PAS: Court not the place to settle Hadi-DAP spat

 

There is no reason for PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang to turn to the courts to prove his allegation that DAP threatens Malay and Islamic interests, said PAS information chief Ahmad Fadhli Shaari.

“Democracy does not require every dispute to be taken to court… some are best resolved through open debate based on documents, records, policies, and substantive responses from the parties in question.

“In this instance, the challenge of 'sue if it is true' does not put an end to the debate; instead, it merely diverts attention from the core issue that remains under contention,” he said on Facebook.

Fadhli said courts were meant to determine matters based on legal provisions, rather than serve as a “public tribunal” to determine if a political party’s ideology was friendly or hostile towards a particular religion or community.

He was responding to Amanah Women chief Aiman Athirah Sabu, who challenged Hadi to take the matter to court.

The deputy housing and local government minister said allegations of such gravity should be tested through legal channels rather than repeatedly made in political rhetoric.

Amanah leader Aiman Athirah Sabu

“Do not merely repeat cheap, allegation-based rhetoric in speeches, religious lectures, media statements or political writings that inflame the emotions of supporters,” she said.

Hadi’s statement drew brickbats from multiple quarters, but Fadhli questioned whether the same standards were being consistently applied to other political parties.

He pointed out that Amanah leaders had previously labelled PAS as conservative and hardline while DAP leaders had compared PAS with the Taliban to portray what they considered to be an overly extreme political approach.

Fadhli said such descriptions had not been brought to court to be proven, but had instead been used as political arguments in the democratic arena.

“If others are allowed to assess PAS based on statements by its leaders, the party’s positions, record of actions and ideological tendencies without first obtaining a court judgment, then the same principle should apply to DAP.

“Otherwise, a situation will arise revealing the existence of two different standards - one for PAS and another for DAP,” he added.

PAS info chief Ahamd Fadhli Shaari

Fadhli also claimed that Aiman’s decision to respond on behalf of DAP reinforced the perception that Amanah leaders were more inclined to defend DAP’s interests than provide an objective explanation.

‘Anti-Islam’ DAP nothing new

Doubling down on Hadi’s statement, Fadhli said concerns over DAP’s stance on Islam were not a recent development.

Among the examples he cited was a 2015 Aidiladha sermon by Pahang religious authorities alleging that DAP was openly opposed to Islam.

ADS

He also referred to past statements by several DAP leaders as examples of what he described as the party’s controversial positions on Islamic issues.

He also referred to an Institute Darul Ehsan 2015 survey which found that 64 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that DAP was anti-Malay and anti-Islam, while 72 percent viewed DAP as a party that better protected Chinese interests.

However, the report attributed the negative perceptions partly to demonisation by PAS and Umno, while negative sentiments towards DAP were lower in constituencies represented by its elected representatives.

Restoring secular Constitution goal

Separately, Fadhli pointed to Article II of the DAP constitution, which lists among its objectives the restoration of the Federal Constitution to its original secular framework.

Fadhli said DAP’s constitution did not explicitly mention Islam’s position as the official religion or the special position of Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, while instead referring to restoring the Constitution to its original secular framework.

“The question is, what is meant by that secular framework, and how is it interpreted in the context of Islam’s position as the religion of the federation?” he asked.

This further raised questions about whether DAP’s constitution and activities complied with the Societies Act 1966, he said, adding that such matters must be assessed according to relevant procedures.

This, he said, also answered Aiman’s question on why PAS did not ban DAP when it was in government from 2020 to 2022.

“A political party within the government does not possess the unilateral authority to ban another party; such power is subject to the law and the jurisdiction of the relevant authorities.

“In reality, those who most vocally insist that allegations be proven in court often hurl various political labels at their opponents without waiting for a court verdict,” he added.  - Mkini