It is a long list. Add these to the auditor-general’s quarterly catalogue of shame; plenty can be done, but the work has hardly started.

When will we seriously attempt to rectify all the wrongs? Does the Madani government have the political will and determination to go the extra mile? Or will it pander to some for political expediency?

Yes, it cannot come overnight, but it has been two years since we elected what was touted as a “clean government”.

Two years have already gone by

The latest “bombshell” came on Saturday, when Malaysiakini was ordered to remove video clips of the alleged corruption scandal in Sabah.

In July 2015, the Najib government suspended The Edge and the Edge Financial Weekly for three months, ostensibly preventing both publications from publishing details of thousands of documents related to the 1MDB scandal unfavourable to the then-BN government.

At that time, many political leaders stood up, shouted “media freedom”, and supported these publications. Some of them are now part of the Madani government.

Their loud noises and vociferous statements reverberated around the country when they were on the opposite side, but their continued silence is now deafening.

Don’t they have the gall and nerve to stand up to this? Do they have short memories or plainly “jaga periuk nasi“ (looking after their rice bowl)?

The order, according to Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil, came from the police, who claimed that they could interfere with police investigations into the death threat against the whistleblower and compromise the safety and privacy of the individual.

Fellow columnist P Gunasegaram has since addressed this issue in his column yesterday.

It would be foolhardy to state that progress has not been made in other areas, but these are minuscule compared to the big holes we continue to fill and the many selectively ignored issues.

It is said that a week is a long time in politics. Two years have flown by so quickly; in another two, all will be engrossed in planning for the next election.

So, the D-minus stays until now. If nothing drastic changes, it will remain so until 2027. But is anyone worried? They still believe the government knows best using an outdated, obsolete solution - telling feel-good stories and throwing crumbs before the date is fixed.

Keep in mind that this country and its successive governments have not acknowledged and exposed the terrible truths of Wang Kelian.

The fact is that Wang Kelian could not have happened if there was no collusion among crime syndicates, the state security apparatus and most importantly, the political class who were needed to facilitate and give legitimacy to a cover-up.

We are talking about high crimes perpetrated by local actors working in concert with foreign high-ranking officials.

Bukit Aman, when this issue first seeped into the mainstream media, claimed that there was no evidence that any police personnel were involved.

Never mind that evidence was tampered with. Never mind that there was circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing. Never mind that political operatives from the highest levels of the government were repeating the same denials as the state security apparatus, despite there having been no independent investigation.

Have you ever wondered why the police object to the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC)?

In 2006, Malaysiakini highlighted an internal bulletin where the police threatened to vote for the opposition if an IPCMC was implemented.

In that special edition bulletin (which readers will discover was contentious only because various proxies were either trying to disavow or claim ownership), one of the points against the setting up of the IPCMC was this:

“Let the politicians be aware that they will eventually lose powers, control, and influence over a neutral, professional and people-centred police (as suggested by the Royal Police Commission).”

Of course, this is a strange point to make if one is really interested in the proposition that the state security apparatus should be neutral. If neutrality was indeed the goal, independent commissions not beholden to political interests would be desired as opposed to political operatives whose motives would always be questioned.

Police cartels

However, it is an interesting point, because the top brass of the police then and now seem to think political interference is beneficial to public order. Hence, for law enforcement, political interference is a net plus and this makes their job easier when everyone is scratching each other’s back, while some attempt to pick a pocket or two.

How does it make their job easier? All you have to do is look at the Copgate affair, where two IGPs - Musa Hassan and Abdul Hamid Bador - had a battle royale.

Here is a snippet that gives us an inkling of the nexus between the security services and organised crime - “Tengku Goh is reportedly an underworld boss who enjoyed Musa’s backing when Musa was Johor police chief.

“Musa was said to have eliminated all loan sharks, money-laundering syndicates, gaming and drug syndicates and crime lords in Johor, but allowed Tengku Goh to continue operating - until the Bukit Aman CCID found out about Goh’s activities.”

Hamid thought there was a cartel within the force out to get him and he thought he could control it. He could not.

Remember what Hamid said about politicians and about keeping the Special Branch free of political interference?

“The most notorious ones are the politicians. They have no fixed principle. One day they will jump here and another day, when they see an opportunity, they will turn the other way,” he said in the interview. “When you politicise race and religion, it can bring down the country.”

