Kepelbagaian Parti Politik di Malaysia: Pemecah atau Pemersatu Rakyat?

Sebuah kajian telah dijalankan oleh Pusat Merdeka (Merdeka Center) mengenai nilai-nilai Politik rakyat Malaysia bermula Januari hingga April 2010. Kajian tersebut memberi fokus kepada perpaduan negara. Daripada sepuluh pendapat yang tertinggi, 13 peratus daripada 3141 atau 408.3 responden berpendapat ketidakstabilan politik iaitu pertelingkahan antara ahli politik dan parti-parti politik yang menyebabkan perpecahan antara rakyat dalam sesebuah negara.

Oleh kerana Malaysia dianggap dunia sebagai unik kerana berjaya hidup bersama dalam kepelbagaian budaya, agama dan bangsa lebih dari 50 tahun selepas mencapai kemerdekaan, tetapi ia bukanlah satu tugas yang mudah. Beberapa insiden berdarah melibatkan pertelingkahan antara kaum pernah mewarnai sejarah Negara kita. Semua masyarakat tanpa mengenal perbezaan perlu mengambil iktibar dan perhatian daripada kejadian-kejadian sebegini supaya peristiwa pergolakan kaum tidak berulang lagi.

Paling traumatik adalah peristiwa 13 Mei 1969. Rentetan dari kejadian itu, Kerajaan telah melaksanakan usaha-usaha intensif demi pengukuhan perpaduan masyarakat berbilang kaum seperti perlaksanaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB), menubuhkan Majlis Gerakan Negara (Mageran) yang bertanggungjawab memperkenalkan Rukun Negara dan Jabatan Perpaduan. Mageran ini telah dibubarkan pada tahun 1971 dan ditubuhkan pula Majlis Keselamatan Negara (MKN) pada tahun yang sama. Kini, MKN bertanggungjawab memastikan keselamatan Negara dari pelbagai ancaman luar pada masa kini dan mendatang seperti ancaman hak asasi manusia, pemanasan global, ancaman ekonomi dan jenayah rentas sempadan. Usaha ini dibuat sebagai salah-satu usaha memperkemas wawasan wewujudkan Negara bangsa Malaysia.

Selain itu, pucuk pemerintahan Kerajaan Perikatan di bawah kepimpinan Tun Abdul Razak, Perdana Menteri kedua negara selepas insiden 13 Mei telah memperkasa kerjasama politik antara kepelbagaian kaum yang ada dengan menubuhkan Barisan Nasional (BN). Antara parti komponennya adalah Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu (UMNO), Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), Parti Progresif Rakyat (PPP), Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (GERAKAN), Parti Rakyat Bersatu Sarawak (SUPP), Parti Pesaka Bumiputera dan United Sabah National Organization (USNO). BN merupakan inisiatif YAB Tun Abdul Razak bagi mengurangkan permainan politik dan politik perkauman agar segala usaha dan tenaga digembeling ke arah perpaduan dan pembangunan nasional. (Fadilah Zaini & Kassim Tukiman, 2009: 136). Kerjasama ini merupakan langkah bijak kepimpinan dahulu untuk meperkukuhkan perpaduan Negara-bangsa.

Dalam masa yang sama, kita tidak menafikan kewujudan parti-parti pembangkang sebagai penting dalam sesebuah negara berdemokrasi. Kini, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) secara rasmi telah ditubuhkan pada 1 April 2008 yang diterajui oleh Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), Parti Tindakan Rakyat (DAP) bagi memainkan peranan menyemak dan menyeimbang (check and balance) kepada Kerajaan sedia ada. Peranan lain adalah untuk menjadi parti alternatif kepada rakyat untuk menyatakan kehendak mereka jika kerajaan sedia ada tidak dapat memenuhi suara hati rakyat terutama dalam aspek kebajikan.

Kepelbagaian parti politik dengan masing-masing mempunyai aspirasi perjuangan tersendiri sering mengundang pertelingkahan sehingga menggugat keharmonian dan perpaduan antara rakyat. Sikap terlalu taksub kepada satu-satu parti politik menyebabkan politik Malaysia sering diwarnai dengan insiden-insiden tidak matang. Politik lucah, politik tuduh-menuduh, fitnah-menfitnah, sabotaj dan pelbagai lagi acap kali menghiasi dada-dada media massa dan elektronik. Rakyat di hujani dengan politik perkauman melampau yang lama-kelamaan menghancur-leburkan solidariti bangsa Malaysia.

