COMMENT | I want people to focus on language for a moment. Inspector-general of police (IGP) Mohamad Fuzi Harun claimed that the reason why the beer festival was cancelled was because “militants were planning to commit sabotage at the festival, as they believe it was against their struggle.” Video below the details here.

Two words are important here - “militants” and “struggle”. The first word “militant” denotes people with a dogmatic belief system, intolerant of any other belief systems and in this context, militaristic in their actions. The second denotes a cause, which implies a moral dimension. How many times have we heard race-based Malay political parties and politicians warn the non-Malays/Muslims to observe the “sensitivities” of the majority Malay/Muslim weltanschauung? How many times have we heard Malay politicians from either side describe their raison d'être to carry on the struggle for race and religion?

MCA’s Ti Lian Ker (photo) claimed that Better Beer Festival 2017 had to be cancelled “due to a security threat from Islamic State (IS) militants rather than political pressure from PAS.” Let us look at this rationally. PAS wanted the event cancelled. IS wanted to disrupt the event. Hence by cancelling the event, the outcome that PAS and IS wanted was achieved. Indeed, the outcome desired by all the Malay/Muslim groups that opposed this festival because it offended their “sensitivities” was achieved.

What kind of message does this send to the Islamists in this country, many of whom claim that they do not subscribe to the beliefs of IS but benefit from the terror that this group spreads? What kind of message does this send to non-Muslims when it comes to their constitutional right of freedom of speech, expression and assembly?

Coming right after the Malaysian prime minister claimed that the Chinese community would be in danger because Islamic extremists would attack them if the present government were not in charge, seems rather dubious. The Umno state, in this case, did not defend the rights of non-Muslims to co-exist in this country; it instead facilitated an outcome that benefited certain groups in this country that apparently have the same goals (in this case) with an international Islamic extremist group. However, here is the strange part. Last month, as reported in a press statement that includes the quote that begins this piece, the state security apparatus apprehended individuals who were planning attacks against non-Muslims and their places of worship.

I have often made the claim that even though there are all these claims that our institutions are failing (this writer has also made those claims as well), the state security apparatus while compromised remains one of our best assets when it comes to fighting Islamic terrorism.

What I find strange though, is that during the period of the investigation – I assume this includes surveillance, etc – the state did not warn non-Muslims that their places of worship were possible targets and that holding religious events which obviously went against the “struggle” of these lunatics was ill-advised. As far as I recall there was no panic, only covert and professional police work. Now if the state security apparatus could handle possible threats against non-Muslim places of worship, and doing so without compromising the investigations and public order, why is it that a simple beer festival in a controlled environment poses such a security risk?

Slippery slope

Some folks will say where does all of this end? First, they ban beer festivals, then they will ban other non-Muslim activities, religious or otherwise. I made the same argument in my last piece. However, there is more to this than the slippery slope argument because the state security apparatus was on the ball when it came to defending sacred places of worship of non-Muslims because they managed to foil a plot that targeted such places and they did so without compromising the rights of non-Muslims to practice their beliefs.

It would be very difficult for the Umno state to advise non-Muslims to be circumspect in the practice of their religions less they find themselves targets of the Islamic state extremists because (1) non-Muslims are already targets, and (2) the state security apparatus has demonstrated that they are up to the task of securing the country against these lunatics.

Obviously, there is something else going on here. The claim that the security threat justification for cancelling the beer festival is a fabrication could be true, but it also could be true that the state security apparatus did not want to be put in the position of defending a “haram” activity because it would weaken the Islamic credentials of the Umno state.

This is where the problem is. Malay/Muslim politicians often tell us that they are against Islamic extremism. The prime minister said the same to the president of the United States. However, they have never defined their religious differences between these Islamic lunatics and the supposedly moderate Islam they adhere to.

One could argue that the Islamic State and those who share their goals if not their means, scored a major coup in demonstrating that non-Muslims have to bow down to the sensitivities of the majority Malay community. One could also make the argument that the Umno state is engaging in a delicate balancing act when it comes to fighting IS and coddling the agenda of Islamists in this country. Either way, it is never a good strategic move to acknowledge that the Islamic State has a say in our domestic policy like it is never a good thing for Islamists in this country to reap the rewards of the state bowing down to threats of Islamic violence against the non-Muslim polity.

Thinking that some secular rights could be compromised to demonstrate religious and racial superiority makes it easier for the Islamic State to demonstrate hegemony and ultimately makes it harder to differentiate between the agenda of the Umno/PAS and those lunatics from the crucible of Iraq.