Hamid did many things wrong but at least he had the notion to attempt to bell the cat. He knew of the culture of corruption in the police. As reported in the press - Hamid said some officers still indulged in corruption, despite various warnings and advice.

The enabling politicians

While social activists, former law enforcement officers and various pressure groups are clamouring for reform, the people most often standing in their way are not the police - who do want reform for various reasons - but political operatives who stand to benefit from alliances with power groups within the police force.

What did a Special Branch report conclude on the border security apparatus in the Wang Kelian, mass graves?

“The enemy we have to fight is one that operates as an institution. We are dealing with institutionalised corruption so deeply entrenched that expecting internal discipline is like asking the chief crook to rat out on his runners,” a Special Branch officer had said.

The political apparatus in this country does not want any government agency to be accountable to Parliament. It does not want any public oversight of any government agency. And as long as these agencies are not answerable to elected reps with powers to sanction aberrant behaviour, the outrage will continue without a solution.

A charlatan endeavours to make the public sceptical of government agencies to amass power and when in power, forces the public to place their faith in corrupted agencies to remain in power.

This is the most important lesson we can learn.

So, as Malaysians, we either accept concepts like the social contract, ketuanism, and Malay rights, which trump all other democratic considerations, or as a voting block we choose to redefine the traditional political concepts for a more inclusive Malaysia.

Now, the question is, are there any Malay political leaders who would advocate for the latter?

No real alternative

The problem is that there is no alternative to the racial and religious narratives offered by PAS/Umno.

People who vote for PAS and Umno know exactly what they are voting for and what these political parties will deliver, unlike some feckless Harapan supporters always demanding solutions that their political operatives claim to have but never fulfil.

Let us revisit Anwar’s “don’t spook the Malays” statement when he first made it. He said: “It gives a very negative perception. The Malays are worried, the government has only been formed so if we demand that they surrender, it is too soon.

“What is important now, for me, is to instil a strong confidence that we will defend the rights of all people without sacrificing bumiputera interests as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.”

Buying time is an acceptable political strategy and yes, the Malay establishment’s “Langkah Sheraton” brought down the deck of cards, but what is really killing PKR when it comes to the Malay political game is that it is not offering anything new to the Malay polity. There is no alternative to the ideologies of PAS and Umno.

Right now, the Madani regime is enabling Umno by allowing the fallen party to control the religious and racial narrative of this unity government.

Anwar, meanwhile, is using the Palestinian tragedy to burnish his religious credentials and seems to have no problem alienating his non-Malay base.

Various religious amendments are also on the table, which would strengthen the country’s religious apparatus and redefine political and religious power in this country.

PAS has demonstrated that it is willing to slay Malay sacred cows. PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang has thumbed his nose at a royal decree banning preaching politics in mosques and various Perikatan Nasional power brokers at various times have made it clear that the religious agenda trumps any form of royal constraint.

Democratic governance, backed by secular principles

The Madani regime, meanwhile, has used the 3R (race, religion, royalty) ban to curb controversial discourse because it does not want to make its stand known, which gives folks like Hadi another avenue to demonstrate how the Madani regime is persecuting religious and political leaders.

Hadi said in Parliament: “If we advise the government, they may take many actions - evict us from the Dewan Rakyat, ban our entry, and even involve the police in investigations.”

Harapan supporters were gleeful in mocking Hadi but what they should be considering is why the Madani state did not come out and outright repudiate Hadi’s hate speech by aligning with the progressive targets of Hadi.

But it goes further than this. Even PKR’s Hassan had lamented that the 3R ban is masking the systemic dysfunction when it comes to the kind of crony capitalists orbiting Anwar.

“These people seem to enjoy immunity and cannot be touched due to the 3R ban,” Hassan reportedly said.

The solution is not Bangsa Malaysia but rather the political will to create a system of governance based on democratic and secular principles which protect all our rights regardless of religion, ethnicity, and political allegiance, which is an alternative to what the Malay-based political parties are offering.

However, the Madani regime is content with the political alchemy of hooking up with dubious personalities and parties, using the instruments of the state to persecute convenient targets, and expanding entitlement programmes for the majority polity.

All this is done with compliant non-Malay power brokers. This may very well work for Madani.

So the question then becomes, does Anwar even need a Bangsa Malaysia?

