The result would be more Muslims sanctioned by the state because they are indoctrinated into thinking that religious supremacy trumps everything, and the resulting backlash by the majority community, egged on by the opposition.

When you look at all these provocations when it comes to religious issues, it normally emanates from the state. In Madani's cases, it is made worse by the reality that the prime minister always attempts to burnish his religious credentials.

Nobody forced the prime minister to claim that the demolishment of a 100 year old temple was a victory or claim that that states need to clean up “illegal” temples or preside over the conversion of a convert or define the religious narratives of this country as a fight between those who are Islamophobic and those who feel “they are the only Islamic group, and everyone else is deviant, evil, and oppressive.”

Madani equals PAS?

When it comes to PAS sowing religious and racial conflict, this is to be expected. After all, they make no secret of this.

PAS’ atavistic interpretation of Islam, of course, does not extend to its politburo, which engages in the kind of excesses that most Malay uber alles outfits engage in.

However, while the opposition may benefit from the racial and religious turmoil that exists in Madani, and yes, may very well contribute to it, the real reason Madani is in a fix is because of its racial and religious agenda, which shares too many similarities with PAS.

Two years ago, when there was a possibility that Madani was going to place Islamic Development Department (Jakim) officers in government agencies, this is what PAS said about the interfaith group, which raised concerns about this issue and of course – the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355).

“In both oppositions, the group clearly shows its Islamophobia, where every step taken to strengthen Islam is construed as a threat to the rights and liberties of the non-Muslims in the country.

“PAS sees the MCCBCHST’s (the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism) stance as having serious repercussions and as a challenge to Muslims’ right to practise their religion.”

Neither PAS nor Madani think that Malaysia is a secular country.

"Malaysia is not a secular country. If it was, why should DAP include ‘to fight for a secular country’ in its own manifesto?

"Islam is the official religion of the federation. Then there is the idea of Malaysian Malaysia. No Malay can accept the concept of equality," said PAS deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man.

Moderate way

To be fair to the prime minister, he did define a religious state in a more “moderate way”.

“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,” he said.

Keep in mind that this moderate form of secularism does not apply to unilateral conversion or the banning of words, films and any other things that would offend the sensitivities of Muslims.

Indeed, Madani has gone out of its way to protect Muslim sensitivities at the expense of non-Muslim sensitivities, and this is by design because it is the desiderata of religious supremacy.

Hence, to claim that Islamic imperatives would not be imposed on non-Muslims is complete horse manure.

When we talk of religious provocations, we have to understand that it is institutional.

Preachers like Firdaus Wong and Zamri Vinoth are protected because they are part of the institution.

Furthermore, look at how the police behaved in raiding a “gay party“ in Kelantan and the lies and misinformation spread during that fiasco.

The action of the police in Kelantan is particularly egregious because the top brass continued with the disingenuous narrative that they were disrupting a “gay sex party”, even though the Health Ministry confirmed that this was an event it was involved in.

The PAS state government even thanked the police for acting the way they did, even though what they did contradicted what a federal agency said about this so-called “gay sex party”.

So this is not only political, but it would seem an action endorsed by Madani. Because Madani has chosen to remain silent, this sets a precedent for the police in all other states to carry out their duties based on religious dogma, as the Kelantan police justified.

The reality is that Madani has not offered an alternative religious agenda, and what the non-Muslim voters are left with is either not voting and getting a religious state at a faster pace or voting and still getting a religious state, but at a slower pace.

In 2021, Stadlen voluntarily agreed to release RM7.1 million to a 1MDB trust account. The case against him for money laundering was subsequently dropped.

Some of the victims, former PJ Utara MP Tony Pua, being the most prominent, was investigated by the police and barred from leaving the country for “alleged conspiracy in activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy.”

Same old, same old

On Friday, a similar conspiracy emerged. The police announced that the wife of a former minister is under investigation following a report alleging that she was plotting to topple the government and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

But Na’imah Abdul Khalid, the wife of the late former finance minister Daim Zainuddin, came out swinging, dismissing the claim of being involved in any form of effort to topple the government.

In a statement, Na'imah said that any attempt suggesting she was behind the Bloomberg exposé involving MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki is not only irresponsible but also an insult to the journalists concerned.

“The claim that I am trying to destabilise or topple the government is laughable and brings to mind past accusations faced by the prime minister himself, when he used to declare having the ‘formidable numbers’ to seize power.

“Unlike him, at no time did I engage in, contemplate, or support any effort to destabilise or topple an elected government,” she said.

But by this time, a copy of the police report filed by a 54-year-old who listed his occupation as “editor” was already circulating online.

The gist of the report is as follows: On July 31 last year, he, together with his business partner, attended a discussion via Zoom with the chairperson and staff of a UK-based strategy and communication company.

Also allegedly present were Na’imah and her two sons, along with two lawyers. The discussion, the report claimed, covered the use of international media to pressure the MACC and Anwar, specifically to drop charges against Naimah.

It was also suggested to use “lobbyists” around the world, including in the UK and the US, to apply pressure on the Malaysian side.

“My partner and I felt that this matter was wrong and amounted to betraying our own country, as it involved conspiring with foreign agents to bring down the prime minister and the government of Malaysia,” the report stated.

Emerging questions

For many, this claim and the side-shows provided a welcome relief from the serious business of corporate mafia, kuil haram (illegal temples), etc, which had been making the headlines during the week.

If it was a deliberate diversion, it succeeded, but then, questions began to emerge.

Why did it take the editor more than six months to realise the matter was wrong? What happened during the interim? Mental block?

Oh yes, he was in London on Feb 10 when Bloomberg broke the story on the MACC’s shady dealings, and hence his memory was jolted, and he put two and two together.

But Na'imah offered a different explanation entirely. According to her, the individual who lodged the report had initially approached her in July 2025, offering his services as part of a proposed communications team.

He was later terminated due to poor performance. After his dismissal, she claimed, he made further monetary demands.

