Malaysiakini : The always vocal (why this woman is unelected is, I dare say, criminal) Siti Kasim, who knows a thing or two about religious malfeasances and how it affects the majority community, reminded non-Muslims in this country in a Facebook post.

“Don’t think you’ll escape, for eventually there’s bound to be a domino effect … If the bill gets through, it’ll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs in Parliament will take notice by not letting the bill through.”

Passing the buck, as usual

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil, in defending the legitimacy of this bill, pushed a disingenuous Madani narrative that needs to be debunked. These four talking points are typical Madani deflections.

1. The first involves the rather wonky claim that this bill mirrors the Sabah Fatwa enactment.

Notice how Fahmi does not elaborate on the similarities or the similarities in civil and religious standings between the proposed bill and the Sabah fatwa but merely makes a general claim as to the similarity between the two.

Furthermore, unlike Sabah, religious disruption between the various communities emanates from the federal government. For example, the recent backtracking of the mandatory halal certification for non-Muslims came from Putrajaya.

2. Fahmi claimed - “At the same time, there is no increase in the mufti’s powers; it remains the same as now. The difference is that we want to bring it as a parliamentary Act to clarify its jurisdiction, so there are no claims or disputes about the mufti’s authority,”

The question we should ask is if the powers of the mufti are the same, then why is there a need for clarification of jurisdiction? For any rational person, I think the answer is obvious, right?

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?

Malaysiakini : Hence, any racial and religious debates are going to fall within those lines and any attempt to address this situation has been shut down, even more so in the era of Madani.

These days, the non-Muslim polity cannot rely on their political power brokers to dissent against the hegemonic religious and racial policies because these power brokers belong to a coalition which is grounded in the Malay uber alles paradigm - which Anwar and his allies at one time rebelled against or at least wanted to reform.

Now, since the prime minister has said that “the plan needs to be strictly implemented and exposed to the people, especially when there are quarters in the country using racial elements to threaten peace” - rational Malaysians have to ask themselves which quarter they belong to.

Understanding the irony

Mainstream political rhetoric and policy are determined by race and religion and, more often than not, share many similarities with the extreme ideas the state claims it wants to constrain.

What we are dealing with is groups or individuals who think that the state is not going far enough when it comes to the theocratic state project or, for political reasons, believe that race and religion are under siege.

We are dealing with groups or individuals who think that there should only be one R in the 3R (race, religion and royalty), which is what makes them so dangerous to the mainstream Malay political establishment.

However, the problem is that because of the way politics is defined in this country, what we are left with is ample recruiting grounds in the forms of polarised universities, unchecked madrasahs and independent preachers who are coddled by the state and, of course, a political apparatus which radicalises mainstream politics with race and religion.

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.

Malaysiakini : Not acting alone

First, it means that these cops were not going “rogue” but were acting under the instructions of these “outside religious groups”.

Now, why they were following the order of these outsiders is yet to be determined, but the Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) scandal has exposed the extent of how religious and political influence is hardwired into the state security apparatus.

We know from the Suhakam inquiry into the kidnapping of Amri, for instance, that his wife, Norhayati Ariffin, had claimed that her husband was taken by the Special Branch.

It was because this was relayed to her by Perlis Special Branch officer Shamzaini Mohd Daud, who later denied revealing any such information.

However, “…the panel accepted Norhayati’s version of events as they had found the police officer’s testimony to be ‘incongruous’ and ‘full of inconsistencies’.”

Keep in mind that the Suhakam found that not only were the two kidnappings similar, but the tradecraft displayed in both kidnappings were nearly identical.

So, what we can surmise is this was a professional removal, which is a far cry from how the state security apparatus treated these two cases of kidnappings.

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.

Malaysiakini : What Anwar can point to are organisations, political parties and individuals who have reacted against the intrusion of Islam into non-Muslim economic and social spheres, which we were told would not happen under the so-called social contract or Muslim voices who fear that the religion of the state would curtail their democratic rights.

Has the prime minister condemned the hate speech of religious extremists who have labelled non-believers “kafir”?

Has Anwar condemned the persecution of non-Muslim businesses by provocateurs from his own coalition?

Has he stood up for progressive Muslims, who stand alone most often against the extremism of the far religious right?

Has the premier offered a religious narrative which is removed from hate-filled rhetoric and policies of those on the “other side, who claim to be the only Islamic party“?

Snake in the grass

Religious provocations come from the practitioners of the state-sponsored religion and not from minority belief systems.

Such provocations include threats to burn holy texts, disrespecting religious symbols or icons, investigations into possible proselytising, claims against other religions, banning of words, and imposing dress codes in public institutions.

Unilateral conversions, unlawful conversions of minors, religious kidnapping in custody cases, rehabilitation centres, and seditious comments against specific religions are also part of this.

Two points need to be made about the prime minister’s claim on people who do not want any mention of Islam.

The first is that this type of strategy is employed by politicians who do not want any form of pushback against Islamic policies, even if said policies encroach into non-Muslim rights.

Secondly, when it comes to the non-Muslim political class, they have bent over backwards in their attempts to be supportive of such policies, and when it comes to objecting to such religious intrusions into non-Muslsim rights, they have to object with one hand tied behind their backs, lest they are accused of stirring up 3R (race, religion, royalty) issues.

Islamophobia is something religious political operatives use when attempting to impose religious policies or restrict free speech.

Non-Muslims hit by ricochet

Mind you, if there was a strict separation between policies which affect Muslims and non-Muslims, and there was empirical evidence to support such a position, then non-Malays would not have a fear of Islam.

Instead, the rules that apply to Muslims only have always touched non-Muslims and defined our economic, social and political realities.

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.

Malaysiakini : “In addition, they were also made to watch other children undergo the same predicament.”