We are really not talking about deep policy issues but merely baseline democratic issues of self-preservation.

This is probably why non-Malays latch onto any Muslim personality who makes the right noises to issues they consider sacred.

This is why the non-Malay vote is considered secure in the Pakatan Harapan coalition.

Non-Malay power structures do not deal with their Malay counterparts as equals. DAP, for instance, had to eat barrels of manure to ensure that whatever they said or did was not used by PN as evidence they were controlling the unity government.

Former attorney-general Tommy Thomas said at the launch of Joe Samad’s book - “The obsession with race and religion is a huge deleterious obstacle to unifying Malaysia as a united people.”

This is unintentionally misleading because Malay and non-Malay power brokers both use race and religion as a means to galvanise support from their respective communities, all the while gaslighting minorities that the meaningless social contract is a legitimate political compromise.

It is difficult to make the argument that Malaysia is anything but an ethnocracy like Israel when race-based political parties determine policy and the supposedly moderate centre-based parties cater to these racial political parties.

Just a figurehead

If you thought it was bad when Dr Mahathir Mohamad was in power, it is even worse now that Anwar has decided that whatever forms of political alchemy he can create with any Malay uber alles parties or personalities is worth the derision of his non-Malay base.

Take the whole DAP vice-chairperson Teresa Kok and Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh issue over halal certification.

And there was not one word of condemnation from the prime minister of the way a sitting minister - Nga Kor Ming - was verbally abused by a member of his coalition and harassed by the state security apparatus for merely speaking up on behalf of everyone.

The theocratic state-in-waiting understands they have no need for prime ministers in the sense of someone leading the country. All they need is a figurehead.

Who is unity govt serving?

This unity government, because of political compromise, has become the realisation of theocratic dreams of fellow Islamic travellers within the bureaucracy.

They do not care about democracy, they do not care about the royal institution, and they are as obsessed about controlling the non-Muslims in this country as they are controlling the majority Malay polity.

For Malay-Muslim power brokers, hooking up with this unity government serves both personal and racial agendas and if this unity government falls, it is business as usual with PN.

But of course, what they fail to realise is they will not be part of a right-wing government but rather a theocracy, which eventually consumes them. This is what non-Muslims need to remember when it comes to Malay-Muslim solidarity. This is why this unity government is a dangerous concept for Malaysian politics.

It is a testing ground for racial and religious policies, even though this government is technically one without a majority mandate.

When PAS, for instance, gains federal power, PAS will lead the effort to disenfranchise the non-Malay vote even more and perhaps make the non-Malay vote meaningless. This is the plan and PAS has been very open about it.

Just three years ago, before the general election, then-PAS central committee member Khairuddin Aman Razali said: “There are long-term (needs) that require us to win the next general election with a two-thirds majority.

“(Upon achieving this) the electoral boundaries need to be changed to benefit Muslims.

“We also need to increase the number of parliamentary seats in Malay-majority areas.”

Becoming ‘pak turut’

By making the non-Malay vote irrelevant, what they are doing is making non-Malay political power inconsequential - this is the very definition of “pak turut” (yes man).

This is why PN is enjoying the antics of someone like Akmal. He is a constant reminder to non-Malays that their political power is meaningless. Their role within this unity government is to be the “pak turut”.

And best of all, we have a reformist prime minister who will not say or do anything to curb the excess of Umno but, more importantly, attempts to introduce religious and racial policies which aid the PN folk more than it does the Harapan base.

So, what are non-Malays left with? Either they vote to feebly stop the inevitable, or they do not vote and embrace it.

"We do not have much time before the next general election. There is a lot of heavy work to be done within the next four to five months.

"The first thing we have to do is to counter Umno's narratives, we cannot let them do whatever they want. We cannot allow Najib to syok sendiri (be full of himself).”

Now, of course, Umno is in the coalition government and through his proxies in the party, Najib continues to define Madani and of course, the DAP.

The pusillanimous attitude of someone like Jelutong MP RSN Rayer is, unfortunately, louder than the rhetoric of someone like Anthony Loke, the DAP’s big cheese who could only muster a let cooler heads prevail, when Najib received a partial pardon:

“There are mixed reactions (to the matter). Some are upset Najib was not released, while others are upset his sentence was reduced. I urge everyone to remain calm and keep cool heads.”