She insisted the contents of the police report are false and preposterous, and that its timing - seven months after the alleged meeting - points to a desperate attempt to distract the public from growing calls for Azam’s removal.

Deflecting attention

The conspiracy theory is a political chameleon, adapting its colours to suit the landscape of the moment. Once deployed to shield Najib from the 1MDB scandal, it now resurfaces to deflect attention from mounting scandals facing the Anwar administration.

The parallels are unmistakable. Then, as now, foreign actors are cast as the villains. Then, as now, the machinery of law enforcement is mobilised to investigate those who dare to challenge the status quo.

Then, as now, the timing is impeccable - and the impression of the masses is that these circumstances are designed to change the conversation when it becomes uncomfortable.

But the public is no longer naive. We have seen this script before. We have watched it unravel. And we recognise that when the dust settles, the protagonists of these manufactured crises often fade away, leaving behind a trail of distraction and division.

The question is not whether Na'imah conspired with foreign agents or just spoke with public relations personnel, which remains a matter for proper investigation.

The question is why, time and again, conspiracy theories become the default refuge of those in power.

Why, when faced with legitimate scrutiny, is the response to cry foreign interference? And why does the truth always seem to be the first casualty in these political dramas?

Until we break free from this cycle of manufactured narratives, we remain prisoners of our own political dysfunction - forever chasing shadows while the real issues fester in the dark.

When political dissent risks investigation, reputational attack, or party retaliation, many citizens understandably choose silence, leaving only a small, vocal minority willing to openly challenge the government.

‘Petty’ issues aplenty

So, what does Anwar actually consider “petty”?

Current issues driving public anger, from temple controversies, high-profile corruption scandals, minority rights infringements, environmental crises, the MACC chief’s shareholding controversy, to systemic abuses across government departments linked to the so-called MACC nexus, are hardly trivial.

They are real, tangible problems affecting millions of Malaysians every day. Dismissing them as “petty” risks alienating citizens and minimising the lived realities of those who experience economic, social, and political injustice.

While the prime minister calls some issues “petty”, ordinary Malaysians struggling with job security, rising costs, social fairness, minority rights, and limited opportunities would strongly disagree.

For many Malaysians, like myself, these issues matter, and they are anything but petty. Anwar cannot simply dismiss our fears and anxieties in such a flippant manner.

Perhaps the current troubling “ignored” issue is the MACC nexus, the network of enforcement power, corporate influence, and political connections that allows systemic abuses to persist.

This is far from petty. Ignoring the MACC nexus is like being a homeowner who sees a termite infestation in one corner of the house but does nothing.

Eventually, the problem spreads, weakens the structure, and can cause the whole house to collapse.

Not ‘fringe’ issues

Questions remain about whether serious governance failures have been adequately addressed, with critics arguing that law enforcement agencies risk being perceived as a political instrument, undermining accountability and sending a chilling message to dissenting voices.

Ordinary Malaysians witnessing this cannot help but feel their concerns are being dismissed while powerful figures and allies operate with impunity, with allegedly corrupt politicians being fully acquitted.

If this is considered “petty”, it is only in the sense that the prime minister has redefined what matters, leaving systemic corruption and abuse unchecked while public anger simmers.

It’s no longer possible to claim corruption is limited to a small fringe. The armed forces have been rocked by corruption probes involving top brass whose actions undermine national security and trust in the military.

Beyond the military, Malaysia’s customs and enforcement agencies have faced scandals where smuggling syndicates and corrupt officers allegedly caused billions in leakages and illegal activities.

Immigration enforcement has had multiple corruption allegations, too, including officers arrested over “flying passport” schemes and visa‑related misconduct. Vulnerabilities in systems meant to protect borders and human rights are not petty issues.

When police, customs, immigration, and defence officials - the people entrusted with national security and law enforcement - face corruption scandals, it is not fringe anger. It is public anger at a governance system that has failed to protect ordinary citizens.

Rakyat feeling the pinch

Meanwhile, converts and controversial figures strain Malaysia’s delicate multicultural harmony.

Non-Muslims face restrictions, and Orang Asli see their ancestral land rights eroded. Unilateral conversions of minors anger Malaysians and divide families. Ordinary citizens are left feeling that their voices, rights, and cultural identities are under threat.

Even if the economy grows on paper and exporters in sectors like electronics, rubber gloves, and condoms report strong overseas sales, this doesn’t always translate into better jobs and security for ordinary workers.

Many workers feel their livelihoods are threatened by automation and low‑cost migrant labour, with few high‑quality, sustainable jobs. These are issues that growth figures alone won’t solve.

Environmental crises, from river pollution to mismanaged rare earth projects, highlight serious governance failures and the consequences of neglect.

In October, Sungai Perak around Gerik turned blue. We await the detailed mineral analysis; have the polluter(s) been identified and punished?

Fish died, and humans face risks. Are we supposed to wait indefinitely for an outcome? This is no petty issue.

The consequences of ignoring our anger are manifold: escalating social tension, loss of trust, economic stagnation, silenced dissent, erosion of harmony, and environmental collapse.

The 16th general election could be decisive. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, if fully acquitted, could rise. Many may cling to Anwar, not because he’s effective, but because the alternative seems worse.

So, the real anger is not a few. The majority feel unheard. Ignoring these issues risks deepening discontent and eroding trust.

Leadership is not just about encouraging investment. It is about making growth inclusive, fair, and sustainable.

Address grievances and deliver real solutions. It is essential for peace, prosperity, and survival, including Anwar’s.

While M Paramaguru claimed the fire had damaged a store room, kitchen, and toilet area, he said the cause of the fire has yet to be determined, adding that the incident has caused him fear and distress.

Alleged criminal trespass

Earlier this month, Paramaguru claimed trial before the Sepang Magistrate's Court on a criminal trespass charge, accusing him of committing the offence by entering land belonging to Suhaili Ahmad without permission.

The charge was framed under Section 447 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum imprisonment of six months, a fine of up to RM3,000, or both.