So, the question becomes, what exactly was Jakim doing all this time? Furthermore, it says a lot about how child welfare agencies in this country were carrying out their duties.

Jakim’s defence that they are not an “enforcement agency” when it comes to this issue is laughable because they have made it their mission to be front and centre when it comes to any kind of perceived trespass into their religious domains.

Indeed, they have publicly played a central role in everything from the “Allah socks” issue to the recent outrage that Teresa Kok finds herself embroiled in.

Keep in mind that the IGP has said all this was based on six months of intelligence gathering before this issue gained traction on social media. All these conflicting timelines, when children were allegedly abused, do nothing for the credibility of the state security apparatus or Jakim.

Also, note where the IGP said, “I urge former GISBH members who lodged police reports before retracting them to come forward and help in investigations.”

Oblivious, passive authorities

We should ask ourselves why the reports were retracted by these former members. What exactly is going on when it takes traction in social media before a case warrants attention by the state security apparatus, especially where children are abused and the state security apparatus has to make fait accompli declarations to reassure the public?

What we are talking about here is a federal agency funded to the tune of billions of ringgit, whose presence is felt in every corner of this country and is a cornerstone of the current Madani regime. And despite that, in an effort to consolidate the religious narrative in this country, it was unaware that children were sodomised and were taught to sodomise by their caretakers.

Asri, one of the sacred cows of the mainstream religious establishment, whose task which history has shown is to root out “deviancy” in mainstream religious narratives - for him to claim inaction on the part of Jakim is demonstrative of the kind of internal machinations and schemes currently going on in the religious mainstream.

This gives some sort of probative value to what the GISBH CEO said in the quote that opens this piece and gives weight to what Asri implied. Was there some sort of leniency that led to inaction, in the name of religion?

Covering up crime

GISBH CEO Nasiruddin Mohd Ali claimed there were cases of sodomy but they were handled internally because ”GISBH recognised they constituted a legal offence”.

So, in other words, they covered up a criminal offence and, so far, nobody from the state discovered this.

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.

This perhaps points to the deeper policy-making impetus of successive ruling governments.

Bersatu’s Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal’s warning to a sitting MP that her refusal to retract her statement would result in an avalanche of police reports is merely further evidence that any form of dissent or objection or differing political perspective when it comes to the religion of the state has been weaponised.

Wan Fayhsal claimed that what Kok said had touched on the 3R (race, religion and royalty).

Another recent example of this weaponisation comes from Malaysian Muslim Lawyers' Association president Muhamad Hisham Marzuki who claimed that any objections to the report that Jakim officers would be placed in government offices was seditious and reeked of Islamophobia.

"Moves by certain quarters to continue playing to the propaganda that anything Islam or syariah has no place in the public sphere in our country, save for minor ceremonial purposes, reek of Islamophobia, rooted in hatred towards Muslims and religious bodies in Malaysia,” he said.

So what does this make MCA Youth secretary-general Saw Yee Fung who said: "If Jakim is involved in the policy-making process of various departments, it means that future governance will be guided by the core values and principles of a particular religion, which will undoubtedly compromise the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and fairness that the government should uphold.”

In all these situations, Kok, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) and the MCA Youth were in effect defending the democratic principles of this country, namely in the preamble of the Rukun Negara which states -

• Achieving a more perfect unity amongst the whole of her society;

• Preserving a democratic way of life;

• Creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and equitable manner;

• Guaranteeing a liberal approach towards our traditional heritage that is rich and diverse;

• Building a progressive society that will make use of science and modern technology.

So I guess this makes them seditious and Islamophobic or touching on the 3R?

Speaking up for rakyat

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim enabled Kok’s detractors when he said that her stance did not reflect Pakatan Harapan's position.

"There is a problem... regulations are necessary so that Muslims do not feel apprehensive. But if she (Kok) feels that the regulations are not necessary in a certain area, discuss it properly," he said.

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.

I have no idea why anyone would defend policing through licensing or legislation of social media platforms when the history of the press in this country is one of self-censorship and clampdowns.

Do social media companies need to operate in some sort of regulatory framework? Yes, but in this country, regulatory frameworks are not used to ameliorate the detrimental excesses of free speech as they do elsewhere. Instead, it’s rather to curtail speech that the state deems offensive. This is it in a nutshell.

Think about this for a minute. Every other day we read about how posts on Facebook, Instagram or whatever have resulted in the arrests and criminal proceedings of someone who insulted the religion of the state, the royalty, or whatever it is that spooks the majority. They were arrested and charged using existing laws.

Now whether this goes against free speech or the principles as espoused by Harapan is not the point, only that when it comes to acts that jeopardise the (argued) safety and stability of this country, we have more than enough laws to handle these problems.

There was a lot of schadenfreude when former prime minister Muhiddin Yassin was charged with insulting the royal institution. Bersatu political operatives bemoan that freedom of speech and expression are going down the drain.

These people are hypocrites, not to mention architects and enablers of such laws when in power, so nothing they say about this issue really matters.

However, I do think that Muhyddin should not have been charged, because I do not think someone like Fadiah Nadwa Fikri should have been investigated for sedition for what she said about the royal institution.

In case some folks missed it, Fadiah was investigated in 2018 for writing an article about the royal institution sparked by the image of Anwar kissing the hand of the current Agong Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar.

As reported in the press - Fadiah’s article questioned Anwar’s move to perpetuate a “feudal culture” at a time when monarchies in many other parts of the world had been rendered supposedly obsolete.

Lest we spook the Malays

What these laws are used for is not only to stifle discussion but also to detract from the real issues facing this country. I’ll give you another example. You know that recent AI-generated “Welcome to Afganu” image which had some political operatives’ knickers in a twist? What is the real issue here?

