Malaysiakini : The PM would have to be a PM for the majority and not for the majority who voted for him or her. This would mean sublimating party ideology on utilitarian grounds.

This is not necessarily a bad thing but when the values of the majority on race and religion are in direct opposition to secular norms and democratic equality, you have a big problem.

Furthermore, the lesson we learnt from the sole non-Malay political broker in the various Pakatan Harapan governments, is that non-Malay preoccupations, which are by necessity democratic and secular imperatives, are sublimated under religious and racial unequal power sharing.

How can we have a progressive majority when every institution and every political operative confirms that the majority in this country has to subscribe to a certain mode of thinking and support a certain kind of Muslim leader?

I may be wrong but this late in the game, I don't even think that the non-Malays even want a non-Malay prime minister. What the non-Malays want is for the encroaching religious policies to cease from our public and private spaces which by definition also means our economic spheres.

Religious influence

I have often highlighted unilateral conversion. The legal system has already defined this as something discriminatory. The political class with great reluctance has acknowledged the discriminatory nature of this practice as well.

The state security apparatus predictably has been ambivalent about enforcing orders from the judiciary. Now, what the non-Malays want is for this type of state-enabled discriminatory practice to cease. 

But this won't happen because of the influence the religious class has on the political system. Unilateral conversion is about religious power and this seeps into any kind of conversion.

This was why the optics were horrendous when Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim presided over the religious conversion of a Hindu youth.

What does it say to the Hindu community - or even the Indian community - when the prime minister did such a thing, while mothers are battling in the courts to get their children back, suing the state security apparatus to do their jobs, and dealing with the religious bureaucracy who are hampering their efforts to reconcile with their children?

Take the rather banal example about little napoleons (how I loathe the term) deciding on how people dress in our public services departments.

Make no mistake. This is not some sort of abuse of power or ultra vires of power. This is an exercise in power. An exercise in religious power that has no basis in civil law but is implicit in ketuanan (supremacy) politics.

‘Indecent’ non-Muslims

The basis of this power is the indoctrination by government and religious propaganda organs that people not of the faith are indecent by nature.

Heed the words of PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, for instance, who lauds non-Muslims for dressing decently.

“(This was despite) some non-Muslim communities who are required (by their religion) to dress decently based on humane values with dignity and self-respect. They are respected by (adherents) of all religions and civilisations,” he said.

Forcing non-believers to submit to your authority, especially if they hold religious beliefs of their own or do not wish to be bound by any religious dogma, demonstrates power on a fundamental level.

It is brute force, a demonstration that non-Muslim beliefs are inconsequential and that they are bound to Islamic law even if they choose not to believe.

They will be forced to acknowledge that even if they do not submit, they are not beyond Islamic law and will suffer the consequences of deviations from such religious observances.

Let me be very clear. There is enough empirical evidence that laws solely meant for Muslims in this country have a direct impact on non-Muslims hence this separate but equal canard is just another example of how mainstream Islam here always attempts to subvert democratic principles in the name of Muslim solidarity and hegemonic power.

The political terrain has become so toxic that advocating for civil rights is defined as hurting the sensitivities of the majority or attempting to start a discourse on civil rights is clamped down by the state using the “Green Wave”.

Does anyone think that a non-Malay prime minister could resolve any of this? Here is the thing, a coalition of centrists could, but the problem here is that centrist often translates to enabling.

What I am really interested in is the day Malaysia has a Chinese Muslim prime minister.