On 8th February 2009, Karpal Singh whacked Anwar Ibrahim and said that he was an immoral and treacherous person and was not fit to be Pakatan Rakyat’s leader. Karpal added that Anwar has done enough damage to the country and that the opposition needed another leader.
Karpal also said that DAP should leave Pakatan Rakyat. He also whacked other leaders in PKR and DAP, mentioning Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng by name, and accused them of siding with Anwar instead of with him (Karpal).
In October 2010, when Anwar, Tian Chua and Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim of DAP visited London, I whacked Anwar Ibrahim for not honouring the agreement the opposition made regarding The People’s Declaration that they signed in February 2008. No one seems to remember Karpal whacking Anwar and the other leaders in PKR and DAP in February 2009. However, everyone remembers me doing the same almost two years later in October 2010. Strange is it not?
I admit that I have a soft spot for Karpal, just like I have a soft spot for Saifuddin Abdullah from Umno. And the reason I have a soft spot for these two leaders — one from DAP and the other from Umno — is because they are not scared of whacking their own party when their own parties deserve whacking. Sometimes we need to whack our own party when they get out of line.
I have always said from way before the historic 2008 general election that the Hudud matter cannot be ignored. Anwar Ibrahim and other Pakatan Rakyat leaders have always sung the tune of ‘we agree to disagree’. In other words, we need not come to any consensus on the Hudud issue. We just need to agree that we will never agree on the matter.
This is not the way to resolve disagreements. Disagreements need to be resolved in a more permanent manner. Agreeing to disagree only means we will not fight about the matter now but will fight over it later. And that ‘later’ has already come. The Hudud matter has, yet again, surfaced to haunt Pakatan Rakyat.
And now it is worse. In the past, the argument was between a few leaders in DAP and a few leaders in PAS. Today, even PKR and Umno have joined the quarrel. PKR and Umno, too, now support PAS in its effort to implement the Islamic criminal laws of Hudud in some of the predominantly Muslim states in Malaysia.
And this was one of my criticisms against Anwar in 2010. I highlighted all the issues facing the opposition and the so-called consensus was one of those issues. Anwar would like us to believe that Pakatan Rakyat rules by consensus. And where there is no consensus then they come to a consensus by agreeing to disagree. This is utter nonsense and I said so four years ago.
Coming to a consensus by agreeing to disagree is not a consensus. It is just postponing a fight to another more convenient time. And that ‘convenient’ time seems to be now. So now they will need to agree one way or another or else Pakatan Rakyat would need to be disbanded with one half supporting Hudud and the other half opposing it.
Some leaders in PAS are not too happy with my stand on religion. Some even accuse me of being an apostate. Others wonder why I have changed my stand since 2008. Actually, my stand today is no different from my stand in 2000. Back in 2000, I was already very vocal about some of the policies of Barisan Alternatif before it became Pakatan Rakyat. It is just that many of you did not know me back in 2000. You only knew me in 2008 so you gauge what I say based on 2008 and not based on 2000.
Even back in 2000 I wrote that PAS has to decide whether it wants to be a dakwah or missionary movement or a political party. It is trying to be both and it cannot be both because both are not compatible. Politics is about winning elections and about forming governments. Missionary movements are about spreading Islam and about getting non-Muslims to convert to Islam. How can you do both under one umbrella? One would cancel the other.
The PAS people interpreted my stand as me being anti-Islam. The DAP people interpreted my stand as me being anti-opposition. And the PKR people interpreted my stand as me being anti-Anwar. If I oppose the death sentence would you interpret that as me being anti-justice or pro-murder? Can I instead be accused of being pro-Judaism since the Law of Moses says thou shall not kill (and there was no qualification to that Commandment: however thou can kill if it is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life)?
I also wrote many times that one day the Hudud issue is going to resurface and do not be surprised if this time Umno and the Malays in PKR support the issue. Then the non-Malay parties in Barisan Nasional will take the opposite stand. What we will see in the end is the Malays on one side and the non-Malays on the other and this time they would be divided not along party lines but along racial/religious lines.
Yes, that was what I said might happen some time in the future. I suspect that that time may have already come. The ‘future’ is here. So, would I be wrong by saying, “I told you so”? Once the genie is out of the bottle it would be very difficult to contain the situation. Once out you can never get it back in. And the genie may already be out of the bottle regarding the Hudud matter.
I think I will just sit back and enjoy the show. It is so satisfying to be proven right. With Umno, PAS and the Malays in PKR united in support of Hudud, and DAP, the non-Malays in PKR, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, etc., united against Hudud, Malaysian politics is about to enter a new era that will bring the country back to 1969 politics.
Well done Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat. You are exactly where I said you would be if you take my criticism as destructive rather than constructive. And what was it the Pakatan Rakyat supporters kept telling me? Ah, that’s right, vote Pakatan Rakyat into office first and later we can settle all our differences and address the weaknesses.
Now can you see why I said we need to settle these issues first before they take office and not later after they take office because these very issues will be the hindrance to them taking office?
JowY 发表于 23-4-2014 09:27 AM
换个角度看，其实是回教比较有原则，并且没有那么虚伪
但，一体两面，极度有原则的人也往往极端，极度坦 ...
对我而言，原则在侵犯他人基本人权时就不值得尊重了。
有原则是好的，基督教那些原教旨的要有原则也是可以，只是若要将自己那一套强加他人就不好了。人的想法会进步，很多东西都会因为时代的变迁而变得不合时宜。如果坚持原则，可以啊，但要keep it to yourself，侵犯他人基本权益就和让人无法苟同了。毕竟这世界不是只属于一个宗教的。我的神未必是你的神，你的神也未必是我的神。强加他人的霸道行径已经不合乎这时代了。
RPK说得对，如果真要有原则，我们这些异教徒可能都要处死。 本帖最后由 tanxinrong 于 23-4-2014 09:47 AM 编辑
本周最热论坛帖子
发表于 22-4-2014 01:16 PM
楼主
3489 
112