Kepelbagaian ini dapat disatukan jika semua menjunjung tassawur politik berkonsepkan demokrasi yang telah dipersetujui. Malah yang terpenting sekali adalah kefahaman setiap pemimpin parti politik dan penyokongnya kepada kedaulatan Perlembagaan yang merupakan panduan hidup bernegara. Dasawarsa ini, kerap kedengaran sesetengah pemimpin parti politik begitu lantang mempersoalkan peruntukan-peruntukan khas dalam Perlembagaan terutama yang melibatkan agama Islam, bahasa kebangsaan dan peruntukan khas orang Melayu masing-masing tercatat dalam Artikel 3, 152 dan 153.

Penyokong sesebuah parti disogok untuk membenci secara keterlaluan perbezaan ideologi politik sehingga pernah berlaku perkahwinan terhalang, perkahwinan bercerai-berai hanya disebabkan perbezaan parti politik. Apatah lagi bila kita berbicara tentang masyarakat. Boleh jadi masyarakat berpecah-belah kerana sikap ultra-taksub kepartian yang pada diri setiap individu. Kata-kata kesat keterlaluan dihambur bagi menyatakan kebencian kepada pemimpin dan penyokong parti-parti lain sehingga menggadai nilai sopan dan santun masyarakat timur.

Semua individu bergelar rakyat Malaysia wajib menjaga dan mengekalkan perpaduan yang dikecapi. Kita tidak boleh meletakkan beban menjaga perpaduan ini di atas bahu sesuatu pihak sahaja. Semua individu berkepentingan dalam memberikan sepenuh komitmen untuk menjaga dan mengekalkan perpaduan nasional. Ia juga tidak bersifat musim-musiman iaitu hanya mempromosikan perpaduan bilamana ada perayaan dan keraian. Perpaduan adalah tanggungjawab bersama warganegara Malaysia.

Kemerdekaan adalah suatu nikmat setelah 446 tahun dijajah oleh beberapa kuasa kolonial dunia. Namun nikmat yang teragung adalah mengekalkan ketahanan, keharmonian dan perpaduan nasional. Justeru, nilai toleransi, kerjasama, hormat-menghormati dan sayang-menyayangi penting dalam memudahkan proses menjayakan penubuhan Negara-bangsa Malaysia. Perbezaan idelogi politik kepartian tidak harus menjadi racun yang membunuh solidariti rakyat yang telahpun wujud.

Nota Mimosa:

Sayangi negara, perpaduan dijaga, negara-bangsa dicipta...

RESEARCH PAPER ON DEMOCRACY IN MALAYSIA

Abstract

There are ongoing debates about the political system in Malaysia. Is Malaysia truly democratic country or not? Therefore, this paper is prepared to examine the Malaysian political system whether it is truly democratic country or not. Many people consider Malaysia is democratic country as we have held elections regularly and peaceably since independence in 1957. However, debates take place as findings show that Malaysian political system is not truly democratic country. The approach employed in this paper is based on books, academic writings and analytical examination of relevant laws and current scenarios. Thus, throughout the research, we found that principles of democracy have been restricted, which consequently affect democracy in Malaysian political system. It is recommended that any imposed laws shall not violate the fundamental principles of democracy to maintain socio-political stability in Malaysia.

DEMOCRACY AT A GLANCE

Democracy literally means ruling by the people. For a society to be fully democratic, then, a large number of its people must enjoy the right to have some say over important decisions that affect their lives. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as ‘the government of the people, by the people and for the people’. It also can be defined as the government by the majority with the consent of minority (Abdul Rashid Moten & Syed Serajul Islam, 2005). In the context of Malaysia, ordinary public citizens view Malaysia’s political system as democratic. However, the current events such as Bersih demonstration, Hindraf Demonstration and Anti ISA mass demonstration for the past few years have tarnished the image of Malaysia as a truly democratic state. All the demonstrations are ultimate reflections of the violation of democracy principles by the ruling power in the aspects of the freedom speech, expression, and association as well as free and fair elections. People began to question, is Malaysia is a truly democratic state or not? Therefore, I would like to argue that Malaysia is not the truly democratic state as it contradicts the major aspects of democracy; it restricts the freedom of speech and expression, it restricts the freedom of assembly and association and it restricts the freedom of free and fair election.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION???

