COMMENT | So this government-employed preacher spews the usual hate speech against the Chinese community but more importantly, took a swipe at the Johor royalty and he is arrested for incitement. Incitement against a royal family or incitement against the Chinese community? Why do I get the feeling that if it were solely for the latter, there would be no action taken against Zamihan Mat Zin?

Yes, that is right because no action has been taken against other government-aligned (including employees) personalities who have made racists or bigoted comments against non-Muslim Malaysians. Anyone reading my articles would know that I am all for free speech but free speech isn’t really the issue here and it will never be. The real issue is the biased manner in which the state monitors free speech.

University lecturer Ridhuan Tee Abdullah who apparently comes to the defence of his community in this instance has said worse about the Chinese community. This country gives shelter to an extremist like Zakir Naik who has spread lies about non-Muslims and their religions. There are numerous examples of establishment politicians who have demonised entire communities and they have been exempted from incitement charges.

So when this preacher who thought he was riding a wave of toxicity and attempted to deliver his own blows against the Chinese community made his religious pronouncements, the only miscalculation he made was taking a shot at the royal institution, which is one of the pillars of Malay/Muslim political ideology.

With all the manure thrown at non-Malay/Muslim communities through a variety of establishment mouthpieces, this idea that the remand of this preacher is anything other than window dressing is the only rational conclusion anyone not infected by Kool-Aid can come to.

Therefore, you take away the royal component from the equation and what are we left with? Just another Muslim preacher talking manure about non-Muslim Malaysians. I mean look, we have PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, a religious preacher, claiming that “Islam has to be the leader and ruler, those who are not of Islam must be followers (pak turut).”

I wonder how this jives with what the Malay rulers said when they made this pronouncement - "As a religion that encourages its followers to be respectful, moderate and inclusive, the reputation of Islam, must not ever be tainted by the divisive actions of certain groups or individuals, which may lead to rifts among the rakyat."

A rejoinder was also made “to continue following the core principles of the Federal Constitution and Rukunegara”, but can this even be done when it comes to how non-Muslims are treated in this country?

Jaundiced view

Does the Umno establishment really care about the Constitution and the Rukunegara? Here are a few choice snippets that point to the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of making the claim that these instruments have any meaning in our current political climate.

I have made this point before – “The constitution, which for all intents is secular-leaning, has been co-opted by the state and Islamists to present a monolithic view of the Muslim community. If the constitution is manipulated by a handful of people then why isn’t another handful of people - and by people, I mean Muslims working in tandem with other secular-minded people - who defend the constitution and not engage in the kind of political behaviour which many claim is detrimental to the Malay community?”

To understand where I am coming from with regards to the Rukunegara, readers are encouraged to check out my piece - ‘The Rukunegara is nothing more than a placebo’ - and also check out what a former judge thinks of the Rukunegara.

“Former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad believed that the incorporation of the Rukunegara as the preamble to the Federal Constitution would compromise the interest of the Malays and bumiputera. Abdul Hamid said if judges were required to consider the Rukunegara in interpreting the Federal Constitution, it would lead to rulings against existing laws and policies.”

I mean, look, if we have judges talking about the “dangers” of incorporating the Rukunegara in the Malaysian system, what are we really talking about when we read that the Malay rulers want us to “follow it”? If the establishment has such a jaundiced view of these instruments, is it really meaningful to consider the Rukunegara - and the Constitution for that matter - as part of the discourse?

At the time of writing, another preacher, this time from the opposition, has been arrested. Reasons unknown, for now. Wan Ji Wan Husin, who is attached to Penang Chief Minister's office, has been branded a "deviant" by the establishment, so we can only assume that what he said went against the group-think of Muslim cabals in this country.

I have made the case of why this country needs more "deviants" like Wan Ji but here he is, in his own words - "I don’t agree that only Islam can be propagated. The Federal Constitution states that, but I don't agree with it from the viewpoint of religion. Let the law practitioners debate if it’s from the law’s point of view. But as someone who studied religion, that statement is wrong. Non-Muslims should be given the right to give their views, as opposed to only the Muslims who can do so. Maybe that's why people have accused me of being ‘liberal’.

So yes, I may not know the reasons for his arrest - at the time of writing - but I can deduce that they are mala fide and that this preacher has said something that is verboten in the Malaysian Muslim context. Please note what he said about the Constitution and how people can disagree with it and advocate change through discourse and changing social and political norms.

Non-Malay PM

I will give you another example - the attacks against the DAP about Lim Kit Siang wanting to be the next prime minister by Umno. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a non-Malay/Muslim is not eligible to the highest office in the land. There is nothing in the Rukunegara that points to the illegibility of a non-Muslim citizen aspiring to the highest office in the land.

Yet we have Umno leaders talking about how “DAP blood” has “infected” Malay power brokers who want to put a non-Muslim as prime minister. We have Malay/Muslim political personalities warning the Malay/Muslim polity that they will slaves to non-Malay/Muslim potentates. Is not this kind of behaviour “not following” the Constitution? Is not this kind of divisive rhetoric going against the spirit of the Rukunegara? If so, is not this kind of behaviour seditious and warrants sanction from the security apparatus of the state?

Failing which, is not this kind of behaviour which demonises non-Muslim politicians going against the rejoinders of the Malay rulers and in doing so, demands sanctions from the state security apparatus?Does anyone seriously think that the Constitution and the Rukunegara are sacrosanct in this country? So, the question again.