By P Ramasamy | 21 Jun 2025
Terrence Netto is a seasoned and respected journalist with years of experience in Malaysian political commentary.
Recently, he took umbrage at former law minister Zaid Ibrahim for suggesting that PAS might rise to national prominence, drawing parallels with the clerical establishment in Iran.
Netto expressed surprise that a known liberal like Zaid—a contrarian by nature—would entertain the notion of PAS’s future political potential. For Netto, Zaid’s assessment seemed overreaching, particularly given PAS’s current ideological rigidity and limited appeal beyond its traditional base.
Netto, rightly or wrongly, holds a critical view of PAS as a party yet to fully awaken to the multiracial realities of Malaysian society and politics. His skepticism could stem from a deeper mental bloc against envisioning a pluralistic future for a party rooted in religious orthodoxy. Yet, his reservations may hold merit, especially if PAS continues to struggle in articulating a political agenda that includes and addresses the concerns of non-Muslims.
Although there are efforts by PAS to broaden its appeal, the party has yet to clearly define the contours of a national consensus that reflects Malaysia’s diversity.
On the other hand, Zaid’s analysis invites a different lens. He appears to believe that PAS’s future should not be confined to the labels and limitations imposed by the heat of contemporary politics. While Netto may be focused on the static nature of PAS’s current political stance, Zaid is attempting to explore its latent transformative possibilities.
It is important to note that PAS is not a static political entity frozen in time. If the party could reimagine its mission to include the rights and aspirations of all Malaysians, then its political potential would undoubtedly grow.
However, the comparison to Iran’s clerical regime is problematic. The Iranian model, marked by restrictions on democratic freedoms and women’s rights, is not an ideal template for Malaysia. Nevertheless, Iran’s revolutionary path has been shaped by continuous hostility from the West, particularly the United States and, more recently, Israel. Under such circumstances, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect democratic flourishing.
In conclusion, Netto is not wrong to point out the current limitations of PAS. His caution is rooted in observable realities. At the same time, Zaid’s vision of PAS’s moral and ethical transformation offers an alternative reading—one that should not be dismissed outright. If PAS can evolve to embrace a more inclusive and holistic view of Malaysian politics, then its future may indeed defy current expectations.
Source: https://tinyurl.com/3azevr67