proposal for an English language television channel to combat “Islamophobia” - a collaboration between Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey – will, I am sure, be met with enthusiastic response from those who believe that Islam and Muslims have, for far too long, been on the receiving end of corrupt Western persecution.

Right on cue, Bersatu supreme council member and strategist Rais Hussin has written a piece about Muslim victimhood and aggression, claiming that the two are not mutually exclusive; or rather, the former bleeds into the latter.

If this is the kind of sermonising we can expect from the proposed English channel to combat Islamophobia, it would mean it is business as usual for the propagandists who advance narratives that there is something wrong with everyone else in the world and this has nothing to do with Islam.

Rais wrote: “The prime minister has long maintained the singular truth that global terrorism can only be stemmed from addressing the causes and not the symptoms of the distress that spurs people on to commit violent acts.”

Supposing your child was kidnapped. Supposing your child was converted to another religion. Supposing the state security apparatus, after a long court battle, claims it has no idea where your kidnapped child is. Supposing the religious establishment and religious activists, who are probably aiding the kidnapper, claim that your child is now of another religion. If a parent were to resort to violence to get the child back or visit violence on others, would this be understandable to Rais Hussin (below)?

The prime minister talks about the true values of Islam and lectures the international community on human rights when we have numerous problems with how the state handles indigenous peoples, how the state handles freedom of expression and religion, how the pervasive monolithic entitlements programmes which favour Malay/Muslims are funded by taxpayers. The prime minister has no moral ground to stand on when it comes to issues he believes that the international community is failing.

Would Zakir Naik be part of this English channel? After all, Zakir has a hugely successful English television channel of his own, the sinisterly named Peace TV. While the channel may be banned in many countries, millions of Muslims have access to it, thanks to the wonder of technology.

As reported in India Today: “The transmission of Naik's Peace TV is illegal in India after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting denied it satellite downlink permissions in the country. The Ministry of Home Affairs also declared its broadcast illegal by local cable operators. While Home Ministry and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting banned Zakir Naik's TV network through satellite and cable broadcasting services, the live telecast of the controversial channel continues through digital and over-the-top (OTT) media services. With the help of this loophole, Zakir Naik's TV channel is accessible to millions of Indians.”

This is not a dig at Zakir. He obviously knows what his audience wants, and if this is something that Malaysia wants, there is no better person than Zakir to help launch this English language TV channel. Of course, Zakir’s Peace TV is a hotbed of racism, bigotry, revisionism, slander and anti-liberal rants, but this is a feature in propaganda outlets, not a bug.

Keep in mind that when Mahathir goes about how the perception of Islam has been distorted and is not the true meaning of Islam, we have someone like Zakir telling Muslims that they should vote and support Muslim leaders, even if corrupt, over straight arrow non-Muslim leaders.

This is the kind of rhetoric that the Malay/Muslim leadership of Pakatan Harapan wants to coddle and show the world? How is this English propaganda channel going to handle our homegrown radicals like Umno, PAS and even Bersatu, which proclaims the supremacy of Islam over every other religion and ties it up with racial privileges? Of course, not all this would be discussed on a channel that has combatting Islamophobia as its aim because we cannot have people discovering the truth about theocratic rule in supposedly “moderate” Muslim countries.

Compared to some, or maybe most other “Islamic” states, Malaysia is perhaps more “moderate” than the rest. Indeed, those countries that have Muslim majorities are always in a tussle with religious operatives who attempt to wipe out secular and democratic norms. The battle for the soul of the country usually means that the average Muslim suffers and democratic institutions become collateral damage in proxy fights. A good example of this is Indonesia.

Mahathir wants to explain what Islam is to people. Fair enough. Why doesn’t he start with what Islam means here in Malaysia? Just recently, Khairuddin Abu Hassan, in his attacks against Syed Husin Ali, said that Anwar was unfit to be PM because "the reality is Anwar is unworthy to lead race, religion and country”.

What this demonstrates is the use of religion and race – not unknown in politics, even in democratic Western countries – as a means to diminish other qualities of leadership. The difference is that in a country like Malaysia, this takes on a whole different meaning and has consequences which, I would argue, are embedded in our constitution.