First of all, Malaysia is not a truly democratic country because there are various restrictions of the freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of speech and expression is clearly stated in the Constitution of Malaysia. Article 10 (1) states that,

(a) Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression.

However, there are many restrictions against freedom of speech and expression, which are usually in the form of various Acts. Prof. Abdul Aziz Bari (2008) explains this in his famous book, Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction by saying the rights under article 10 are only available to citizens and that the rights have been put under some limitations. He further says that the Parliaments also have the basis to pass various laws whose overall implication is to limit democracy in the country. For example some politicians and civil society who are standing against the government would be trapped into The Internal Security Act (ISA 1960), the Official Secret Act and the Police Act 1962. Not only that, the right of students to participate in politics are also have been taken away after the University and University College Act (UUCA) was introduced in the early 1980’s.

Needless to say, freedom of press also falls under article 10 although it is not mentioned. Similar to earlier cases, there are also various laws, which are denying the right to have press freedom. They are Sedition Act 1948, Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 as well as Broadcasting Act 1988. These laws may be used against journalists who are working for a newspaper. The government has the power to close down a newspaper or even magazines such as TAMADUN (opposition front’s magazine that is no longer exist), if the contents and issues are threatening the comfortable power of the ruling government. All these are possible under the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984. The opposition’s newspaper, publication of Harakah and Suara Keadilan had been several times suspended because of they are accused trying to seduce publics to hate the government via their news contents.

The above examples show that Malaysia is not a truly democratic state. Although the basic human rights in terms of freedom of speech and expression are written in the Constitution of Malaysia, yet the government has the power to impose various laws to restrict the individuals’ freedom of speech and expression whose overall implication is to limit democracy in the country. However, such given power to members of parliament (MP) has been blamed for power exploitation. Many imposed laws are clearly against the principle of democracy, which ultimately resulted to the instability to the socio-politics in this country. Thus, it indicates the Malaysia is not a truly democratic country as it restricts the freedom of speech and expression of individuals especially those who stand against the ruling power.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION???

Furthermore, Malaysia is not a truly democratic country because there are various restrictions to the freedom of assembly and association. This kind of freedom is an essential part of the country to be called as truly democratic. The freedom of assembly is the freedom to associate with, or organize any groups, gatherings, clubs, or organizations that one wishes. It is explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is constituted as Part I of the Constitution of Canada of 1982. (Freedom of Assembly, 2002)

Article 10 (1) (b) and (c) in the Malaysian Constitution states that,

(a) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(b) all citizens have the right to form associations.

Although, freedom of assembly and association is preserved in the Constitution, yet there are also many laws are imposed to limit freedom of assembly and association such as the Police Act 1967. It suggests that the power to regulate assembly goes to police whereby this Act gives an edge to the police whether to allow or disband any assembly or the associations to be formed. Example of this, in the case of Cheah Beng Poh (as cited in Abdul Aziz Bari, 2003, p.155) where the group of lawyers had been charged under the Police Act 1967, the court held that any public meeting, even if it is spontaneous, is unlawful if it takes place without police permit. Abdul Aziz, (2003) further mentions that the case clearly appears to contradict with the art. 10 (b) which states that all citizens have the right to assemble in peace and without arms.

With regard to the right to form an association, there is a conflict between art. 10 (1) and the registrar’s power. For the people to form an association, the first thing they need to deal with is the registrar, whether the Registrar of Society (ROS) or Registrar of Youth (ROY) to ensure their association is legally functioning. Abdul Aziz (2003) mentions that laws regulating societies in Malaysia is under the wide control of the government-the ministry and the registrar- whether to approve or to reject registration of association as well as ways to control the finance, administration and function of the associations.

It is also worth to mention that the fact remains that such power are open to abuse. Based on the writing of Abdul Aziz (2003), these tendencies are to be found in statutes like Societies Act 1966, Trade Unions Act 1959, and Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, which all have restrictions to freedom of association and assembly where ultimately overall implication of such laws is to limit democracy in the country

Broadly speaking, freedom of assembly and association are among essential key rights in democratic countries, as they allow public citizens to form or join any political party, special interest group, or union, without any government restrictions. Thus, any laws imposed by the respective government should be in tune with art. 10 of the Malaysia’s Constitution unless there is clear and concrete evidences that any assembly and association would potentially threaten the national security. Additionally, the laws should also equally be imposed to everybody regardless their political thoughts, tendencies and others. Nevertheless, the issue now is, only those who stand against the ruling power would be brought to court or even throwing them into ISA without court hearing. Thus, this scenario has been claimed as another justification that Malaysia is not a truly democratic country.