Suhaili, the owner of the land on which the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple resides, previously denied that a temple structure existed when he acquired the land.

He told Malaysiakini that there was only a “temple on wheels” parked there, with no permanent structures on the site, noting that he had known there was a temple occupying the land, he would not have purchased the plot “even if it costs 10 sen”.

His assertions came after the temple denied claims that it is “illegal,” insisting it has been ready to relocate for years.

The temple, however, argued that the Selangor government had never completed the paperwork to formalise replacement land allocated in 1997.

Earlier this week, Arun questioned the authorities’ alleged “double standards” regarding legal enforcement against those who attempt to demolish unauthorised houses of worship, asking if similar measures would also be taken if mosques or suraus were involved.

Arun said this in drawing comparisons between self-proclaimed activist Tamim Dahri, who had attempted to demolish a Hindu temple in Rawang Perdana on Feb 11, and temple committee members who have faced threats of eviction and charges for trespassing.

According to the federal police’s Criminal Investigation Department director, M Kumar, the article contained defamatory statements about Azam and is being investigated under Section 500 of the Penal Code for criminal defamation.

One of Azam’s contentions with the Bloomberg article is regarding a line that the MACC chief had not made a public asset declaration.

The top graftbuster, however, contended that he had declared his assets to the Public Service Department and that a public disclosure was not necessary.

Previously, in 2015, the police launched an investigation against WSJ after it published bank documents detailing how US$681 million made its way into Najib’s personal accounts.

Last December, Najib was convicted of abuse of power and money laundering in connection with that transfer.

Wielding the law against dissent

Latheefa further criticised the use of Section 500 - which covers criminal defamation - against government critics.

“It’s used selectively to shut down criticism against people in power.

“It was once used against Pakatan Harapan leaders and activists when they were in opposition. Whenever allegations are made against government agencies, ministers, (or) state governments, out comes Section 500 to try and shut it all down.

“This tactic never works in the long-term, and it won’t work now,” she said.

Section 500 of the Penal Code is punishable with up to two years in prison, or a fine, or both.

During the Najib administration, among those investigated under Section 500 for making remarks about the 1MDB scandal were Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli and Malaysiakini.

“When citizens repeatedly file police reports against Zamri for inflammatory remarks touching on religion, and no visible, proportionate enforcement action follows, the issue is not merely about one individual. It is about the selective application of the law.

“If Malaysia is serious about upholding harmony, then enforcement must be consistent, not contingent on political alignment or ideological convenience. The deafening silence is not neutral. It is read as protection,” he told Malaysiakini.

Charles’s remarks came after Anwar’s speech at a Chinese New Year celebration, where the prime minister urged Malaysians to focus on the larger issues shaping the country’s future, rather than being drawn into divisive matters.

Anwar emphasised standing united against a “small group” who try to provoke racial tensions, noting that while this group often stirs conflict and anger, most citizens desire peace, economic growth, and respect for all cultures and religions.

MACC scandal

Charles also highlighted the shareholding controversy surrounding MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki and allegations that the commission’s officials are entangled in a “corporate mafia”, including possible cartel-like dynamics and opaque migrant labour recruitment pipelines.

“In a country where migrant labour governance already lacks transparency, these claims demand more than defensive statements. They require independent investigation, parliamentary scrutiny, and proactive disclosure.

“Good governance is not about surviving headlines. It is about institutional integrity,” he added.

Touching on the non-renewal of pig farming licences in Selangor, Charles said that while framed as regulatory or environmental compliance issues, in a multi-ethnic society, policies affecting minority economic sectors carry communal resonance.

“If decisions disproportionately impact communities already sensitive to cultural marginalisation, then policy justification must be exceptionally clear, consultative, and transparent. Otherwise, it feeds perception, and perception is politically combustible. More so in a multi-racial country like Malaysia,” he added.

Trust deficit

While Anwar urges Malaysians to move beyond race and religion to focus on the bigger picture, Charles noted that many flashpoints fuelling frustration are precisely about how race and religion intersect with enforcement, policy choices, and political messaging.

“Leadership is not rhetorical transcendence. It is equitable administration. Malaysia does not have a social media problem. It has a trust deficit, ironically self-inflicted by the government.

“When enforcement appears selective, when anti-corruption institutions face credibility questions, and when regulatory decisions intersect with communal sensitivities without sufficient transparency, citizens will speak. If not in Parliament, then online.

“A reformist government cannot demand maturity from the public while tolerating procedural murkiness within institutions,” he added.

Charles said if Anwar wants to restore confidence, the pathway is clear: consistent rule of law, independent oversight mechanisms, full transparency on MACC governance, and demonstrable impartiality in cases involving religious provocation, regardless of who is involved.

“Anything less will continue to erode the moral authority he once campaigned on,” he added.

To be safe, Harapan needs to win over 70 peninsula seats. Can Anwar do it? This column examines several factors.

Opposition disarray

On the surface, some would say it is a no-brainer. Under the Madani government, Malaysia is now enjoying both economic growth and political stability. In contrast, Bersatu is split, with now 11 out of its 31 MPs ousted from the party, and Perikatan Nasional is in decline and might be operationally reduced to PAS.

PN is the fifth opposition coalition that sank into decline or demise after losing one or two general elections.

The list started with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s two-in-one bloc, Gagasan Rakyat-Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah, which folded up in 1995 and 1996, Anwar’s first vehicle Barisan Alternatif, which was effectively dormant by 2004, Anwar’s second vehicle Pakatan Rakyat, which officially ended in 2015, and BN, which was practically reduced to peninsula Umno after 2018.

Beyond the personality factor, opposition coalitions disintegrated or declined because once the prospect of winning or returning to power is lost, the incentives for component parties to stick together gradually disappear.

The diminishing electoral prospect can even be personal when opposition lawmakers are denied constituency allocation to help needy constituents.

Built over six decades by Umno, Malaysia’s winner-takes-all and patronage-heavy political structure systematically depletes the losers to ensure a dominant party.