The real issue is that a state in Malaysia has banned women from competing in sports events because it went against the syariah-compliant dress code. The real question is what does the prime minister, who talked about the freedoms and rights of men and women in India, think about this?

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.

Malaysiakini : Let’s not kid ourselves

Are you sure about that? Sure, the MCMC can use its bully tactics on local enterprises. Just last year, a group of veteran media professionals issued a statement calling for the MCMC to stop acting like big brother and block news sites.

“We absolutely cannot accept any attempts to use government agencies like the MCMC to question, censor, or block portals and online news content.

“The current government is chosen on the basis of its promise to enable the free flow of information and to guarantee freedom of the press. Complaints from media practitioners that their websites are being blocked are on the rise; this is an unhealthy trend that must be stopped immediately.”

What would happen if the state decides to shut down social media platforms that government agencies rely on to transmit information to citizens?

What would happen to local businesses that rely on these platforms to generate business and communicate with their customers?

What would happen to state security services that rely on these platforms to warn citizens of possible danger or state rescue services that rely on these platforms to communicate with citizens in danger relief areas?

Facebook and WhatsApp go off for a couple of hours and the whole country is plunged into some sort of existential crisis, and the government really thinks that it could shut down these platforms and there would be no blowback from the citizenry, but more importantly, how it would affect essential services from healthcare to security?

All about control

What the government hopes to do with this licensing scheme is to attempt to regulate the flow of information in this country. Why? Because the state understands that the opposition has a far better grasp of social media tactics than it does.

What PN has demonstrated, for instance, with its use of social media influencers and viral memes mocking the government is that they can sway voters, especially young voters.

The Straits Times under the headline “Social media censorship in Malaysia surges during PM Anwar’s first year in power” highlighted this exact issue.

“Political content on TikTok is dominated by the opposition alliance Perikatan Nasional and critics have accused the government of silencing dissent by targeting content on the popular video-sharing platform.

“PN’s success on TikTok was widely credited for the unexpected gains it made at the 2022 general election, with both PAS and Bersatu more than doubling their seat haul from four years earlier.”

Let me be very clear. Social media companies are not the victims here. Indeed, revelations by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen argued that Facebook prioritises profits over safety.

Her opening remarks before the US Senate are a good indication of how social media platforms operate.

“I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy.

“These problems are solvable. A safer, free-speech-respecting, more enjoyable social media is possible. But there is one thing that I hope everyone takes away from these disclosures, it is that Facebook can change but is clearly not going to do so on its own.”

However, this is a separate issue from what is going on here. If Malaysia really wants to have a discussion with Facebook about its algorithms and how hate speech and elements detrimental to a secular democracy are in danger because of the corporate practices of Meta, then, by all means, have that discussion with Mark Zuckerberg.

But this is really not about defending secular democracy, is it?

Licensing won’t curb cybercrimes

Deputy Communications Minister Teo Nie Ching as reported in the press said: “…that the measure is essential to curb the rising cases of cybercrimes, particularly sexual crimes against children and online fraud in Malaysia, which have become increasingly alarming.”

I submit there are more than enough laws and personnel to handle such issues if (and this is a big if) these laws and personnel were not used by the government to clamp down on every person or organisation which it views as a threat to their political survival. 

As reported in the Straits Times piece above, “According to sources involved in social media in the public and private sector, these demands for restrictions are continuing to grow in 2024, with the authorities dedicating personnel to trawl platforms for offensive content. ‘A vast majority are political in nature. Over 90 percent possibly,’ said a person involved in the content restriction process.”

Furthermore, when it comes to the issues highlighted, there is no evidence that any such licence would reduce such activities

What reduces such activities is good, old-fashioned police tradecraft, which means laws and personnel have to work diligently with these social media platforms to curb activities and this involves a sustained working relationship with these platforms.

It also means engagement with the public but, more importantly, training personnel in the latest methods to curb such criminal activities, which would mean of course close relationships with state security personnel from other countries and learning from them how they deal with such activities.

Ultimately, what the Madani regime is doing is building more dictatorial foundations for the theocratic state to further build on.

To be honest, I don’t think even PN would have come up with such a gambit because they understand that there are enough dictatorial tools in the box to handle dissent.

This is another way the Madani state shoots itself in the foot.

The AFA-CWA may be ‘ground zero’ for the explosion of terrorist flag pins on planes.

Sara Nelson, the president of AFA CWA, had previously weaponized the union for partisan attacks, but this is the first time a union of flight attendants is working to help terrorists.

Some of the same Islamic terrorists who butchered flight attendants on September 11.

Hamas, which the AFA CWA is trying to save as part of the so-called National Labor Network for Ceasefire (NLNC), is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. As was Al Qaeda whose core emerged out of a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden had been a member of the Brotherhood. Intervening to save Hamas in Gaza is the same thing as saving Al Qaeda.

The AFA-CWA press release described President Sara Nelson as a “a consistent social justice supporter” and claimed that the union was trying to stop Israel’s attacks on Hamas because “aviation’s first responders bring people together around the world. Saving lives comes first.”

As Americans found out on September 11, saving lives in the air requires fighting terrorists, not surrendering to them. The AFA-CWA’s attempt to save terrorists will only cost more lives.

Including those of flight attendants.

Unlike the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which is an independent union that represents American Airlines flight attendants and maintains a memorial to the heroic flight attendants killed on 9/11, the AFA CWA is an extremist organization linked to the far left.

While the AFA part stands for the Association of Flight Attendants, the CWA part means that the union is actually a subset of the Communications Workers of America. The CWA had already issued its own demand that Israel stop attacking Hamas. As has the AFL-CIO that the CWA is affiliated with. Rather than representing flight attendants, the AFA-CWA is part of a larger leftist political machine whose roots are not in the workplace, but in the government-union complex.

