The DAP Con-Game

 

Am I the only Malaysian amongst 32 million Malaysians who can catch the flaw in DAP’s cock-and-bull story? DAP’s story is extremely flawed and riddled with discrepancies. What DAP is saying is the opposite of what happened. And still they can spin this lie and get away with it.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In 1990, DAP refused to join Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah (APU) because PAS was also in it. So Ku Li had to form a separate coalition with DAP (called Gagasan Rakyat) and they faced the 1990 general election with three opposition coalitions (Semangat 46-PAS in the East Coast, Semangat 46-DAP in the West Coast, and Semangat 46-PBS in Sabah).

In 1999, PAS, PKR and PRM formed an opposition coalition called Barisan Alternatif (BA). Not wanting to be left out, DAP agreed to join BA — but only if PAS would publicly announce that they would not introduce the Hudud Islamic laws if BA won the general election and formed the federal government.

PAS agreed, and they placed a full-page colour advertisement in The Star, as what DAP wanted. DAP then campaigned in the November 1999 general election telling the Chinese that PAS does not intend to implement Islamic laws and/or subject non-Muslims to Islamic laws.

However, the Chinese voters were not convinced — and Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh both lost their seats as punishment for joining BA in an alliance with PAS. Two years later, DAP left BA on the excuse that PAS is a radical and extremist Islamic party.

DAP returned to the opposition coalition, then called Pakatan Rakyat, on 1st April 2008, which included PKR, DAP and PAS (which was basically Barisan Alternatif 2.0).

They were forced to change the name of the opposition coalition from Barisan Alternatif to Pakatan Rakyat or else DAP would have problems explaining why it left the opposition coalition in November 2001 and then re-joins it six-and-a-half years later in April 2008).

Hence they pretended that this was not the same old BA but a totally new coalition (even though it was still the same three parties — PKR, DAP and PAS).

Each time DAP joins or re-joins the opposition coalition, they explain that PAS is a liberal and moderate Islamic party. And each time DAP leaves the opposition coalition, the excuse they give is that PAS is a radical and extremist Islamic party.

But then PAS, which was formed in 1951, has not changed over the last 71 years since it has been in existence. So, in what way was PAS liberal and moderate in 1999 and 2008, and then radical and extreme in 1990, 2001 and 2015?

The excuse DAP gives is that PAS under the late Nik Aziz Nik Mat was liberal and moderate while PAS now under Abdul Hadi Awang is radical and extreme.

That is a lie, of course. PAS was never under Nik Aziz. Only Kelantan was under Nik Aziz. Pas was under Ustaz Fadzil Muhammad Noor from 1989 (and DAP refused to join Ku Li’s APU coalition with PAS in 1990) till 2002, after which Hadi Awang took over (till today).

When DAP left BA in 2001, Ustaz Fadzil was still the PAS President. Hadi took over only in 2002 AFTER DAP had left BA on the excuse that PAS is radical and extremist.

DAP’s story does not make sense. DAP says Ustaz Fadzil and Nik Aziz (now both dead) were liberal and moderate while Hadi Awang is radical and extreme. But DAP refused to join Ku Li’s coalition in 1990 when Ustaz Fadzil was the PAS President. DAP left the BA coalition in 2001, also when Ustaz Fadzil was the PAS President. And DAP joined Pakatan Rakyat in 2008 when Hadi Awang was the PAS President.

DAP closed down Pakatan Rakyat and formed Pakatan Harapan in 2015 so that they could kick PAS out — on the excuse that Hadi is pushing for RUU355. However, RUU355 was initiated by Nik Aziz in 1993 when he was the Kelantan Menteri Besar and when Ustaz Fadzil was the party President. Hadi Awang had nothing to do with RUU355. It was Nik Aziz and Ustaz Fadzil (both who DAP praises and calls liberal and moderate).

Something is extremely wrong with DAP’s story. But then the non-Muslims (and many Muslims as well) seem to buy this very disjointed version of events. Nik Aziz and Ustaz Fadzil are the goodies while Hadi Awang is the baddie, says DAP. But the timeline of events cannot reconcile the story that DAP is spinning.

And am I the only Malaysian amongst 32 million Malaysians who can catch the flaw in DAP’s cock-and-bull story? DAP’s story is extremely flawed and riddled with discrepancies. What DAP is saying is the opposite of what happened. And still they can spin this lie and get away with it.