Ethnic tensions

However, dominance does not ensure stability. What do you do if you are an opposition party with no chance to win power? You focus on winning seats by electrifying your communal/regional vote bank, who are more responsive to identity issues than policy matters.

In its heydays, BN - Umno and its non-Malay allies - were simultaneously accused of selling out the Malay-Muslims (by PAS) and marginalising the minorities (by DAP).

In the 22 months after GE14, Umno and PAS formed Muafakat Nasional and attacked Harapan on ethnicity, religion and language, riding the anti-Icerd wave and later benefitting from Harapan’s mismanagement of the Jawi issue, which alienated both the Malays and non-Malays.

Hence, it would be naïve to think the GE16 would be a walk in the park for Harapan and its allies. If the opposition is convinced that they have no chance to win votes and seats beyond their hardcore supporters, then the most rational strategy is to make GE16 a negative competition with smears and hatred, making it hard for a centrist government to play its balancing act.

The goals are simple: (a) getting the non-Malays and liberals to think they are being taken for granted by Anwar (so that they might abstain), (b) getting more Malays to feel threatened or just irritated by DAP or non-Malays (so that they might vote PN or abstain), and (c) getting middle ground voters to get frustrated or disillusioned (so that they too might abstain).

And what better issues than Hindu temples and pig farms? Expect these two to continue hogging news headlines, unless Anwar seriously finds solutions to “de-weaponise” them.

Corruption and reform

For voters who see beyond or are less affected by ethno-religious tension, the trust deficit is now centred on MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki and the separation of the attorney-general and public prosecutor.

The cabinet’s decision to form a committee headed by Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar, who was personally involved in the withdrawal of charges against Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, to investigate only Azam’s shareholding in public listed companies but not allegations of MACC’s collusion in economic extortion, suggests extremely poor political judgment or worse, extreme political arrogance.

If the allegations are true, this is not just about Anwar using a tainted man to pursue corrupt politicians and generals; it is about allowing the MACC top brass to turn the anti-graft agency into an extortion racket, akin to allowing police to control the underworld.

With Azam linked to Anwar’s former aide and widely perceived money man Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak, and to the GRS Sabah state government, a for-show-only investigation is pushing reform-minded voters and decent businesspeople to the corner.

Voting for Anwar in GE16 would be incredibly difficult for them because “the evil” would not be visibly “lesser”.

Azam’s scandal is structural, not personal. He is a powerful unelected officer appointed by and answerable only to the prime minister. As long as he is a “court favourite”, he can act with little restraint. And as long as he does the prime minister’s bidding, he can stay powerful.

This incentivises a structurally symbiotic relationship between the prime minister and the MACC chief commissioner and the resulting institutional decadence.

Another powerful yet unaccountable high office is the attorney-general, whose power is constitutionally enshrined under Article 145. This is why Malaysians demand the separation of AG and PP, and this is why the Constitutional Amendment Bill on Article 145 horrifies reform advocates and experts.

The AG-PP separation, if passed in the current format, would not create an independent and Parliament-accountable office of public prosecutor. It would only create a new unelected office whose officer bearer has the potential to be another monster who preys on citizens and businesses, hounds the enemies of his/her political master, or both.

Instead of an appointment with parliamentary input and exclusion of executive influence, the public prosecutor would be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.

The chronic problem with the attorney-general is not resolved but repackaged with even more complications.

First, the new composition of JLSC includes the attorney-general (as long as s/he is not an MP), who represents the executive interest in the appointment of the public prosecutor, who, in turn, gets to influence the appointment of lower court judges and high court registrars.

Second, the appointment by the king might be construed as discretionary, which then risks exposing the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to suspicion, distrust, and attacks that any prime minister faces for holding the power to effectively appoint the attorney-general.

This is politicising and undermining the constitutional monarchy as a key pillar of Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy.

A simpler and better option would be splitting the JLSC into two separate commissions for the judicial and prosecutorial services and granting Parliament a filtering role in the PP nomination and an ongoing scrutinising role in prosecutorial conduct, as civil society groups and experts suggest.

Ditch Umno’s majoritarian playbook

Notwithstanding significant reform initiatives, including the prime minister's 10-year tenure and the AG-PP separation, Anwar appears to have been employing much of the old playbook in Umno’s statecraft, from discriminating against opposition parliamentarians to covertly maintaining executive control even in the separated office of the public prosecutor.

Umno’s old playbook embodies majoritarianism and power concentration, which have both led to corruption and Umno’s ouster on one hand, and fuelled Malays’ communal anxiety on the other hand.

If Anwar wants to win his second term, he must ditch the old playbook and deliver true reforms that can better stabilise Malaysia’s politics. If that playbook had worked for Mahathir for the first time for 22 years, it did not last him beyond 22 months for the second time. Malaysia has moved on.

Anwar has been bold enough to introduce the 10-year tenure limit, something which Mahathir would never do; he must now move further from Mahathir’s shadow.

He shoul immediately put Azam on leave, appoint Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to lead a truly independent panel to investigate all allegations against Azam and refer the constitutional bill on AG-PP separation to a Parliamentary Select Committee for refinements.

That’s how he may reclaim the reformasi brand and not let it become Rafizi Ramli’s.

Since then, Anwar has used the phrase “uphold the rule of law” regularly, including saying it at a Chinese New Year lunch that Malaysia must be governed by the rule of law, not by “whims and fancy”, while upholding mutual respect in its multiethnic and multireligious society.

As calls for a royal commission of inquiry into claims of a “corporate mafia” within the MACC mounted, his aide, the political secretary in the Finance Ministry, Kamil Abdul Munim, argued that such a high-level inquiry should not rest solely on speculation or innuendo and would require substantial proof rather than unsubstantiated claims.

Such prophetic words must certainly be followed by “I must practise what I preach”, but this is hardly seen or exercised.

When a balloon seller is treated the same way as a religious preacher who set up shop along the five-foot way, with their tables and other paraphernalia seized, we applaud for uniform application of the law. Yes, the rule of law is in place.