AFA-CWA President Sara Nelson, who was being considered for a ‘labor’ cabinet position in the Biden administration, has done quite well at the expense of actual labor. Records show that while the average flight attendant earns less than $70,000, Nelson made nearly $180,000.

Nelson is married to fellow union honcho, David Borer, who is the general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees. Borer’s salary has been estimated at $290,000. Together this ‘union household’ pulls down nearly half a million dollars a year.

That may explain how Sara Nelson and David Borer’, whose unions are both under the AFL-CIO umbrella, can afford to live in Chevy Chase, an extremely wealthy D.C. area neighborhood where the elite reside and other political government operatives make their home.

Nelson is an ally of Sen. Bernie Sanders who has repeatedly attacked Israel for defending itself. And like Sanders, Nelson has learned to live quite well while shouting about class warfare.

The AFA CWA’s efforts to save Islamic terrorists, who murder flight attendants, show that the union no longer represents flight attendants or Americans, but a class of radical activists who hate America and support its enemies. And they want to fly the colors of those enemies.

Flight attendants, like all of us, have a choice. We can be like Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney who resisted the Islamic terrorists on September 11, or like Sara Nelson who defends them.

On September 11, Arab Muslim had to hijack planes to fly them into buildings. But now there are radical flight attendants who don’t even need to be hijacked to support airline hijackers.

Malaysiakini : Some folks may have missed this but Malaysia recently experienced the passing of one of our great sportspeople - M Dattaya. He was a gold-winning hammer thrower and a silver-medal discus thrower at several international meets.

A gentle giant who left an impression on his fellow athletes and whose passing reminds us of the complex bonds non-Malays have for their beloved country. He was also a freelance journalist in the 1980s for a couple of national publications.

Even in his day, the spectre of racism brought him to rage but he soldiered on.

Pervasive racism in sports

As reported in the press by the great former sports journalist George Das in 1973, Dattaya’s career suffered a blow - “… the late sprinter Sabapathy told him the then Malaysian Amateur Athletics Union president Ghazali Shafie was not happy that the team was made up of all Indians, calling them the Madras team.”

Dattaya was so furious that he brought down the door to his room in Maba House. His brutal punch knocked the door down, said Das.

Sabapathy wrote in an article - “All of us were angry, totally dejected and offended by the racial labelling. We felt let down and rejected by our own country.”

Depending on what you believe, things are supposed to be different now, or are they? What are we talking about when we talk about diversity? Is diversity really celebrated here in Malaysia or is it really just propaganda meant to justify political and social paradigms?

Just last year, football coach B Sathianathan highlighted pervasive racism in sports after the whole conversion to Islam fiasco that was highlighted in the press.

He said: “Since 10 to 15 years ago, I have been getting complaints from parents, usually ethnic Indians or Chinese, saying their children are being sidelined from joining football teams.

“Most of them would say that teachers only picked Malay students to join the team, even though their own children have talent and potential.

“Such issues did not occur during my childhood. This can be seen in the national hockey team of the past, which was led by various races. There was even more non-Malay participation.”

Was it all just a mirage?

Keep in mind what Yeoh said when she was castigating the admittedly racial and religiously provocative statements of former Malaysian badminton player Bong Guang Yik (for which he has apologised).

“I believe that religion has never disturbed the performance of athletes and sports. This has never been a problem in Malaysia.

“I repeat my position - sports must be free of racism and politics. All national athletes are a source of inspiration for the country and are advised to be careful with their social media content.”

So I ask you, is diversity of any kind a foundational value in this country or is this all merely propaganda?

Now, of course, this may not always have been the case, as many old timers like myself like to point to, but are our experiences reflective of the reality of how things are or were? Was all this diversity just a mirage?

So in a way, this Malaya outfit reflects what Malaysia truly is.

Malaysiakini : Why is the issue being resurrected?

For over 30 years, breweries in Malaysia have been raising money for vernacular schools and charitable organisations without a fuss.

Deputy Education Minister Wong Kah Woh said Tiger Beer raised over RM400 million for Chinese primary schools in that period.

But last week, the Education Ministry raised a related issue: “The ministry takes this seriously, and we wish to remind school administrators to adhere to existing guidelines when it comes to organising programmes and receiving donations.

“And this covers the prohibition of receiving donations from gains made through gambling activities, cigarette manufacturers, alcoholic beverage makers, and its likes as they could jeopardise our students physically, intellectually.”

Why the resurrection after all these years? The practice has been going on for 30 years without any problems. When religion is intertwined with politics, the whole issue takes a different and, perhaps, a dangerous dimension.

What prompted it was a group photograph of a presentation mock cheque with the brewery company logo on it. Deputy Housing and Local Government Minister Aiman Athirah Sabu was among the dozen people in it.

Selangor PAS Youth chief Mohamed Sukri Omar (top pic) took to Facebook to criticise Aiman, calling the matter an embarrassment.

“If this is how an Amanah leader is going to behave, Islam’s sanctity will be under threat by liberalisation masked as Islam,” he said on Facebook.

How does holding a piece of cardboard with a beer logo pose a threat or challenge the purity of a religion?

This happens when two parties compete to see whose shade of green is brighter. The party that shouts louder wins, regardless of how illogical or irrational their conduct is.

Instead of standing on her ground, Aiman issued a condescending apology.

“I believe people understand the situation and will not fall for the slander being spread. People make mistakes, and in any case, I apologise to those who may have been slighted by this,” Sinar Harian reported her as saying.

Transport Minister Anthony Loke said he would seek the cabinet’s view about revising the ministry’s guidelines at the cabinet meeting today.