Keep in mind that Rayer “respects” a coalition partner like Umno, whose youth chief has viciously attacked a DAP minister, created a controversy involving socks which resulted in acts of arson and continues to stir racial and religious sentiment among the rakyat.

He does this with complete immunity and shockingly, no rebuke from the prime minister who was a long-time reformasi comrade of the DAP.

Welsh perhaps, the best hand when it comes to observing the political circus in this country wrote of Madani:

“Those who wanted a different government from that of Umno now have the same party and practices in power, with Anwar providing the means for the party’s leaders and their family members to be rehabilitated, including through taxpayer-funded patronage.”

‘The muted DAP’

Replace Anwar with Najib and this was exactly how the train was running before it was derailed by a confluence of events that brought down Najib and in many ways, Pakatan Harapan. And where is the DAP in all of this?

Well, they are busy keeping a low profile. The following extract from an interview with Seputeh MP Teresa Kok highlights the way DAP has been successfully neutered by Umno and of course, Madani:

“One dilemma faced by DAP is having to respond to the challenge from Umno, particularly from Umno Youth leader Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh, who issues racist statements every week that target DAP.

“If DAP does not respond, we would be seen as a ‘muted’ party by the Chinese and Indian communities.

“However, when we get into loggerheads with Umno and Umno Youth like before, the Malays see us as being rude and racist.”

Where does this leave rational Malaysians? Nowhere good. You see there is no trade-off. If Madani could point to policies in education, healthcare and social services which were egalitarian and utilitarian, then rational people would have no choice but to ignore these political moves by the Madani elites as the price of doing business in a country like Malaysia.

Mind you, I was never one of those people who were gleefully awaiting Najib to be paraded around in an orange jumpsuit.

You don’t get to play the moral high ground card when your coalition was previously aligned with the architect of old Malaysia, Mahathir.

Perhaps, how Najib best defines Madani is the way he and his coalition government enablers game the system while a deaf driver and construction worker have to hope for justice in Madani.

The second was “The majority of Muslims have been told that secularism means complete separation of state and religion based on the influence and experience of the Holy Roman Empire.

“Now, that’s not how Muslims should understand it. The state has secular elements but religious values must be embedded.”

When anyone talks about “embedded” in the Malaysian context, we have to be clear about one thing. What we are talking about is not only legal measures but also norms and observances by not only the federal government but also state governments.

What we are talking about is a bundle of legal, cultural and religious diktats merged with political narratives that determine policy. This has led to numerous cases where non-Muslims have been subject to religious laws over the decades.

Some examples

Here are but a few examples. Non-Muslims have had their children unilaterally converted and kidnapped, with the state security apparatus colluding with the religious bureaucracy to undermine civil law.

Non-Muslims have been prohibited from using certain words deemed appropriate only for Muslims. Non-Muslims have been told who can and cannot enter our religious places of worship.

Non-Muslims economic livelihoods have been threatened by religious policy because our business is deemed haram. Non-Muslims have had religious vigilantes walking around shopping malls demanding we submit to their sensitivities.

Non-Muslim school-going children have been subjected to religious enticement by teachers. Non-Muslim religious texts have been vilified by foreign or local preachers.

Non-Muslim places of worship have been subjected to the scrutiny of provocateurs who claim we are secretly converting Muslims. Non-Muslims have had our religions demonised by the political establishment to secure votes.

Non-Muslim religious personalities have been kidnapped. Non-Muslims have been told that our religious beliefs are a threat to Muslims.

Non-Muslims have been told to dress decently as though they are, by nature, indecent people and little napoleons hold court in government buildings. Non-Muslims have been told that they are the cause of corruption in this country.

Non-Muslims have had their economic livelihood determined by religious dogma. Non-Muslims have been vilified because they engage in the political process.

Consultation?

Hence this farcical idea that laws and religious norms embedded in the political system will not affect non-Muslims is pure horse manure.

Of course, the narrative now is that this Act is not the same as when PAS had advocated for it and apparently non-Muslim stakeholders would be involved in this process.

So wait, non-Muslims have been warned not to interfere in the religion of the state and now we are expected to believe that non-Muslim stakeholders’ input would be considered?

God’s honest truth is that the narrative that religious laws will not affect non-Muslims is merely a talking point. No government will ever give this talking point legal effect.

Indeed no political coalition will ever guarantee that religious laws will not affect non-Muslims. Why, because those who advocate for these kinds of laws understand that religious laws influence and erode democratic guardrails.