MALAYSIA IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY...

However, although many people look Malaysia as not a truly democratic country because of various restrictive laws, which limit the freedom of speech and expression as well as the freedom of assembly and association, yet some people argue on opposing opinions that all those laws are vital to maintain country’s stability. They further argue that this country is democratic because we do have regular elections that conducted peaceably since independence. Tunku Mohar (2008) says that as a state that determined to be a democracy since its independence, Malaysia places great value on elections. The election is vital for the people to select their potential representatives to make laws and to form a government on their behalf. That is the essence principle of the democracy- the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Furthermore, Malaysian political system allows for direct representation of the people at the highest level of government. Whenever elections are held the members of the Government or the whole Government may be brought down. Obviously, this is the most important feature of a democracy (Mahathir, 1995). Moreover, we will agreed to say that since the first election after independence in 1959, Malaysia has never fail to hold elections within the given time-frame which approximately once in four to five years.

Additionally, Malaysia is composed of various ethnics where the majority is Malay and Muslims (50% +++), and large Chinese, Indian and tribal minorities. This demographic background of Malaysia is open to conflicts and continual political tension.

Nonetheless, Malaysia practice shared-power politics and merge into the National Front (BN) to alleviate ethnic conflicts. This alliance has dominated Malaysian politics since independence, but it has not led to a one-party system. (Vanhanen T., 2008, p.44-45). This suggests that other opposition parties still can contest in general and by-pass elections. Mahathir speech notes that,

“The government of the country is elected by the people in fair elections.

Presently an attempt is being made to topple the government through street

demonstrations and other undemocratic ways. How can the media support such attempt and at the same time talk about democracy? Support the opponents of the government by all means but the media must not advocate an undemocratic overthrow of governments. I don’t know about other countries but in Malaysia the oppositions can win elections and go to form governments.”

(The Power of the Press, p.25)

Besides, people are free to participate in any political party they wish to and vote for them. Thus, there is no room for an argument to say that Malaysia is not a democratic. Briefly, for many people this is enough to suggest that Malaysia is a truly democratic state.

FREEDOM OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTION???

In contrary, third reason why Malaysia is not a truly democratic country is, there are restrictions on the freedom of free and fair elections. We may recall back why BERSIH demonstration in the middle of 2007 has occurred. The key answer is the mass demonstration has demanded free and fair election. The event has put question mark on the reliability of the electoral process on the people’s mind. Not only that, there were many demonstrations like Reformation in early 1990’s, continuous cry from public for ISA Abolishment, PPSMI and many more have tarnished the image of Malaysian as truly democratic country.

Some people argue that elections are the key indicator to justify Malaysia is practicing democracy. However, we would argue such naive argument by raising several controversial issues related to the Election Commission (EC). The EC although an independence body, yet they have been seen in favor of the Government solely, thus people start to question their integrity and accountability. The most controversy of the EC is their special power to delaminate the constituencies. The delimitation process is the process of reviewing and recommendation of the constituencies (as cited from Tunku Mohar, 2008). To illustrate, in 1957 election, we have only 55 seats and previous 2008 election, we have 222 constituencies in the Parliament. Some studies have suggested that the delimitation exercise have always benefited to the ruling party. This is where the principle of “rural weightage” is significant in that it ensures a “Malay domination” since Malays dominate in the rural areas (Tunku Mohar, 2008 & El-Fatih, 2008).

Another factor that worsens the integrity of electoral process is related to fairness of elections, and the opposition parties are also has been given little opportunity to adequate campaign due to prime media control by the Government, money and other campaign machineries. Callahan, (2000) observes,

“Since the media is very closely to the government, it is difficult to get opposition views across the press. It is also difficult to spread the campaign message through more traditional methods: state officials tend to use regulations to selectively harass opposition parties...If opposition members complain publicly about such harassment, they risk the arbitrary wrath of the Internal Security Act (ISA)…which can hold people indefinitely without charge.”

