Keep in mind that when I say political power, I do not mean power over policy but rather power that constrains the excesses of the religious and racial state.

Protecting rights of non-Malays

Increasingly when non-Malays vote, they vote because they want their communities to be left alone.

The first principle of democracy is merely a crude framework in which citizens govern and interact with each other in a mostly fair and egalitarian manner.

The purpose of a maturing democracy is to build on that. This is the exact opposite of what a theocratic state is.

Every time a non-Malay votes, it is in the expectation that who they vote for would constrain the religious and racial excesses of mainstream Malay politics.

This involves issues from closing down non-Muslim businesses to unilateral conversions.

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.

The former Pekan MP has since apologised, claiming he was a patsy but this is what Low said in an interview in 2015:

"Did the people supposed to be responsible for decision-making (at 1MDB) suddenly decide to absolve all their responsibilities and then create this PR campaign with me as the focus of it?

"No one seems to ask the question who is the ultimate decision-maker on 1MDB? No one asks that. No one ever asks about the shareholders' role."

However, all this is irrelevant of course. Najib defines Madani's policies on corruption. When he got his reduced sentence, this fed into religious narratives of PAS and the far religious right.

When you have PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang and preacher Zakir Naik arguing that it is better to live under corrupt Muslim rule than an honest non-Muslim rule, this is the definition of the Madani strategies when it comes to Najib. This is the message it sends.

Now that Najib may get his house arrest, this merely points to how the ketuanan (supremacy) system handles its reprobates.

Flimsy narrative

Think about Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA). In justifying it, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim advanced the narrative that this was partly a political persecution by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The fact that Zahid, Najib and every other alleged kleptocrat say the same thing points to the narrative that is being shaped by the mainstream political establishment in this country to justify alliances or to shape narratives around corruption allegations.

Forget about the message Zahid’s DNAA and Najib’s partial pardon and possible house arrest say about the hypocritical nature of Madani. What is more damaging is the message being sent to the civil service and security apparatuses which are mired in the kind of factionalism that dominates mainstream Malay politics.

Remember before Najib went to jail, he was going around shoring up support and spreading all sorts of lies and misinformation about the 1MDB scandal and his “political persecution”.

Remember when PKR deputy president Rafizi Ramli had the cajones to directly attack Najib and throw rhetorical hand grenades into the well-laid plans of the Umno establishment?

"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 question then becomes, why would Anwar want to stir this issue up now? Together with the mufti bill, this only consolidates power with the religious class, which includes PAS and the far religious elements in all mainstream Malaysian parties and further diminishes the influence of the supposedly secular DAP.

And what of the DAP? Lim Guan Eng in 2017 described the “cheap politics” of Umno and its allies and wondered why anyone would continue to support Umno after its mass deception with regard to the political gamesmanship of this Act.

As reported in the press - “Clearly the perks and privileges of government office are more important than principles. Yet, the non-Umno BN component parties try to cover up their failure by pinning the blame on DAP.”

Furthermore, just three years ago, Lim said that Malaysians don’t buy that this Act will not affect non-Muslims.

Religion’s conflict with secularism

Just last year the prime minister made two statements when it came to the religion of the state and its conflict with secular democratic norms.

The first was “There is no issue about complete separation of state and religion because Islam is the religion of the federation, but it is not a theocratic state where you can impose Islamic laws on everybody, including non-Muslims.”

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.

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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?