That is the plan.

So what the Madani state wants is this - “….the mufti’s position will have more constitutional and legal order in our country,” which is the objective of the “Green Wave”.

3. “Do not view this matter with prejudice; we need to be legally aware.” cautioned Fahmi, which is strange because the personalities offering the most vocal criticisms are all lawyers.

4. And finally, this gem. Fahmi also pointed out that the group’s definition of an Islamic state has a negative connotation, implying a transformation similar to that in the Middle East or other regions.

Here it is, the charge of Islamophobia when it comes to dissent against religious laws or agendas. This is the play of the Madani state and the “Green Wave” whenever anyone dares to dissent against the theocratic agendas of power brokers.

It is not enough that you believe in the position of Islam in the state; you must be complicit in the strengthening of its scope and powers as well. Otherwise, you are labelled ignorant or Islamophobic.

Islamisation agenda

I would argue that this proposed bill is the Madani version of PAS’ Act 355 bill to enhance syariah punishments, and it is being used by the Madani state as a test case for how far they can push the state’s religious agenda.

And what did the DAP think of this proposed Act 355? Well, then DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said it best in 2021 when he stated - “Malaysians remain unconvinced with Idris Ahmad’s assurances in Parliament yesterday that the religious rights of freedom of non-Muslims will not be affected by the proposed Act 355 and the bill to restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religions.”

So, when DAP’s Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan said, “The provision relating to a fatwa in the mufti bill is not novel. Many provisions in state enactment relating to mufti’s fatwa bind Muslims,” this lends credence to the idea that this really is a test case for the Madani regime and how they intend to shape religious policies in the states they run and on a federal level.

Let me be very clear. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that the religion of the state and policies from religious laws do not affect non-Muslims in this country. 

Whenever a religious and racial bully warns non-Muslims not to trespass into Islamic domains, it is with the understanding that religious laws do affect non-Muslims. That is the whole point of the bullying.

Mariam Mokhtar wondered if the recent controversies involving the Umno youth leader and DAP were merely bully-boy tactics to subdue opposition to this bill.

Who knows, which is why the title of this piece is “Will the DAP support the mufti bill?” and not “Will the DAP oppose the mufti bill?”

DAP must stand fast

The DAP should object to this proposed bill, and they should do it because the people who vote for them would be affected by this proposed bill. Keep in mind that the DAP is supposed to have a secular agenda, and it is hardwired in its party’s constitution.

DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke not only reaffirmed the party’s secular agenda but also noted that all parties in the coalition understood this agenda and had agreed to play nice.

As reported in the press - “…..the DAP secretary-general said his party need not drop the secular nation agenda and its slogan ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ merely to reap support from other ethnic groups.”

Loke also said - “Before forming the unity government, all parties agreed not to touch on each party’s principles and constitutions.”

So this is the perfect opportunity to test these ideas. The DAP not only has to object to this bill but this should not come as a surprise to its coalition partners.

The state wants its non-Muslim partners to be complicit in the formation of religious laws. Why? Because it not only gives a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy but also demonstrates religious and racial superiority over its partners.

Any kind of religious law - no matter the religion - is, in reality, a suicide pact.

We are constantly told not to interfere in the affairs of Muslims even though these issues affect us as Malaysians. Do you think that Muslim politicians in this country will ever sign a document that pledges that non-Muslims will not be affected by Islamic law?

They will never even moot such legislation or debate it; they would instead use the system’s security apparatus to crack down on such speech or proposals.

What they will do is create legislation like this proposed bill, which they say only affects Muslims but has far-reaching consequences for all Malaysians.

The prime minister has asked the religious minister to explain this bill, but we have to remember that it is the same minister who caused problems within the coalition with his proposed mandatory halal certification for businesses not serving pork and alcohol, and this reeks of passing the buck.

If you are a non-Muslim in this country, you only have to answer one question. Do you believe that laws affecting the majority will not affect the minority?

Non-Muslims are told to fear the “Green Wave” on one hand and the other, have to accept the theocratic ideas and policies of a supposedly moderate coalition.

