OCT 6 — Students, place your writing instruments on the table, write neatly your name on the top right corner, and begin. You have an hour:
Nik Aziz is inseparable from his Islamic beliefs, and Lim Guan Eng is not going to become a Muslim anytime soon.
There is a country, and the only people in a position to form a government outside Barisan Nasional (BN) have a large gaping ideological divide.
There are general elections every four years or so, and in first-past-the-post parliamentary system, voters will cast a single vote each to decide their support on 100 different issues bundled together with the hudud (Islamic criminal law/prescriptions).
PAS and DAP — two-thirds of the opposition coalition — cannot form government without a complete unified position.
Form a solution for Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
Any graduate student asked to form an essay for their comprehensive examinations will spend more time staring at the paper, rather than pen an answer. It is a monster question, and in political terms a constant slippery slope. In terms of graduate study, something you skip.
So, with that in mind, the column will address how any fair examination of the situation can proceed with PR in mind.
Already the validity of hudud, and the strengths of a secular government are postulated often enough, and these will not be rebutted or embellished here.
However they will be kept in plain sight, while the political question which is a different solar system altogether is approached.
Theirs, as much as ours
The false couching of the challenge is that it is a PR problem alone. It is not.
BN has exactly the same conundrum. It too cannot formulate a clear position on the matter. Hudud is a Malaysian challenge, not just Umno's or PAS's, and their respective partners'.
The matter really rises on PAS's outwardly theological credentials. Irrespective of all moves to moderate the party internally to a welfare state platform, the party's name keeps it psychologically two steps ahead of Umno in its overt commitment to Islam.
So to the Malaysian electorate generally, hudud has more meaning to PAS than Umno.
The increased Islamisation by Umno and constant encroachments into the country's secular Constitution are often overlooked.
Which is fine. Even if PAS is more worrying than Umno when it comes to hudud, the voter cannot abrogate Umno's own stake in hudud.
Leading the talking, not deciding
Second, the level of maturity in Malaysian politics has been tightly regulated by Umno over half a century.
The politicians are a reflection of the people in it. Since citizens are actively shunted from being political, political space constantly wedged, the level of political discourse therefore becomes limited. (In my days in UKM, the national university, only political science students with written permission from their lecturers can access the "contentious" books inside the restricted section. Stuff like Jean-Jacque Rosseau's "The Social Contract".
Malaysians have been artificially forced to not have a political opinion. And since their leaders are surprise, surprise, Malaysians too, they too develop myopia.
Which is why both sides of the divide, BN and PR, line up the same people to talk about all the issues facing all Malaysians. The usual suspects are probably a group of 50 politicians in total from both BN and PR.
Even both coalitions don't trust the vast majority of their legislators and party leaders to champion specific issues, small or big.
During the Perak Assembly bust-up, assemblymen from both sides were in pitched battle in their official wear, but after the dust settled the more "refined" leaders were seen to talk about all things Perak.
Which means, the larger community of politicians itself is struggling to have a quality discussion over the place of religion in politics, because of the elite nature of Malaysian politics today. Most of us are too.
For Malaysia to move forward on the contentious issues, not only hudud, more of us have to be co-opted into the politics that affect us all.
A Malaysian voter must decide if the quality of the discourse, hudud in this case, will improve under a BN government.
The country is at step four of a mile trek into a multi-layered issue. Will this government provide the platform for this multicultural society to democratically resolve the place for religion in criminal prosecution? Or will it politicise the matter to keep its own power-grip?
There has been peace in Northern Ireland, the type generations have not known. Yet a vote to decide whether those in Ulster want to stay in Britain or join Ireland is delayed even though there are centuries of opinions on the matter, mostly drenched in blood.
Because the issue is more than just being Protestant or Irish or European. Which is why real leadership helps the population address the issue over time. Debate, discussion, reflection and time.
Because big questions are not just sorted by a show of hands at an emotionally charged moment.
A nation of issues, mind the plural
As much as religion holds great sway in the hearts and mind of most Malaysians, it is not the only issue Malaysians grapple with daily.
There are not millions of Malaysians right now, young and old, graduates and high school dropouts, Michael Learns To Rock fans or not, who are grimacing at a wall at home or office trying to reconcile their religion with a secular state.
They probably worry at times about lunch, paying the phone bill, checking out the latest prices in Econsave supermarket, planning their New Year and avoiding traffic during peak hours.
Or the rising national debt, defence spending, policies to increase white-collar employment and public education.
As much as abortion divides the United States, more practical concerns override voting patterns.
The Republican party does not deride some of its more overzealous Christian foot-soldiers, but that does not mean a gay person voting Republican think his vote will mean the end of his civil liberties.
Neither the converse, that a gay person might vote for the Democrats because they are more inclined to inclusion. That gay person might be personally inclined to a party that cuts federal taxation and increases defence spending.
And being gay is not the only thing about a person.
And in the same not, being Muslim is not the only thing about a Muslim.
PR has to be respectful to all voters' views, for they are the views of Malaysians, and the Malaysian must be respected by all political parties at all times.
The parties are different today than they were in 1990 when religion always broke up non-BN coalitions. The voters are different than those in 1990. Just as it is noted that less than three per cent of those who voted in the first general election in 1955 are still in the electoral roll, it might be instructive to know how many per cent of those voting today were not voters in 1990.
Electoral truths
PR may not have to come up with a solution. No one expects political parties to resolve the question of the afterlife, or possible life in Mars.
And parties need not pretend to have the solution.
They are separate parties because their ideologies are divergent. They have to argue why it is worth keeping together.
They might want to reiterate, that the reason BN keeps banging away at their differences is because the parties in PR have the right to act and speak of their differences.
Can the same be said about Umno's partners in BN?
But more importantly PR has to assert that its model is not a BN model. That whether it is in opposition or in government, the same process of consensus will prevail.
That is really what the Malaysian voter needs to decide, irrespective of whether they are for hudud or not. They have to decide if the political process in PR is right or wrong, for the individual voter.
That will decide the future of hudud and 99 other key issues affecting the future of Malaysia under a PR government.
* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.