“The guideline should not have such restrictions, at least not for Chinese primary schools,” he said. However, Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek ruled out providing exemptions or reviewing guidelines that bar schools from receiving funds generated from selling tobacco products and alcoholic beverages.

So, will the issue be discussed and debated or will the Madani government bow to the wishes of the majority who use race and religion to pander to the Malay-Muslim electorate?

Malaysians wait with bated breath.

Malaysiakini : Harapan to blame for state’s inaction

Teoh’s demise is also an indictment against the Harapan alliance and the political operatives who stood by the former DAP political aide’s family when it was politically profitable but abandoned them when in power.

What we have to understand is that the questions and possible answers to Teoh’s death are political. It should not be but it is just as the Indira Gandhi case is a religious one, these cases tragically point to the dysfunction of the investigative services of this country.

It is not malicious (even though partisans may feel that it is) to recall the justifications of political operatives for the inactions of those with power when it came to the closure of the death of their fallen comrade.

Lim Guan Eng attempted to shift the blame for the failure to get justice for Teoh’s family to former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

This was just another example of how totally ineffectual Harapan political operatives were in solving long-standing issues that are important for a certain section of their supporters but also reframing a system they campaigned on.

Can you see the same pattern today?

The fact of the matter is that Harapan is to blame for the inaction of the state when it came to discovering the truth behind Teoh’s murder.

How dare Lim peddle the nonsense that it was “agreed” by the cabinet to reopen the investigation but the then-home minister, Muhyiddin, was not interested in pursuing the case.

Indeed, linking the inaction on Teoh’s death to the then-Harapan government with the political manoeuvrings of the Sheraton Move is extremely deceitful.

Where were all the high-profile ministers who had no problem lurking around when it came to attending Teoh’s memorials, but suddenly found themselves “voiceless” in the New Malaysia that we were promised?

Political malfeasances

It must have been a spit in the face for Teoh’s family that the personalities involved in the death and farcical investigation of his murder seeped into the Harapan bureaucracy and strutted around as if their sins had been washed away.

Contrast this to the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim, who was not only compensated by the state but whose death remains a mystery only because the events that led to it are mired in the kind of corporate and political malfeasances peculiar to Malaysia.

These days, the Madani state and the state security apparatus warn the public when it comes to “speculating” on the malfeasances that occur in the country’s administration of law and justice.

The state is quick to clamp down on news coverage of hot-button issues when it comes to the bureaucracy, but the reality is that this is the system that Harapan promised to reform if they managed to claim power.

Mutually beneficial

There is a connective tissue between the MACC and the political class, and it is mutually beneficial for the MACC and the political class to be simpatico.

Mind you, I am not making this claim. In 2020, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad twice warned the MACC to stop harassing his comrades or “…we have to be very active in exposing all the wrong things that they carry out”.

It says a lot about the dysfunction which could be classified as criminality, when the person who once led the Harapan government can threaten to expose the alleged malfeasance of the MACC if they continue harassing his political operatives and ignore the fact that he supposedly has “evidence” of wrongdoing, which should have been reported to the “relevant” authorities.

And keeping silent when the MACC is engaging in wrongdoing if they harass your political party means what exactly? That you keep their sins and omissions to yourself if they aided your coalition when in power?

It should make rational Malaysians wonder what the relationship is between the political class and the MACC at this moment in time.

Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail has said that the investigation papers on Teoh have been passed to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He also claimed - “the Royal Malaysia Police has called back the witnesses to complete the investigation papers…”

I hope that Teoh is the reckoning MACC deserves but the question is, will the Madani state dare spook the security establishment?

Malaysiakini : Absurd statement

Kok implied that it was Umno who gave the stand-down orders whingeing - “What could we do? We could not enter the villages; we were chased out. They didn’t want our presence to be too obvious and we adhered (to the request). This was a sign of respect to our partners,” in the context of the criticism by an Umno veteran.

Does anyone else see the absurdity in this statement? Firstly, you are a coalition partner in a federal government. If you are chased out of villages, what are the federal police and election apparatus doing about such electoral intimidation?

Secondly, how much influence does Umno have when it comes to a PKR by-election, which enables them to give orders to the DAP, with PKR saying nothing?

Kok went on with the same talking points about how the DAP is a multicultural party and the propaganda that is used against them has hampered their forays into the rural Malay heartland.

Look, the DAP has had decades to cultivate a rural base but the reality is that they concentrated on getting the urban and semi-urban non-Malay, specifically Chinese votes.

DAP was more than happy to leave the Malay vote to various Malay-centric parties, which is why they now have to deal with Madani’s “don’t spook the Malay mantra”, and who can forget that the justification for hooking up with Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

As DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang reminded us, the basis for hooking up with Mahathir was the rural Malay vote and of course, Bersatu was different from the Malay-based Umno.

And then there is the dilemma with Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh, which is meant as a distraction. Kok said - “However when we get into loggerheads with Umno and Umno Youth like before, the Malays see us as being rude and racist.”

Familiar malarkey

First of all, the Malays have moved on from Umno and the only people who seem interested in what they have to say are the denizens of Madaniville.

DAP chairperson Lim Guan Eng has no problem talking about the scurrilous attacks by MCA on the police and the home minister but as usual, DAP likes taking on soft targets.

But then again we have seen all this malarkey before. Remember in that not-so-great debate between Guan Eng and then-MCA president Choi Soi Lek, where the former said - “It is discrimination when Umno tells the Malays they cannot progress without Umno. (I say) We can all progress together.”

Well, is anyone in DAP telling this to UMNO now or is DAP still beating a dead horse with MCA? Wait, don’t answer that. Apparently DAP still thinks it is better not to confront someone like Akmal because the Malays will think it is rude even though a majority of them have shifted their allegiance to Perikatan Nasional/PAS.