In 2015, Joseph Chinyong Liow wrote a piece for the Brookings Institute titled “Malaysia’s ISIS conundrum” which is applicable even today - “…rather than extol the virtues and conciliatory features of Islam’s rich tradition, many Malay Muslim political leaders have instead chosen to use religion to amplify difference, to reinforce extreme interpretations of Malay Muslim denizen rights, and to condemn the ‘other’ (non-Muslims) as a threat to these rights.

“For fear of further erosion of legitimacy and political support, the Malay Muslim leadership of the country have in their public statements circled the wagons, allowing vocal right-wing ethno-nationalist and religious groups to preach incendiary messages against Christians and Hindus with impunity.

“In extreme cases, they have even flippantly referred to fellow Malaysians who are adherents to other religious faiths as ‘enemies of Islam’. Even state-sanctioned Friday sermons have occasionally taken to referring to non-Muslim Malaysians as ‘enemies of Islam’.”

Akmal vs Kok

Keep in mind that by claiming to defend the motherland, what Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh is saying is that he believes that DAP MP Teresa Kok or what she said, goes against the motherland.

Isn’t Malaysia Kok’s motherland as well? This is a motherland where Kok does not have the special privileges that Akmal has.

This is the motherland where the social contract binds the way Kok expresses herself when it comes to issues deemed sensitive to the majority but is grounded in democratic first principles. This is the motherland where the sensibilities of the majority trump everything else, even utilitarian ideas for the betterment of all.

Remember when PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang claimed that the G25 group were more dangerous than Al Maunah?

Now, claiming that a retired group of civil servants are more dangerous than a group of religious extremists who actually murdered Malaysians is indicative of the kind of propaganda used against liberal or moderate Muslims in this country.

The fact that any kind of progressive movement or ideas are deemed "deviant" and anti-Malay Muslim should tell us something about how the state defines "extreme".

Let us break down religious or racial extremism, for instance. Take the quote that opens this piece. Forget for a moment that this was coming from the Umno youth leader.

What would a rational person think, when he or she reads this - “I will never surrender, let alone apologise. Because I was taught to defend religion, race and my motherland even if I have to put my life on the line.”

Well, a rational person would think that the person who said this has obviously been indoctrinated and radicalised to wage war against people, even citizens of his or her own country, in the name of race and religion, even if it meant martyrdom.

So, what is this plan actually going to do in terms of combatting the quarters who are using racial elements to threaten the peace?

Keep in mind that for the majority, race and religion are not mutually exclusive. Can the Madani regime give an example of racial and religious extremism?

These days, fighting for secular or democratic rights is defined as "extremism", while those fighting to keep the racial and religious barriers up are defined as following the Constitution.

There is a disconnect between the state security apparatus (or at least those who want to do their jobs) and their political masters.

These committed security personnel who tread where angels dare not, do the rough work necessary for the rest of us to sleep peacefully in our beds, have their work hampered by policies of the state and politicians who have used the religion of the state as a weapon and now find it turned on them.

The Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) scandal is more than just a horrific instance of child sexual abuse but also how the state security apparatus, the religious bureaucracy, and the political class, for whatever reasons, allowed this to happen under their watch.

This is why this programme is a punchline to a tragic joke. The enemy has always been within.

Furthermore, Suhakam noted that a Special Branch asset, Saiful Bahari Abdul Aziz, whose car was present in both cases, has persistently refused to testify.

But wait. The task force created during the Pakatan Harapan regime led by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also a troubling read.

It’s because, as reported in the press, not only was Saiful a person of interest who needed to be questioned, but 10 other people attended a meeting in October, a month before Amri’s disappearance, which included “Perlis state mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin and several police officers.”

The fact that both men were under observation by the Selangor and Perlis state religious boards should tell us something about these kidnappings.

Keep in mind that the state security apparatus had attempted to paint Koh’s kidnapping as related to a 2017 shootout in Kedah, which the panel refused to accept because – “they had found testimonies on this operation from the police and former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar to be distorted, illogical, and ‘full of inconsistencies and material contradictions’.”

Citizens of this country were kidnapped in a paramilitary style, and all circumstantial evidence points to the connivance of the state.

At this point, I am less interested in why Koh and Amri were kidnapped, but I am keen to know who ordered it.

While the former Umno state may be complicit in covering these crimes, what we have witnessed so far is that because the country was run by an incompetent kleptocrat, there have been factions within the government who may have been operating without supervision.

This is what happens when the machinery of government is used to cover up the alleged crimes of their political masters, and nobody is interested in minding the house.