When one gets reprimanded and his ware confiscated, while the other is deemed “innocent” and gets back what was seized, it is seen otherwise - favouritism or bias towards one party over another.

When a man whose defence had already been called on 47 charges of corruption and money laundering sees those charges withdrawn, while another individual’s representation to withdraw charges under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 is rejected, it opens the door to debate about entitlement and equality before the law.

Walk the talk

The rule of law is not a decorative phrase to be trotted out in speeches - it is the lifeblood of a just society. When leaders such as Anwar invoke thinkers like Hayek, they remind us that government must act according to predictable, transparent rules - not whims, favouritism, or selective enforcement.

Yet, the true test lies not in quoting ideals but in living them through consistent practice – by leading by example.

Uniform enforcement - whether against a balloon seller or a preacher - demonstrates fairness and strengthens public trust. But when enforcement bends, when charges are withdrawn for the powerful while ordinary citizens face rejection, the principle collapses into selective justice.

Such disparities erode confidence in institutions and reduce the rule of law to a slogan, wielded for political convenience rather than applied as a universal safeguard.

The credibility of governance rests on impartial institutions and independent courts. Without them, the promise of equality before the law becomes hollow, and society risks sliding into a system where entitlement, influence, and proximity to power dictate outcomes.

The rule of law must therefore be more than rhetoric - it must be the daily discipline of those in authority, a standard applied without fear or favour.

Ultimately, the measure of leadership is not how often one proclaims “uphold the rule of law,” but whether those words are embodied in action.

Only when justice is blind to status, wealth, and political allegiance can Malaysia claim to be governed by law rather than by men.

Although Anwar’s directive was to the local government authorities, the sense of vigilantism seemed to have reared its ugly head.

When will this acrimony, anger, and religious might end? Enough advice, admonishments, and warnings have already been dished out. What we need is action. But will the law be applied and enforced fairly and uniformly?

The time for platitudes has passed. Fires do not extinguish themselves, and mobs do not retreat without firm boundaries. If laws exist, they must be applied fairly, without fear or favour, and without selective enforcement that emboldens one group while silencing another.

Malaysia cannot continue to walk this dangerous tightrope where race and religion are weaponised for political gain. Each time leaders hesitate, each time enforcement is uneven, the flames grow stronger, and the mob grows bolder.

The velvet-glove treatment of some and iron-fisted punishment of others has created a climate of impunity in which opportunists thrive, and ordinary citizens lose faith in the system.

Rule of law or selective enforcement

Anwar has spoken of freedom of expression and the rule of law, but words alone are no longer enough.

The government must demonstrate that justice is blind, that no one is above the law, and that threats to peace will be met with decisive, consistent action. Otherwise, the promise of reform risks being consumed by the very fire it seeks to control.

The fight has now shifted to the volatile arena of social media, where boundaries vanish and laws, written or unwritten, seem absent.

Legally, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 criminalises the improper use of network facilities or services, including creating or sharing content that is obscene, indecent, false, menacing, or offensive with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.

It carries penalties of fines up to RM50,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. But who is afraid of the law when it is not applied or enforced fairly?

We have seen velvet-glove treatment accorded to some, while others are met with iron-fisted action. This double standard has only fueled the rise and tempo of threats, insults, intimidation, and provocation - spreading unchecked, and exploited by opportunists eager to fan the fire.

However, the allegations swirling around MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki and the spiteful persecution of former minister Rafizi Ramli by the Madani government should make every Malaysian, regardless of race or creed, take notice.

Complicity

For all my very public criticisms of the DAP, the party remains the sole problematic establishment choice for rational Malaysians.

When DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke set July 12 as the day that the party’s delegates decide if it will retain its positions in Madani, this is the kind of pusillanimous game-playing that has come to define them.

Madani persecuting Rafizi and enabling the head of the MACC is the nadir of how toxic Madani has become.

What we are dealing with here is a federal government which is willfully ignoring allegations of corruption and going after the people who actually want to reform the political establishment.

What is worse is that, by threats of retaliation against the press and individuals, Madani wants everyone to be complicit in this scandal, thereby making everyone guilty.

Think about this. When Azam “apologised” to the family of Teoh Beng Hock, he said: “Although the latest investigation did not uncover sufficient evidence to charge any individual, the MACC views with utmost seriousness the fact that Teoh was found deceased on Selangor MACC premises on July 16, 2009.”

Of course, we all know that according to all those investigations that the MACC “acknowledges”, the names of those involved are in the public domain and various investigation documents.

This, of course, means that the DAP is aware of this but chose this method to resolve the long-standing issues with Teoh’s family.

Is this justice Madani style? Does anyone else see how obscene all this is, considering the allegations facing Azam now and how DAP has remained impotent in the face of bureaucratic and governmental malfeasance, if not complicit?

Lots of noise, not much to show for

Loke said, “We cannot want to govern without bearing the burden of governance. Once the congress decides to remain in the government, the entire DAP must share the responsibility and act in unison,” which is just plain weird.

What is the burden of governance? Keeping your mouth shut while Rome is burning? And shouldn’t that be “If the congress decides to remain in the government”?

In 2020, at a memorial service for Teoh, as reported in the press, the then DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that although the party was no longer in federal power, he assured it would never give up its fight for the late political aide to one of the party’s elected representatives.

However, when DAP was in power, they did nothing except get a non-apology from an organisation shielded by Madani, which means it is shielded by DAP, no matter how some party operatives make noises that there needs to be a transparent investigation of the allegations surrounding Azam.

DAP could leave and cooperate with Madani on a state level. After all, politics is local, but staying in the federal government solely to maintain “stability” is a complete hogwash, or at the very least, the price of said stability comes at the expense of the rakyat wanting progress and reforms, which could save this country.

After all, if Perikatan Nasional can cooperate with Madani at the state level, why not DAP? However, does DAP have the guts to do this?