So it is better for these Malays to think of DAP as whipping boys rather than a political party that opposes a theocratic state because God knows, nobody wants to spook the Malays.

Years of demonising MCA as a “running dog” for the establishment should have been a lesson for DAP, but now they are slowly learning the cost of doing business with Malay power structures on a federal level.

Not rocking the boat

When some non-Malay Pakatan Harapan partisans tell people who demand reform not to rock the Harapan boat - much like how Lim told non-Malays that they do not need to “beg” - it is exactly the same position MCA was when it was balancing expectations in the BN coalition.

DAP never gave MCA the benefit of this excuse, and neither should anyone who believes in any kind of institutional reform.

These days, the people are left wondering if DAP will cave when it comes to important policy issues because, with the creation of this coalition government, all they seem interested in doing is justifying the policies of the government, even if it goes against their campaign manifesto or more damning, their so-called principles.

We are always told that if not this then we have to accept the “Green Wave”. I say why make the “Green Wave’s” job easier? Why lay the foundation in terms of policy and governmental procedure (or lack of it) for the “Green Wave”?

The question is, if DAP is being asked to keep a low profile in certain elections to not spook the Malays, what else are they asked to keep a low profile on? Exactly how does keeping a low profile help the DAP base?

I know it may help the political elites, their proxies and hangers-on but how exactly does it help the non-Malays who make up the DAP base?

All this should not surprise us. Remember what DAP big cheese Anthony Loke said - “So I wish to put on record, as I said just now, on November 22, before Anwar Ibrahim went to Istana Negara, I told him, as long as you can be prime minister, DAP is willing to sacrifice anything, that is my commitment to Anwar.”

DAP ably demonstrates this commitment.

Malaysiakini : Malays unimpressed, non-Malays disappointed

If past election results are anything to go by, Anwar has yet to make any headway with the Malays.

Ever since he came to power in November 2022, he has tried to woo the Malays with many concessions.

Incredibly, he shares the unshakeable belief that the non-Malays are dependent on him and will never betray him because they say, “Who else is there besides Anwar?”

Anwar has bent over backwards to appease the Malays but they still reject him. At the same time, the non-Malays have also continued to bend over backwards to “support” Anwar, and yet, he continues to disappoint them.

This is political sado-masochism at work. Sadly, the victim in this power frenzy is the rakyat.

Decades-long rivalry

Those who know the history of Umno and PAS will realise that these three men, Mahathir, Anwar, and Hadi, go a long way.

In the late 1970s, PAS’ domination was on the rise, especially in Mahathir’s home state of Kedah.

Divisional Umno heads warned Mahathir about PAS’ rising threat and urged him to act.

As Umno deputy chief and deputy prime minister, Mahathir feared that Umno would lose Malay votes to PAS, which was buoyed by the global Islamic revival spearheaded by the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the overthrow of the Iranian monarchy.

Meanwhile, PAS had also accused Umno of not being Islamic enough.

Mahathir was displeased with the distraction as he was a man in a hurry to develop and modernise Malaysia. On top of the Islamic agenda, Mahathir had another local issue.

Student protests to highlight the plight of poor farmers and their starving families were an annoying distraction. Mahathir needed to focus on his vision.

Thus, he killed two birds with one stone by inviting the charismatic student leader and co-founder of the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (ABIM), Anwar, to join his government.

As a member of the establishment, Anwar could no longer lead the student demonstrations, and with his Islamic credentials, he was a valuable asset to Umno.

Anwar would convince the shallow electorate that Umno was indeed as Islamic as PAS.

He rolled out policies like the dress code for students and civil servants, the Bahasa Melayu/Bahasa Bako and the sidelining of non-Malays in the civil service. Many Malays were duped and the rest is history.

Complacency instead of Reformasi

The failed bromance of Anwar and Mahathir in the late 1990s and Anwar’s criticism of Mahathir’s response to the Asian Financial Crisis was followed by his sacking and subsequent arrest at the height of the Reformasi movement.

However, Reformasi had given ordinary Malaysians much hope for a new type of governance after the dark years of the Mahathir era. Malaysians liked Anwar’s bold moves for reform and anti-corruption. They vowed to end Umno-Baru rule.

After GE15 and the hastily cobbled coalition government, Malaysians soon became jaded. The promised reforms remain unfulfilled.

Of course, Malaysians are prepared to give Anwar a chance. It is not as if he did not have enough preparation time. Didn’t he have a 24-year apprenticeship?

However, ever since becoming prime minister, there has been poor communication between the top and the grassroots.

With the defeat at Sungai Bakap, Anwar’s ministers and his daughter Nurul Izzah have come out with weasel words like “self-reflection”, “we will listen more”, “bahlol”, and “trust us”.

Haven’t Malaysians been speaking out about Madani’s failure to listen to the rakyat all this while? Did it need Sungai Bakap to tell them “We told you so?”

A complacent Anwar probably thought he could depend on non-Malay votes to win. He was wrong because in Sungai Bakap, they wanted to punish him and so they stayed at home.

A complacent Anwar probably thought he could cultivate the Malay vote with various concessions towards them but this strategy failed and, to make matters worse, he alienated the non-Malays, his core support base.

A complacent Anwar may claim that the country has benefited from increased foreign investments but how does this translate to the ordinary man in the rural and semi-rural areas, whose lives are shattered by the cost of living crisis?

Disillusionment sets in

Increasing numbers of middle-class families are also struggling with price increases in food, fuel and energy, the deteriorating education of their children, increasing polarisation in the community and the rise in religious extremism.

They are dissatisfied with the Madani administration.

One disillusioned PKR supporter said, “Anwar spends more time on Hamas and he willingly gave them RM100 million. Back home, his own people are suffering.

