PAS president Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang has now said openly what MCA and MIC have tried to hide from non-Muslim voters.
Speaking on 21 August, Hadi said PAS’s political cooperation with any party was subject to a strict condition, its partner must not oppose PAS policies. He claimed that PAS’s cooperation with DAP ended after DAP opposed PAS on issues including RUU355.
Whatever one thinks of Hadi’s version of history, his present political message is unmistakable. PAS expects its political partners not to resist its policies.
Two days earlier, Hadi’s full Minda Presiden article, titled “Negara Islam dan Hubungannya dengan Bukan Islam”, explicitly contrasted MCA and MIC with DAP. He presented MCA and MIC positively while attacking DAP for opposing PAS’s agenda on qisas, hudud, takzir and RUU355.
When these two statements are read together, an unavoidable question arises. Does PAS regard MCA and MIC as acceptable partners precisely because Hadi expects them not to resist PAS policies?
MCA leaders have repeatedly attacked DAP for previously cooperating with PAS. Hadi’s own admission now demolishes their argument.
Pakatan Rakyat was established on a Common Policy Framework based on consensus and mutual trust. DAP respected PAS’s right to advocate its beliefs, while PAS acknowledged DAP’s right to advocate a parliamentary constitutional state. However, neither party was entitled to impose its own ideology unilaterally as coalition policy.
When PAS pursued hudud legislation and Hadi’s related private member’s bill outside the agreed framework, DAP stood firm. When the PAS Muktamar resolved to sever ties with DAP, DAP accepted the end of Pakatan Rakyat rather than surrender the Federal Constitution, the civil legal framework, freedom of religion and the rights of all Malaysians.
Put simply, DAP was prepared to lose a political alliance rather than surrender its principles. MCA and MIC are now moving in the opposite direction.
MCA president Datuk Seri Wee Ka Siong defended the BN-PN electoral cooperation in Negeri Sembilan as a strategic arrangement to avoid divided votes. MIC president Tan Sri S. A. Vigneswaran has also openly said that working with PAS would benefit MIC.
Both parties want PAS votes and the political power that comes with those votes. At the same time, they tell non-Muslim voters that MCA and MIC will serve as a check and balance against PAS.
A party cannot claim to be a check on PAS when PAS’s own condition is that its partners must not oppose PAS policies. Wee Ka Siong and Vigneswaran must now answer whether MCA and MIC reject Hadi’s condition.
Will MCA and MIC oppose PAS’s declared objective of using federal power to end licensed gambling nationwide? Will they oppose attempts to expand Syariah criminal jurisdiction beyond constitutional limits or any PAS policy that encroaches on the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims?
Will they do so even if opposing PAS means ending their political cooperation, losing PAS votes and giving up government positions? Will they make these commitments written, public and non-negotiable before the next election?
If Hadi is wrong to portray MCA and MIC as parties that will accept PAS’s political terms, then Wee and Vigneswaran must correct him immediately. They must state clearly that MCA and MIC will never accept any condition preventing them from opposing PAS policies.
They cannot hide behind the excuse that MCA and MIC are not presently in the Cabinet or that these proposals are not current federal government policy. The issue is what MCA and MIC will do if their cooperation helps PAS enter Putrajaya. Hadi is stating PAS’s terms before that government is formed.
The historical record is clear. DAP’s cooperation with PAS ended because DAP refused to submit to PAS’s unilateral policies. That is evidence of principle.
Unless MCA and MIC reject Hadi’s condition clearly and unconditionally, non-Muslim voters are entitled to conclude that both parties are prepared to trade their principles for PAS votes, political positions and power.
MCA and MIC must answer with a simple yes or no. Will they oppose PAS when constitutional rights are at stake, even if it means ending their cooperation with PAS?