Learning from GISBH scandal

What has the GISBH scandal taught us? It showed us that the state security apparatus, the religious bureaucracy and the political class, for whatever reasons, turned a blind eye or were wilfully ignorant of crimes and abuse going on in a big Muslim enterprise.

Now, you can either believe that these institutions were staggeringly incompetent (do not get me wrong, I could make a case for that) or they are elements within these organisations which were sympathetic to GISBH.

And we have to apply the same kind of thinking to the disappearance of Koh and Amri.

Who had the power (if this allegation is true) to order a tactical squad to kidnap Malaysians for whatever reasons?

Who had the authority to issue such commands, and who felt secure enough that their crime would go unsanctioned by any elected government?

And who had the political influence to concoct such a manoeuvre that bypassed the traditional state security apparatus and mete out whatever fate befell these people?

Whoever these people are, they are confident that the narratives of the state security apparatus would shield them from whatever repercussions or sanctions of the Madani regime.

And so far, they are right.

Have you noticed that “the other side” also uses the same kind of strategy when it comes to religious policy?

These days, anyone who objects to religious policy encroaching upon their democratic rights is considered Islamophobic or does not want any mention of Islam.

If, for example, you object to any Islamic policy which affects non-Muslim economic interests, are you Islamophobic and do not want any mention of Islam?

Inter-religious rivalry

Meanwhile, claiming the other side thinks other Muslims not of their tribe are deviant, evil and oppressive misses the point.

We have religious bureaucracies, state and federal, who are the gatekeepers of Islam. They are always on the lookout for deviancy and evil and have been called oppressive in their overreach and policymaking.

Hence, inter-religious rivalries and schisms for religious dominance are the basis for political power.

The recent Global Ikhwan Service and Business Holding (GISBH) horror story is an example of how factionalism, schisms, religious personalities and the religious bureaucracy, coupled with big business, form the central narrative of religious hegemony.

The threat has always been the enemies within and not the propaganda that non-Muslim faiths are a threat to the religion of the state.

Furthermore, Anwar’s other side argument only makes sense if you can point to a religious narrative that is different from PAS/Perikatan Nasional’s.

Can the prime minister do this? For example, a religious bureaucracy has labelled Sisters in Islam as deviant. Has any religious bureaucracy labelled anything PAS has said or done as deviant within the confines of the religion of the state?

Sure, you can say that Pakatan Harapan states are not like PAS-run states, but this is a function of ethnic democracy and not religious ideology.

Keep in mind that religious bureaucracies still hold sway in Harapan-controlled states, but they do not have the overreach they do because they lack the political capital in terms of vote share to make their presence truly felt.

Anwar’s false premise is self-serving and extremely dangerous because it conforms to far-right religious narratives and further marginalises voices that actually want reform.

The factual premise is that the prime minister, on one hand, wants to strengthen the position of Islam, and, on the other, claims that Islamophobia is a threat to the religion of the state.

The reality has always been that religious fascism is a threat to national unity.

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang says his party has regulatory bodies that can prevent sexual abuse from happening at schools run by the party.

But pay attention to what he says:

“The situation in PAS is under control, Insya Allah. We have lajnah-lajnah (committees) led by our leaders to regulate (the institutions).”

The situation is under control in PAS? Is Hadi admitting there is a similar situation but it is under control in PAS? And really, GISBH had its own mechanism for this kind of situation and it merely meant that criminal activities were covered up.

Who’s responsible?

Remember the tahfiz school fire in 2017, which killed 21 children and two adults, and later, two 16-year-old boys were charged for starting the fire?

The same kind of institutional malfunction contributed to the deaths of these children and adults. The religious school where 21 children and two adults died was operating illegally and had been warned for safety violations.

The manager of the school claimed that he registered his school with the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council, which apparently, unlike the Kuala Lumpur City Hall, did not carry out safety checks.

Two questions - does an Islamic body trump a civil one and does this mean because the owner registered with an Islamic body, neither the owner nor the state religious body in question bears any responsibility for the deaths that occurred during their watch?

Then-federal territories minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said, “Checks showed that this particular premise had breached security guidelines, as it only has one way in and out, which is dangerous in times of an emergency.”

But of course, nothing was done about it at the time, which resulted in the deaths of 21 children and two adults. So it is not far-fetched to think that when something heinous happens when it comes to religious enterprises in this country, especially those which are not regulated, there is some sort of institutional malfeasance.