“Then, on his return, he’s preoccupied with enabling house arrest for the convicted felon, Najib Abdul Razak. He has no time for the rakyat.”

So, will Anwar listen? Probably not.

Now we don’t even sit in the same kopitiam much less at the same table anymore – the Malays and the Lain Lain. When we talk, it is superficial small talk – never about the elephant in the room, never what is in our heart. We pretend that all is well; that ‘Malaysia is Truly Asia’. Tourists may buy that tag-line but we know better.

In retrospect, UMNO leaders after Tunku worked against a multi-racial Malaysia as envisioned in 1957. Their dream was Tanah Melayu, a country where Malays are the owners and the others “guests” – here at the pleasure of the host race, with little say in how the country is run. This dream was shared by leaders of other Malay parties even if their strategies differed. Each tried to ‘out-Malay’ and ‘out-Islam’ the other.

The Road to Tanah Melayu

Putting the pieces together one can see a well thought out strategy to achieve Tanah Melayu.

A good farmer  first prepares the soil before he sows his seeds. Likewise a good politician and Mahathir was a politician par excellence. Malays were told how they are deprived of the fruits of ‘their own land’ by the rapacious Chinese and Indian immigrants. Even when offered citizenship in return for recognising the ‘special position’ of the Malays – a sort of ‘social contract’ – they broke the agreement.  Malays were warned ‘they would disappear like the Red Indians of America’. The idea that the Chinese and Indians were untrustworthy was planted in the Malay psyche.  The ground ready, the seeds of ‘Tanah Melayu’ was sowed.

Political Spins

1.    The most dangerous political spin that has gone largely unchallenged is that the Malays were generous in allowing the Non-Malays citizenship in 1957 in exchange for the Non-Malays accepting the ‘special position’ of the Malays with regard to Article 153 of the Constitution. This became the imaginary ‘Social Contract’ dredged up by Malay politicians whenever there was a dispute concerning their “special position” No documents were presented to support this claim because none exists.

This ‘special position’ refers to the socio-economic situation of the Malays vis a vis the Non-Malays in 1957. The ‘special privileges’ refers to the affirmative action policies formulated to lift their socio-economic level to that of the Chinese and Indians. It is not ‘special privileges’ in the sense of “racial entitlement”, that just because one is a Malay one is entitled to these ‘special privileges’ in perpetuity. If that were the case a time limitation clause of 15 years would not have been written into Article 153. Imagine the Chinese and Indian leaders condemning future generations of Chinese and Indians to second class citizenship. This affirmative action ‘special privileges’ was later extended to “when Malays have 30% of the GDP” – a target set by the government.

This target was reached by 2015 according to Dr Lim Teck Ghee which the government denied but would not reveal government data or its methodology when challenged. It would seem that the government intend Malay privileges to continue in perpetuity.

The socio-economic environment and demography of the country at that time:

At independence the “Malays were mainly rice growers and planters of coconuts and other agricultural produce. They also served in the army, police and civil service.

The Chinese were the mainstay of the tin mines, were market-gardeners, artisans, shopkeepers, contractors, clerks and financiers.

The Indians – beyond the rubber plantation; Indians were recruited for public works and railway. They were in the hospitals, police and the bureaucracy.”

The British were the colonial rulers. They also hold the major share of the economy – the big plantations and tin mines were British owned. The major trading houses and agencies were British.

The demography of Malaya in 1957 was:

 Malays – 3,125.500    Chinese – 2,333.800   Indians – 696.200   Others -123.300

(Total Malays – 3125.5   Total Non-Malays – 3153.3).

 At the time of independence Malays were in the minority (relative to the rest) even including large numbers of immigrants from Sumatra and Java especially during the first four decades of the 20^th Century who were classified as Malays. In other words, the number of local Malays was even less than as stated  above. 

Can you imagine the British not granting citizenship to those Non-Malays who want it (whether the Malays liked it or not) when the economy depended on the[I1] m. Britain was just coming out of WW2 and colonies like Malaya were vital to the economy of Britain which still had a huge economic stake in Malaya even after 1957. Britain could not risk its cash cow when money was needed to rebuild a war-ravaged country.

 The British are realists. Without the Chinese and Indians the new nation of Malaya would not have been viable.

If the Chinese and Indians (who arrived in large numbers about the same time as the Javanese and Sumatrans in the early 1900s) were granted citizenship, so were the Sumatrans, Javanese and others who were not local born. So why the fuss about the Chinese and Indians getting citizenship?

 On a more practical level how could the new country function without the Chinese and Indians? Malays were averse to the back-breaking work and risks which the Chinese and Indians were prepared to undertake. That is why the British brought in the Chinese and Indians, to work the mines and rubber estates. They also constructed roads and railways and other infrastructure. They ran small businesses to service the community. There would not have been independence if this matter was not resolved because Malaya would not have been functional as an economy.

The Chinese and Indians are not here because of the generosity of the Malays; they are here because they served an economic purpose. They have paid for their citizenship with their blood, sweat and tears. There is no argument that the towns and infrastructure were built by them. They have given their lives fighting for the country, they have sweated to make the country prosperous. They owe no one anything; they have paid their way many times over . . . and are still doing! Even today, the minority Malaysians are carrying the majority according to Mahathir.

Hence acceptance of the ‘special position’ of the Malays by the Non-Malays is not in exchange for citizenship. Unfortunately, that like Goebel’s lies, told over years this narrative has taken on the guise of truth.

On the other hand, acceptance of the Malay ‘special position’ as per Article 153  which conceded to Malays certain ‘special privileges’ (time-limited) by the Chinese and Indians was necessary and pragmatic because without it the country would not work. It is impossible for half the population to be economically disadvantaged and not expect discontent. The Malays must be lifted up to the socio-economic level of the others. Article 153 is an ‘affirmative action’ legislation which the Non-Malays accepted. It is not a legislation for ‘Malay exclusivity’ which demanded privileges in perpetuity.