And let us be honest here. When Hannah Yeoh was the sports minister, she was apparently ignorant of the moves the Football Association of Malaysia was making, allegedly in concert with Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, with regard to the citizenship scandal.

The best part about it was that Yeoh’s supporters were defending her, even though if this were a Malay political operative from another party, the knives would have been out.

When Yeoh got her position as minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories), some folks were doing backflips as if this were some sort of momentous event.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi assured folks that the Malay agenda in the federal territories would not be affected.

This is why, when those dakwah tents were removed, controversial preacher Firdaus Wong’s online mob implicated Yeoh for disturbing time-honoured municipal practices even though the minister was on an outreach programme for the Malay community.

Long, arduous road ahead

This is what I refer to as the whipping boy politics of DAP. The party is willing to be the whipping boy of the Malay uber alles crowd, even though, at its best, it could enact utilitarian policies that would benefit most Malaysians regardless of race and creed if given the chance and support by its Malay partners.

Instead, the mandarins of DAP, for whatever reasons, have gaslighted the base into believing that being the whipping boy for the Malay right is better than being out in the political cold.

Here is the thing. The ketuanan types are going to spin this to make it seem like DAP and, by implication, the non-Malay communities are cowardly for sticking with Madani, even though they are not treated as equals or that the party is ungrateful and by implication, the non-Malay communities are if they leave Madani.

Either way, the going is going to get tough for the non-Malays in this country, and the ketuanan types understand this. At least with the latter, any party or coalition which wants to work with DAP understands that if reforms are not met, the party walks.

However, this is an ultimatum that Loke would never issue to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Instead, Loke decides to imitate Akmal and present a hyped up meet up, which changes very little in the political terrain beyond allowing DAP to play even dumber when it comes to the toxicity of Madani.

The rakyat loves it, especially when it comes to personalities of former regimes who, for decades, were operating with impunity. When MACC charges them, the rakyat is jubilant.

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 Pakatan 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.

Who is Azam working for?

Which brings us to an important question. Anwar said that Azam is a hardworking MACC head honcho, but what these allegations raise is, who exactly is he working for?

And this is the problem, with the prime minister robustly defending Azam despite the pressure from members of his coalition.

Now, while Madani may attempt to restrict the voices of the domestic press, it will have a far harder time attempting to silence the international press.

But then again, the political class is worried enough about these allegations that some are speaking up, and Madani's response to this is to set up a task force which doesn't even pass muster with operatives from Harapan.

Can the rakyat trust the investigations and findings of this task force set up to investigate Azam?

Of course not, which is why a handful of Madani operatives are demanding a royal commission of inquiry made up of credible individuals because anything less would be another sandiwara (theatre).

Government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil could not even utter what these allegations are, and the prime minister could not even place Azam on leave, which tells us how seriously the government is taking these allegations.

The more damaging of these allegations are of course, that Azam allegedly was working in concert with other MACC operatives with a criminal adjacent cabal.

Nobody in the cabinet has even mentioned this, which should make rational Malaysians wonder exactly how much of this was sub rosa (actions done in secrecy, confidence, or, informally, to avoid notice) and how much of this was business as usual, ignored or condoned by Madani.

Not only does the Bloomberg article zero in on specific personalities and incidents that are easily verifiable by any sort of transparent investigation, but it also relies heavily on insider anonymous sources.

This means that at this point, there are individuals within the MACC who, for whatever reasons, are leaking things to the international press.

When the ship starts leaking, it means that the rats will abandon the ship, and this means more leaks, which no doubt Madani will attempt to plug in the most heavy-handed manner.

Rafizi the disruptor

Rafizi Ramli continues to disrupt the narrative that all is kosher in Madani.

The fact that the former minister can make statements such as this - “I want to tell Anwar and Azam - I am a veteran when it comes to being arrested, raided, or put in lockup, I’m ready to go through it all again if he dares to try,” points to the weaponised nature of the MACC.

Here is a former minister and comrade-in-arms, telling the rakyat that Madani is possibly targeting him for speaking up against the prime minister and his graft buster.

It is as if Rafizi welcomes persecution by the MACC because it will be the final nail in the coffin for Madani.

The political apparatus in this country does not want any government agency to be accountable to Parliament. It does not want any public oversight of any government agency.

As long as these agencies are not answerable to elected representatives with powers to sanction aberrant behaviour, the outrage will continue without a solution.

Rabble rousers endeavour to make the public sceptical of government agencies to amass power, and when in power, force the public to place their faith in compromised agencies to remain in power.

MACC operatives who were responsible for the death of Teoh Beng Hock have not been brought to justice. Compared to that, colluding with a criminal adjacent cabal is child's play.

Journalists, academics, activists, NGOs, and ordinary citizens on social media are reminded, subtly or otherwise, that asking too many questions can carry consequences.

Consider the now-familiar question: How does a senior civil servant, tasked with enforcing anti-corruption laws, acquire millions of shares in listed companies?

When this question was raised, involving the MACC chief commissioner’s shareholding in Velocity Capital Partner Berhad and about possible links to transactions involving Anwar’s former aide Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak, the public response was not transparency, but silence, legal threats, and denials.

Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli’s questions were not accusations. They were the sort of questions many Malaysians value: questions about conflicts of interest, civil service rules, accountability, and perception.

However, the response has been most revealing. Letters of demand were reportedly issued, Bloomberg was challenged, and defamation was invoked automatically, done without thought.

An official of the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board said Azam had committed no wrongdoing in the recent shareholdings scandal and that the MACC "can't be judged based on ‘unbalanced’ reports".

When investigative reporting by Bloomberg, one of the most legally cautious news organisations in the world, is dismissed as "unbalanced, malicious, and defamatory”, the signal to local journalists is unmistakable.

More importantly, the message to Malaysians and in the international arena is chilling, because if even Bloomberg is unsafe, then we, too, are in a precarious position.

Cost of asking questions

This is how scrutiny is neutralised in 21st-century Malaysia: not by disproving allegations, but by making the cost of asking questions uncomfortably high.

