MCA secretary-general Chong Sin Woon and MCA Youth deputy chief Mike Chong issued a lengthy response to my statement, but both failed to answer one simple question.
Does MCA support or oppose PAS’s declared objective of using federal power to end all licensed gambling nationwide?
Instead of answering, MCA accused me of stirring up the issue, brought up DAP’s past cooperation with PAS and explained that federal policies must be decided collectively by the Cabinet. None of these arguments states whether MCA supports or opposes the proposal.
I have never claimed that PAS’s proposal is federal government policy today. It is obviously not current government policy because PAS is not presently part of the Federal Government. It is unfortunate that MCA either failed to comprehend this simple distinction or deliberately pretended not to understand it in order to avoid answering my question.
PAS itself said that it needs to capture Putrajaya with the support of its allies before it can change federal laws, policies and gambling licence approvals. That is precisely why MCA must answer now.
Nor Hamzah did not merely express a private religious opinion. He spoke in his official capacity as the information chief of PAS’s Central Ulama Council and urged Muslim voters to support PAS and its allies for the stated political objective of capturing Putrajaya and ending gambling nationwide.
This was not simply a statement that Islam prohibits gambling. It was an electoral appeal for federal power to implement a nationwide policy affecting the entire country, including non-Muslims.
If MCA genuinely believes that this is merely the personal view of one PAS leader, MCA should ask PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang and the PAS central leadership to state publicly that they reject the proposal. MCA has not done so.
Chong Sin Woon said that government policies require collective Cabinet approval. Everyone understands how Cabinet government works. However, the Cabinet does not appear by itself. It is formed by political parties that win seats, negotiate agreements and decide which policies will be implemented.
Since MCA says the decision must be made collectively, MCA must tell Malaysians what position it will bring to that collective discussion. MCA cannot use Cabinet collective responsibility as an excuse to avoid stating its own position.
Once a policy is adopted by the Cabinet, all ministers are bound by collective responsibility. MCA ministers would then have to support the policy publicly or resign. MCA must therefore state whether opposition to a nationwide gambling ban will be a written and non-negotiable condition of any future electoral pact or government involving PAS.
MCA’s refusal to answer is especially serious because its recent electoral success has depended heavily on Malay votes, including support transferred from PAS supporters. In the recent Johor state election, MCA doubled its representation to eight seats with the help of votes from PAS supporters.
MCA now wants non-Muslims to believe that it can restrain PAS after an election. However, MCA is already too afraid to state whether it opposes PAS before the next election. If MCA cannot answer a simple question while it is seeking the support of non-Muslim voters, how can non-Muslims trust MCA to stand up against PAS after MCA has secured their votes and entered government?
A political party that depends on PAS supporters to win seats will naturally be reluctant to confront PAS. MCA’s evasive response has exposed this political weakness. MCA wants PAS supporters to vote for its candidates, but it does not want non-Muslim voters to understand the policies that PAS intends to pursue through federal power.
Mike Chong asked why I directed this question specifically at MCA and MIC. The answer is simple. MCA and MIC claim to represent the interests of Chinese, Indian and other non-Muslim Malaysians within BN. Both parties could also provide PAS with the seats, votes and political legitimacy needed to form a future BN-PN government.
If MCA and MIC want to benefit from PAS support during elections, they cannot distance themselves from PAS’s policies after the election. They must tell voters before polling day which PAS policies they will support, which policies they will oppose and which issues constitute a firm red line.
I therefore repeat the questions that MCA has failed to answer. Does MCA support or oppose PAS’s objective of ending all licensed gambling nationwide? Will MCA make its opposition a non-negotiable condition of any electoral cooperation or government involving PAS? If a future Cabinet adopts the policy, will MCA ministers support it or resign?
These are straightforward questions requiring straightforward answers. MCA’s continuing refusal to answer shows that it is more concerned about preserving PAS support than standing up for the non-Muslims it claims to represent.