As long as there is no independent oversight when it comes to religious enterprises in this country, the lives of children will always be in danger. This is a reality Malaysians are forced to live with.

First off, Kok was voicing concerns about a religious Jakim policy that would affect non-Muslim businesses.

Secondly, she never said that there was no need for Jakim regulations. Kok is a seasoned politician in a ketuanan (Malay supremacy) paradigm; hence, it is odious to imply that she meant that regulations for Muslims, which are the purview of Jakim, were unnecessary.

Lastly, she was right about placing an unnecessary burden on Malay businesses, which is why the Umno ulama wing made the suggestion it did.

Indeed, in response to the manufactured backlash, Kok acknowledged that this country's halal certification was one of the best in the world and that she supported it.

However, she was also a representative of all ethnic communities in this country and thus had to voice concerns that would affect everyone.

But the most cogent point she made to rebut the prime minister, who claimed she should have made her concerns known through the proper channels, was to rightly point out that the de facto religious minister had mentioned the Jakim proposal in “an open forum without prior engagement”.

So the question then becomes, why wasn’t there prior engagement with Harapan partners, and why are ministers suddenly making declarations without discussing them with coalition partners?

More importantly, in a public forum, Kok has every right to respond to another minister without fear of inviting sanctions from the state security apparatus.

Not the first time

And all of this is not new.

In 2016, the Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (Risda) and the Malaysia Institute of International Islamic Cooperation (Ikiam) proposed a “halal certification” that differentiated between halal products produced by Muslims and non-Muslims.

Why, you ask? Well, according to Risda at the time - "The need for another halal logo is to distinguish products that were produced by Muslims against that of non-Muslims besides helping Risda smallholding entrepreneurs and Muslim entrepreneurs make forays into the halal markets locally and abroad."

Of course, Jakim had to issue a reminder.

"If Ikiam and Risda proceed with using a new halal logo for Muslim-made products (without Jakim's approval), it is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (Halal certification and identification) Order," it said.

Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim said: “The deep understanding I can think of is that Jakim will make a lot of money. Already, it’s a billion ringgit business, and if the purpose is to make easy money, say so.”

Quashing dissent

Non-Muslims are always warned not to interfere with the religion of the state. We are told that the religion of the state only affects Muslims.

We are told that secularism, progressive democratic values and the right to defend them should not be at the expense of the religion of the state.

Indeed the Madani regime has created a political climate which is detrimental to dissent because DAP claimed to be the ones to hold the line against the creeping Islamisation of this country. Now we are told to be fearful of the “Green Wave”.

What are we really talking about here? Well, it means that non-Muslims standing up for their rights would be going against the 3R. It means that if you object to a policy based on religious grounds, you are going against the 3Rs.

The fact that Kok is under investigation is further evidence that any kind of dissent with regard to a religious policy which affects non-Muslims would involve state security intervention.

This, of course, is bad but what is worse is that all the Madani regime is doing is laying the foundation for when a theocratic state takes over.

Non-Muslim dissent against religious extremism or interference has been weaponised. This is one of the first / principles of a theocratic state.

All this is merely the logical conclusion to the don't spook the Malays mantra.

This is the issue and not what the PAS Youth wing claims - “Day by day, those who make fun of Islam are getting worse because they feel they have strong connections that allow them to hide behind fake accounts.”

Remember the time PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said the people were confused about the Taliban and that the regime has now changed and is wiser, though still steadfast in its struggle to uphold Islam?

And what of legitimate criticisms of the Islamic faith by various NGOs like Sister in Islam, who are always on the receiving end of police reports for tarnishing or insulting Islam; what about these types of “insults”? Does quoting from religious texts which put religion in a bad light qualify as an insult to the religion?

Look, we have a mainstream political dogma that warns against spooking the Malays. We have a political opposition that warns that the Malays are divided and susceptible to manipulation by non-Malay political factions which are detrimental to the well-being of the Malay community.

Less free speech means that these ideologies will flourish further because we have a mainstream political ideology that proclaims some are more equal than others.

Keep this in mind, what this Madani regime is doing by curbing free speech and expression in the name of safety and stability is merely enabling the far religious right in this country.

This is not the kind of Merdeka people deserve. Or maybe we do.