2.    Indigeneity

Indigeneity as a basis for Malay claim to “special privileges” is a false claim. Fact is Malays are not indigenous to Malaya. They were early settlers on the land for sure. While ethnic Malays came from Rhiau and Deli in Sumatera others came from Java and other islands in the archipelago. What is the difference? except the Chinese came from China and the Indians from India.  We are all immigrants albeit some came earlier. The real indigenes are the Sengois, Semais, Jakuns, Negritos and other tribes, that is why they are called Orang Asli. In East Malaysia it would be the Dayaks, Kadazan-Dusuns, Muruts, Bidayuhs etc.

Also at the time of Merdeka many “Malays” are not ethnically Malays but Pakistanis, Indians etc who fit the constitutional definition of ‘Malay’ e.g. Mahathir Mohammed. These ‘celup Malays’ have even less claim to ‘special privileges’.

If the claim of indigeneity is the basis for ‘special privileges’ why are the Orang Asli at the bottom of the socio-economic heap?

It is worth reminding ourself that the international convention of citizenship does not allow for “special position” because of indigeneity. Once acquired, citizenship confers the same rights and responsibilities on all citizens. There are no different classes of citizenship based on colour or creed.

In short, the ‘special position’ of the Malays derives from its weaker economic position – not its claim to indigeneity,

Strategies for Tanah Melayu

Irrespective of the above, the purveyors of the dream persisted.

1.    From schools to mosques and government institutions the narrative for Tanah Melayu was spun. A ‘rewritten’ history skewed to emphasise the Malay position was taught in schools. The Biro Tata Negara diminished the contributions of the Non-Malays to nation building while exaggerating that of Malays. Mosques warned that Christians were out to convert Muslims. Every measure was taken to remove Christian symbols and practices, many Arabic words and phrases were forbidden to Non-Malays. All this in order not to confuse the Malays.

2.    Perhaps if everyone ‘masuk Melayu’ the issue of race (and religion) would be resolved. To this end the government introduced ‘the Malaysian Culture Policy 1971’ where only Malay, Islamic and Indigenous Cultures were recognised as ‘Malaysian’. Indian and Chinese cultures were not allowed in public. Children were not allowed to perform cultural dances of their respective race in school performances.

 The multi-racial, multi-cultural Malaysia as envisaged in 1957 would have vanished with one stroke of the pen except that the Chinese and Indians protested. Every Chinese Guild and Indian Association, Independent Vernacular Schools, Cultural Clubs etc rose in unison. MCA, MIC and Gerakan, subservient junior partners in the BN Government, had no choice but to speak up for their respective communities. DAP which had been calling for a Malaysian Malaysia could not resist the opportunity to score political points.

3.    The rejection of the Malaysian Culture Policy did not blunt the push for Tanah Melayu. If one way failed, try another way. . .  In a master stroke, a Christian majority Sabah became a Muslim majority state overnight by the issuance of blue identity cards to illegal immigrant Muslim Filipinos  in the thousands.         

Sarawak saw what happened and took measures to protect itself from the Malay Islamic invasion.

4.    Article 153 was hijacked by Malay leaders who ignored all provisions to protect the legitimate interests of the Non-Malays as required in the legislation. Chinese businesses were forced to close because their licences were not renewed. In other cases, Chinese businesses were forced to give up a substantial percentage of their shares to Malays. Government owned businesses like MAS were virtually given away and bought back at a loss or bailed out with public funds when they failed.

 A Malay mercantile class was created overnight what took the Chinese generations to build.

5.    “Operasi Penuh Isi” an UMNO plan to fill all government positions with Malays was carried out. Government services were overwhelmingly Malays – way above their percentage of the population. Today the executive branch of government and government owned or linked companies are almost entirely Malay.

With banking, insurance, ports, imports of essentials, rice milling, energy, the automobile industry in the hands of Malays. Malays control a huge percentage if not the majority of the economy. With Malays controlling every lever of government and Malay making up the overwhelming majority of government employees, the Malay Agenda cannot fail.  Is Ismail Sabri’s declaration of a ‘Malay Government’  an announcement of the arrival of ‘Tanah Melayu’?

           Almost but not quite. Anwar Ibrahim still needed DAP and the other multi-racial parties in East Malaysia to keep him in power in the Unity Government against the ambitions of other Malay leaders.    

But Anwar is no less a racial and religious chauvinist. Despite his show of being a tolerant liberal Malay, his true colours emerge in less guarded moments. Jakim the department responsible for the development of Islam has a bigger budget than many ministries which served all sectors. Anwar has remained conspicuously silent in the face of protests by Non-Muslims across the country on the illegal conversion of Non-Malay minors. While he made it clear that under him affirmative action will be needs based yet rich Malays continue to enjoy special privileges while poor Non-Malays do not. He promised to help SMEs irrespective of race yet he did not open APs to Non-Malay companies like he did Malay SMEs.

Anwar is no less a Malay chauvinist than his former mentor Mahathir or any of the other Malay leaders. His Islamic credentials carried over from his ABIM days remain intact.

If the multi-racial Malaya/Malaysia we signed up for is to survive, the current state of affairs cannot remain unchallenged. The challenge has to come from all stakeholders -  Dayaks, Kadazan-Dusuns, Muruts – all Sarawakians and Sabahans - the Aslis, Chinese and Indians of Malaya but especially Malays who believe in and will fight for the Malaysia our fathers agreed on.

Are we witnessing the end of a dream and the beginning of a nightmare?

The Fat Lady has not sung.

Yin  - Ward 5   Tanjong Rambutan