Consequently, the elections were held without free and fair competition, thus gave an edge to the Government to win comfortably with two-third majority almost the national elections since the independence. Sometimes, the government adopts some measures that thwart the ability of the opposition to compete on equal footing with the ruling coalition. This would include threats of suspending allocation of federal funds beyond the constitutionally mandated minimum to states controlled by the opposition (as cited from El-Fatih, 2008, p. 204).

Finally, these facts are provided to refuse the opposite argument, which are claiming that Malaysia is truly democratic state because we have enjoyed regular and free from bloody battle in national elections. However, we reject such naïve argument as many findings prove otherwise.

CONCLUSION

In a conclusion, after we have thoroughly observed Malaysian political system, we would reconsider again the practice of democracy in this country. Malaysia is not truly democratic state simply because it restricts the very fundamental civil liberties in terms of the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of assembly and association and the freedom of free and fair election. Because of the permanent dominance and over-representation of the National Front, it is justified to say that some degree of authoritarianism is characteristic for Malaysian’s political system (as cited from Vanhanen, 2008, p. 45).

It is recommended that to ensure democracy is well maintained in this country, the parliament should not imposed laws that are clearly contradicted with the heart of this land, which is the Federal Constitution. We realize that all unlikely events took place especially for the past few years that affected the stability of this country is simply because of the power maltreatment by the ruling power. There were many cases resulted from power abuse to restricts principles of democracy in which to shut down the civil liberties that could challenge those in power.

Finally, the faith of Islam itself has based all its laws upon the principle of freedom and has applied it to all aspects of life. This includes political freedom, freedom of thought and civil rights. Thus, any violations of this freedom specifically politics in favor of personal interest is highly rejected without any excuses.

REFERENCES

Abdul Aziz Bari. (2003). Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction. Petaling Jaya: The Other Press Sdn. Bhd.

Abdul Aziz Bari & Farid Sufian Shuaib. (2004). Consitution of Malaysia: Text and Commentary(2^nd ed.). Kuala Lumpur: Prentice Hall.

Callahan. W.A.(2000). Addressing Political Corruption in Southeast Asia. InPollwatching, Elections and Civil Society in Southeast Asia, (pp. 143-159).Hamphire: Ashgate Publishing Company.

El-Fatih A. Abdelsalam. (2008). Human Rights. In Moten. A.Rashid (Ed.), Government and Politics in Malaysia (pp. 191-212). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Ptd. Ltd.

Mahathir Mohamad.(2000). The Power of the Press. In Hashim Makaruddin (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and the New Asia, Vol. 2, 21-28. Subang Jaya: Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Tunku Mohar. (2008). Elections and Electoral System. In Moten. A.Rashid (Ed.), Government and Politics in Malaysia (pp. 161-189). Singapore: CengageLearning Asia Ptd. Ltd.

Vanhanen T. (1998). Prospects for Democracy in Asia. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

AKU DAN PILIHAN RAYA KAMPUS

Alhamdulillah, selesai sudah Pilihan Raya Kampus UIAM semalam. Terma kasih Ya Tuhan kerana telah memberikan aku kekuatan untuk menyempurnakan amanah yang telah tertulis diatas kertas putih.

Bertahun aku terlibat dengan PRK UIAM, bermula dengan menjadi calon sehinggalah menolong orang lain pula menjadi calon. Aku sangat bahagia dan semangat menjalankan tugasku. PRK inilah yang mengajar aku erti penyerahan diri kepada Ar-Rahman, erti susah senang perjuangan, erti pengorbanan, erti kesabaran, erti mencari pengalaman, erti membuat perancangan dan erti mengenali teman.

PRK inilah yang membina diri aku untuk menjadi yang lebih baik. Tidak gentar dengan kekalahan dan tidak takut dengan cakap-cakap orang yang sering ingin menjatuhkan semangat.

PRK inilah tempat aku menilai diri. Yang baik dikekalkan, yang buruk diislahkan. Aku tidak mahu senantiasa selesa dengan apa yang ada. Aku mahu berhadapan dengan masyarakat kampus agar ruang lingkup dakwah lebih meluas.

Aku tidak pernah memandang PRK sebagai semata-mata politik kampus. Aku juga tidak pernah memandang PRK sebagai medan hanya untuk merebut-rebut kerusi dan kemenangan. Aku memandangnya sebagai satu latihan dakwah dan tarbiyyah. Dari situ, aku dapat mengenal pasti kekuatan dan kelemahan yang ada pada perjuangan kita. Jika selesa dengan kelompok sendiri, kita mungkin syok sendiri. Justeru itu harus dielakkan.