The current culture of intimidation has an extensive reach:

• There are repeated cases where ordinary social media users have been investigated or charged under sedition or communications laws for posts that question authority.

• Graphic artists have faced arrest over satirical drawings.

• Academics such as Murray Hunter have faced defamation proceedings overseas, in Thailand, for their critical analysis.

• Reporters probing scandals, such as the heritage football investigation, have allegedly been assaulted after asking uncomfortable questions.

• Rafizi’s son was attacked, and he publicly suggested that the incident may have been linked to his investigations into powerful individuals.

• Malaysians know that unresolved disappearances like that of Pastor Raymond Koh are fearful reminders about not being too inquisitive.

We do not need to be reminded that this is not Najib Abdul Razak’s Malaysia, or Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Malaysia.

This is Malaysia under Anwar’s premiership, where questions once encouraged are now being policed. This matters a lot.

Defamation suits, sedition charges, and regulatory harassment need not succeed in court to succeed politically. Their real purpose is deterrence, and the ensuing result is immediate caution.

When editors hesitate, journalists refrain from asking difficult or sensitive questions, when writers make their words less potent, and academics soften their language, or social media users delete their posts, accountability slinks away.

Even casual writers like me write cautiously, not because the issues lack substance, but because the consequences are unevenly applied. Powerful elites, including some politicians and government bodies, are perceived to be using state machinery to harass citizens who dare to speak out.

Those of us who demand accountability in public officers, who value integrity in leaders, are up against institutions or powerful elites with possibly unlimited funds.

Weaponisation of 3R

Malaysia’s discomfort with scrutiny extends to foreigners. Australian reporter Mary Anne Jolley may have been deported during Najib’s tenure, but the implications of restricting critical journalism in Malaysia have continued rather than been resolved.

Race, religion, and royalty are frequently weaponised to end debate, including over centuries-old temples or about the unilateral conversion of children.

Those who speak up are warned not to inflame sensitivities. Sisters in Islam (now SIS Forum) has faced investigations and fatwas not for inciting violence, but for questioning interpretations.

Activists advocating education for refugee children have been treated as agitators rather than citizens acting in the public interest.

What makes this premiership particularly disheartening is not that repression exists, but that the same figures who demanded asset declarations, transparency, and accountability from opposition benches now caution patience, warn against speculation, and defend institutions they once criticised.

Perhaps the most damaging consequence is generational. Young Malaysians learn quickly from what they observe: you speak carefully, or pay the price. Neither outcome builds a confident nation.

A country afraid of questions will never be strong. A government that equates scrutiny with sabotage reveals its own fragility. More importantly, a society where elites hide behind laws meant to protect harmony has already surrendered the moral argument.

Malaysia does not suffer from too much criticism. It suffers from too little courage to face it.

I have no idea why some folks question why there has been no action taken against this hate-monger.

His latest arrest for organising a rally against “illegal” houses of worship and the prime minister’s eleventh-hour warning were merely a sandiwara (theatre) to appease not only Zamri’s detractors but to make Madani look good in the eyes of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the international press.

I have no doubt that nothing will come of this arrest, just as nothing came of the charges against him before.

You have to understand Zamri’s close connection with the religious bureaucracy. The Selangor Islamic Religious Department had hooked up with him in 2017 to give Islamic courses in Tamil to increase productivity in proselytising in a multilingual milieu.

What this course was supposed to do was make it easier for (state-sanctioned) Muslim preachers attempting to convert Indians, using Tamil as an entry point into their lives.

Modi is the real target

While Zamri may claim that his supposed rally against illegal houses of worship and the arrival of Modi are merely coincidental, this, of course, is farcical. The fact is that Modi is a hate figure for some Muslims abroad and in India for various reasons.

Keep in mind that Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin’s “cow worshippers” poem was aimed at Modi and the extradition of another controversial Muslim preacher, Zakir Naik.

Meanwhile, Zamri, a Zakir acolyte, once said he was willing to give up his citizenship if Zakir were extradited to India. As reported in the Malay Mail, “If the government wants to send back Zakir or extradite him, I will not hesitate to hand over my IC.”

Indeed, when Zamri was detained and released by the state for insulting Hindus, Asri put forward that the former was only testifying when it came to his personal experience with the Hindu faith.

What Zamri was doing as a professional proselytiser was creating a narrative for Muslims to use to convert Hindus in the course of his professional duties. This idea of Muslim converts as the perfect vehicles to proselytise is nothing new.

Muslim convert Ridhuan Tee Abdulah, for instance, always pleaded “special knowledge” when it came to the Chinese community. Hence, his “attacks” against the community had the appearance of legitimacy to a certain section of the Muslim community.

Using converts to preach is propagated by proselytising faiths all over the world.

And while I think that Zakir is influential in the anti-Modi sentiment, what really twisted the knickers of religious extremists was the sight of Modi inaugurating the BAPS Hindu Mandir, the largest Hindu temple in the UAE.

Modi hugging Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the UAE, with honour guards in tow, inflamed the sensitivities and no doubt caused much annoyance to the bigots and extremists worldwide.

Here is a big, beautiful, sprawling Hindu temple and a prime minister who was nurturing a reputation for defending the historical and cultural contributions of Indians in the colonial and post-colonial world.

Celebrating that fact in the Middle East did not go down well with certain elements of the Muslim diaspora.

No such thing as ‘phobia’ here

So it is not a coincidence that a local preacher who has a history of using hate speech against the Hindu community and who remains immune to the laws that govern such speech decided to hold a rally which celebrates the destruction of “illegal houses of worship”.

The point is to demonstrate that in this country, temples, especially older pre-colonial temples, far from being celebrated as historical sites, are destroyed to demonstrate the victory of the religion of the state.

Unfortunately, for a simpleton like Zamri, what this does for Modi back in India is demonstrate that Hindus need a strong man to battle the extremist religious forces against the Hindu community in Asia.

Last year, Anwar raged against Islamophobia - “We must work together to counter hate and intolerance, fostering a world where humanity thrives through mutual understanding and respect.”

