‘Stand’ does not translate to ‘Principles’

Hence, you may have a certain stand. But, as I said, that is merely where you start. The issue would be: where are you going with all this? Which direction are you moving? Are you moving towards a Secular State? Are you moving towards a more liberal and civil society? Or are you moving towards a Theocratic State where certain liberties are going to be denied, gay rights as one example?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tuanku RPK,

Yes, you're right!! Nobody will win to debate you about almost everything. If one says "stand" is for "principal", you say about "stand still" - no moving!! And then, if one says, direction is for herd to see the shepherd, you say about the nature of true leaders fall on "where direction"!

Tom (Ervin Karasu)

**************************************************

Above was a comment posted in my article yesterday titled It’s not about your stand but which direction you are moving.

I think Tom meant ‘principle’, as in ‘pendirian’, and not ‘principal’, as in… (what is Bahasa Malaysia for ‘principal’ anyway?). Anyway, as for what Tom meant by this comment, I am not too sure. I can only guess he meant that ‘stand’ translates to ‘principles’. And that is what I would like to address today.

First of all, stand means position. You take a position, which means you take a stand (left, right, centre, etc., if we talk about politics). Principle, however, would be your moral compass. For example is it your principle (is it morally right to you) to ally yourself (stand) with the US (take the US position) if the US declares war on Islam under the disguise of war on terror?

You can have a stand but not have principles. And you can have principles but not have a stand. It does not always mean that you have both a stand as well as principles. Hence stand and principles do not come as a package deal -- you can take a stand not based on principles. One can exist without the other. And let me give you some examples.

Malaysia’s stand is we have military cooperation with the United States. That has been openly stated and is no secret. Malaysia allows the US to fly over Malaysian airspace. Malaysia also allows the US to train its troops in the art of jungle warfare in the Malaysian jungles. Plus Malaysia conducts joint military exercises with the US.

If you read the leaked US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur reports to Washington published by Wikileaks, you can see that Malaysia is pro-US and one of the factors that necessitate this stand is the emerging influence of China in South East Asia. Both Malaysia and the US fear that China may one day become a superpower in the region. Secondly, both Malaysia and the US fear that one day war may break out in the region due to the overlapping claims by various countries on the islands in the South China Sea.

Hence Malaysia and the US cooperate militarily to check China’s influence plus to keep the fear of God in countries that may resort to armed conflict to resolve the tug-of-war over the resource-rich islands in the South China Sea.

That is a very clear stand that Malaysia has taken. The principle here is fear of China and fear of war over the islands in the South China Sea.

However, in the Middle East, Malaysia does not share the US’s stand, especially with regards to Iraq, Iran and Israel. You can say that in the Middle East, unlike in South East Asia, Malaysia takes the opposite stand to the US.

On point of principle, this can be viewed as unprincipled. Because of religion, in this case Islam, Malaysia opposes US policy in the Middle East. However, because of money, the oil-rich islands in the South China Sea, Malaysia is a military ally of the US.

Malaysia is very clear about its stand in the Middle East and South East Asia. And it has opposite stands when it comes to the Middle East and South East Asia. But what is the principle behind these two very opposed stands? One principle is Islam and the other is the Ringgit.

Now, let us say that China relinquishes all claims to the islands in the South China Sea. Let us say, also, that China issues a statement saying that it supports Malaysia’s claim to those islands in the South China Sea and will defend Malaysia’s claim by military force if necessary.

Is there any longer any need for Malaysia to have a military pact with the US? No doubt China is an emerging economic plus military power in the region. However, China is slowly overtaking the US as the largest investor in Malaysia while, because of the economic recession, many US companies are pulling out of Malaysia. Furthermore, China is overtaking the US as a military power and China has not only backed off from claiming the islands in the South China Sea but has promised to militarily back Malaysia’s claim as well.

Certainly Malaysia’s new stand would be to terminate any military alliance with the US and instead enter into a military alliance with China. That would be Malaysia’s stand. But what principle is Malaysia applying to justify this stand? Of course, it would be based on the principle of money -- although, if based on Islam, like in the Middle East, Malaysia would oppose what China is doing in its autonomous region, which is Muslim.

Would this principle not be unprincipled? The US is a democracy (at least in principle although not necessarily in practice). China is Communist (at least in principle although in practice it is probably now the largest capitalist state in the world). So what stand should Malaysia take if based on principle? Ally with democracy or ally with communism?

Hence, you may have a stand and you may have certain principles. But it does not mean that both are compatible. You may take a political stand. But your stand may not be based on certain principles. Your stand may actually run contra to your principles.

Your stand may be to support Pakatan Rakyat. But your stand, based on principles, may also be to oppose an Islamic State (you support a Secular State). And your stand, also based on principles, may be to support gay rights (you believe in civil liberties).

Based on principles, these three stands are not compatible. So how do you reconcile your stand of supporting Pakatan Rakyat when based on your principles Pakatan Rakyat runs contra to what you believe in?

Ah, but then you may apply the ‘principle’ of anything but Umno or ABU. Hence this ‘principle’ overrides all other principles. Hence, also, although Pakatan Rakyat (or at least some people in Pakatan Rakyat) support an Islamic State and some people in Pakatan Rakyat oppose gay rights, you apply a third principle, and that is ABU.

So, your stand is to support Pakatan Rakyat on the principle of anything but Umno although this undermines your other principles of being anti-Islamic State and pro-gay rights. Is this a principled stand or is it merely political expediency where the ends justify the means?

Hence, you may have a certain stand. But, as I said, that is merely where you start. The issue would be: where are you going with all this? Which direction are you moving? Are you moving towards a Secular State? Are you moving towards a more liberal and civil society? Or are you moving towards a Theocratic State where certain liberties are going to be denied, gay rights as one example?

I am not concerned about where you stand. I want to know which direction you are moving. It is where we are heading that is crucial. And are we heading in the right direction with the stand that we are taking? That is where the future lies.