PRK inilah tempat aku melalui proses tarbiyyah. Senantiasa meletakkan harapan pada yang ESA. Mengharapkan diri diberikan kekuatan menunaikan amanah. Biar ada yang menentang, aku tidak kisah. yang paling penting, menyempurnakan amanah. Tidak kira apa jua cabaran, apa sahaja kata orang dan kritikan dan apa sahaja kesakitan, biar terpaksa meluahkan rasa hati yang terpaksa mengguriskan perasaan teman seperjuangan, AMANAH TETAP AMANAH & AMANAH HARUS JUGA DISELESAIKAN!!!!

JUTAAN TERIMA KASIH KEPADA SAHABAT SEPERJUANGAN YANG MEMBANTU MELAKSANAKAN AMANAH.

DAN MOHON MAAF KEPADA SEMUA ANDAI AKU TERSILAP BICARA LALU MENGGURIS PERASAAN...

SEMOGA KALIAN DIBERKATI DUNIA AKHIRAT.

TERUSKAN PERJUANGAN, kerana aku...........????

The Colonial Legacy on Islam in South East Asia from Contemporary Perspective

Islam is a way of life regardless in the west, the east, the north and the south of the world. In this writing, I will discuss specifically on Islam in South East Asia after being colonized by the foreign non-Muslim powers like the Dutch, the Spanish and the British. My discussion will focus on aspect of secularism which I believed have deep impact to Islam in South East Asia culturally, socially, politically, economically so on and so forth.

Introduction of secularism by the colonial powers to the countries in South East Asia had directly impact Islam as a way of life. From my understanding, secularism is the separation of religion in any aspect of worldly life. Syed Naquib Al-Attas has discussed about secularism in his famous book entitled ‘Islam and Secularism’. Among the elements in secularism stated in the book is the desacralization of politics. It means that religion and government must be separated. Based on my reading, secularism has no history in Islam. It was indeed evolved gradually in the Christian history especially in Europe back to 15th centuries ago. Secularization then had been broadening up to the Muslims world in the South East Asia from the moment the Western colonizers come in. To illustrate, the Pangkor treaty signed on 29th January 1874 in Malaya has limited the sultan’s power to the religious affairs and local custom solely. All the administrative matters must be consulted with the appointed British Resident. From that moment, religion has no place in politics.

The purpose behind the secularism in political matters is to bureaucratize the government officers to ensure the effectiveness and smoothness of administrative affairs. By implication, qadhi or any religious affairs started to be institutionalized like zakat and this scenario still applicable up to this day. In Malaysia for example, the sultan from each state is the head of religion (Islam) in their own territory. In addition, Malaysia also has Department of Religious Affairs in federal government. The problem now is, those politicians seem to be pious even he is not so can become the head of religion. On the other side, the religious obligation in each individual Muslims has now been institutionalized like pilgrimage, zakat and lots more. To make it worse, there are several types of Muslims which have different interpretation towards Islamic teaching. Therefore, we can see Islam liberal, Muslim secularist, fundamentalist, and many more. In brief, the colonial impact has downgraded Islam as way of life to something personal and has been mixed up with western values as well as ideology.

Furthermore, in terms of constitution, most countries in South East Asia adopted their ex-colonial master’s type of laws. Thus, the shariah law is hard to be implemented. Again Malaysia as an example, even we have Islamic laws as one of sources of laws, the laws are not easy to be applied. It is because, any crimes like murder stated in federal list cannot be punished according to shariah law like hudud law. So, dilemma between federal law and shariah law come into existence.

In conclusion, secularism bring forward by colonizers to the countries in South East Asia has made Islam to narrowed aspect of life. Today’s scenario, many Muslims regard Islam as personal matters. Politics, economics and social must been separated from being interfered by Islamic values. However, there are some Muslims want to establish Islamic state in all aspects. They are minority in the non-Muslims countries popularly known as separatist movements like in Philippines and South Thailand who struggle for autonomy and independent. In my opinion, it could take long time to bring back pure Islamic teaching as we have undergo a long colonization period. Besides, not all ideas from foreign are bad. It is our responsibility to differentiate what is good and what is bad from the eyes of Islamic worldview.