what was already established in the Constitution, in addition to that being the supreme law of the nation. It's true that there are systems in the country that will need to be radically changed to suit the present time, as it does not work anymore.
May I remind PAS to not to get off balance with what they have affirmed 4 years ago?
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are welcome to post in any comments that do not trouble readers of the blog.
Providing an ID is recommended. If some reason you wish to use an Anonymous name, please leave a name below your comments. From now on, comments with no names will not be considered for moderation.