The statement by Zaid Ibrahim recently that the DAP must categorically defend secular policies to stem the rise of radicalism in the country and that he wanted to contribute in making the party “progressive and reformist” and one that would defend a secular government and rule fairly and justly based on constitutional law (‘DAP must categorically defend secular policies, says Zaid’, FMT, 30.5.2017) merits a response as the same may erroneously imply that the DAP has not been steadfast in its commitment towards a secular Malaysia all these years.
There can be no doubt that the DAP has upheld the principle of secularism in this country since its inception and jealously protected the interpretation of the Federal Constitution in this regard by a 5-man bench of the Supreme Court way back in 1988 in the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor which, in no uncertain terms, declared Malaysia a secular state.
Che Omar bin Che Soh was presided by none other than Lord President Tun Salleh Abas, a PAS member and formerly an executive councillor in the PAS-led Terengganu government and Jertih assemblyman (1999 – 2004).
In his judgment, Salleh Abas said,
“We have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in the country is still what it is today, secular law … Until the law and the system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.”
In the circumstances, it is clear that Malaysia is a secular state and the DAP has always been steadfast in its defence even when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad wrongly declared Malaysia an Islamic state in 2002.
In fact, Mahathir’s said stance was hardly met with any resistance from Barisan Nasional component parties such as the MCA or Gerakan but the record will show the DAP’s clear objection of the same through, amongst others, the late Karpal Singh who had all along maintained that the Federal Constitution provided for a secular state and the Reid Commission, which included Islamic jurists, had carefully provided for this position when presenting the Federal Constitution to the country on Merdeka day.
The DAP welcomes people like Zaid to join in its efforts in defending Malaysia’s secularism and Constitution but it cannot be said that this is something new in its struggles. As such, it is wrong to suggest that the DAP is not on a “progressive and reformist” path as this has always been its aim i.e. the reform of the current system of governance to combat corruption, cronyism etc.
Defending secularism as a pillar of the Federal Constitution is just one of the aims of the DAP which has been its priority regardless of the rise of radicalism in this country which Zaid alluded to. In other words, it matters not if there is a rise in radicalism or not as secularism ought to be protected in any event in line with the Federal Constitution.
The recent statement by Gombak PAS chief Salehhuddin Nasir, describing his disgust at seeing DAP leaders breaking fast with Muslims is certainly uncalled for and indicative of a growing intolerance of secularism in this country. Perhaps it would be wise for Salehhuddin to reflect on the numerous occasions when both PAS and DAP leaders used to break fast during their days in Pakatan Rakyat. Salehhuddin never objected or expressed his so-called ‘disgust’ then. I wonder what has suddenly triggered such disgust now.
Perhaps more importantly, it would be necessary for people like Salehhuddin to be schooled by senior PAS members such as Salleh Abas on the nature of secularism in this country. That way, he might be persuaded to be more tolerant in his views which can only be to his benefit.