Here is the thing. A phobia is often described as an extreme, irrational fear or aversion of something. This does not describe the sentiment that cretins like Zamri and states that enable them in their agenda for religious superiority all over the civilised world.

An accurate description would be an extremely rational loathing.

These firebrands know that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has been rather timid about clamping down on racial hate speech, probably for fear of losing Malay votes.

It was only at the last minute, just hours before the planned provocative protest against “kuil haram” (illegal temples) led by Zamri, that Anwar finally found his voice and courage.

He issued a stern warning of “maximum action”, including arrests, against anyone inciting racial hatred (against Hindus) while Malaysia was hosting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. And Zamri was arrested.

I sincerely hope that Anwar’s very belated warning was done from a genuine desire to stop hate speech, especially against racial minorities. 

Or was his primary motive to avoid “losing face” on a diplomatic level during Modi’s visit, as political analyst James Chin suggested?

Here are eight points on this issue.

1) Colonial legacy

The British allowed Indian workers to build temples in rubber estates and near government buildings, but were too stingy to provide land.

MIC president SA Vigneswaran said temples were built in good faith, governed more by mutual trust and tolerance than by paperwork.

The temples were not built illicitly or secretly but stood “in plain sight”, and their presence was known and accepted, he added.

Many rubber estates have now become towns. Was the Malaysian government more generous than the British after Merdeka?

Under the law, anybody seeking to develop former plantation land must obtain approval from the Estate Land Board (ELB), usually chaired by the state menteri besar, as PSM deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan pointed out.

Why didn’t the ELB provide a bit of land to more existing temples before approving development projects? 

2) Compulsory land for mosques

Current laws mandate that property developers must allocate land only for mosques and suraus in new projects, but not for temples or churches.

This is an indirect subsidy for mosques by developers, which in practice is then passed on to property buyers.

And so “harmony streets” of mosques, Chinese temples, Hindu temples and churches are restricted only to the old sections of towns such as Malacca, Penang, and Seremban. 

We see much less of that in new suburban developments. Is this a healthy path to national harmony?

3) Taxpayers’ funding

Taxpayers’ money (from all races) is the main source of funds to build mosques. For example, RM185 million was allocated to build 78 mosques in just one state, Selangor, from 2019 to 2022, so the state assembly was told.

The Chinese have money to buy land and build temples, but the Indian community is smaller and lacks economic power.

It’s been forgotten that Article 11(2) of the Constitution says no person must pay any tax if it is allocated to other religions, as activist Nasri Azhar pointed out.

Apart from that, isn’t it weird to use “tainted” tax money from non-halal businesses to fund mosques?

One fellow called Irwan Hashim tried to argue that mosques were built using only zakat money, but that was false. For example, the Pahang Mufti Department forbids using zakat funds even for mosque maintenance.

4) Learn from Sarawak

Perhaps it’s time to learn from Sarawak, which supports funding houses of worship for non-Islamic religions through the Unit for Other Religions (Unifor).

Since 2017, a total of RM565 million has been allocated to support over 3,000 churches and temples for the 65 percent non-Muslim population of Sarawak.

5) What should Hindus do?

Arutchelvan admits there are also temples built arbitrarily by small groups.

Given the community’s limited resources, should Hindus focus more on building up Tamil schools and their economic strength instead of temples?

This is something for Hindus to ponder. 

6) Kuil haram vs tahfiz haram?

The term “kuil haram” used by Zamri and his ilk is loaded and offensive. It’s a word associated with sinful things like pork, gambling, and khalwat.

A more appropriate term is “kuil tanpa hakmilik tanah” (temples without land ownership).

In contrast, 606 tahfiz schools did not register with the Selangor authorities since 2008, revealed Fahmi Ngah, the state exco in charge of Islam, as reported by Astro Awani.

Technically, such tahfiz are also illegal, but nobody is going around calling them “tahfiz haram”.

Instead, Selangor wants to legalise them through the Program Pemutihan Tahfiz, a word which literally means “whitening”.

Can some Hindu temples also be legalised? 

7) Settle issue amicably 

There are already established ways to settle temple land issues calmly, fairly, and reasonably. 

Arutchelvan noted that when Pakatan Rakyat (PKR, DAP, PAS) first governed Selangor in 2008, they did a survey of all temples.

Temples over a century old were to be preserved onsite; those existing before 2008 were to be relocated to suitable sites, and temples built illegally after 2008 faced immediate demolition. 

“This balanced approach regulated temples effectively - notably, PAS was part of the government (then),” he added.

In the present day, PKR’s Petaling Jaya MP, Lee Chean Chung, proposed setting up a state-level mediation platform involving authorities, landowners, and temple representatives.

This should have clear and transparent relocation guidelines, including notice periods, alternative site allocation, and compensation frameworks.

Meanwhile, DAP Youth chief Woo Kah Leong noted that land status or building approval is an administrative issue, the Malay Mail reported. Therefore, such matters should be addressed through rational negotiations, rather than provocations against Hindus. 

8) Political calculations

Anwar, in his fixation to be prime minister for a second term, should remember how a temple demolition in 2007 led to the Hindraf rally and the mass abandonment of BN by Indian voters.

Last May, Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli warned that core non-Malay support for Harapan is “crashing”. The recent Sabah elections confirmed this trend.

Why? They are angry that some provocateurs seem to have total freedom to keep on intimidating non-Malays.

I wish that Anwar would use his Islamic background to cite some Arabic verses to promote peace and mutual respect.

The late PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat used to teach Malays that “assabiyah”, or racism, is not Islamic.

This means it’s wrong to support bad or corrupt leaders just because they are of the same ethnic group. But sadly, PAS has since changed to play the racial card.

Anwar may be chasing Malay votes, but PKR can never be “more Muslim” than PAS or “more Malay” than Umno. It’s a losing game. 

Why not create a clean, fair, and prosperous Middle Malaysia that all races can rally around? Indeed, a country that is “madani” or “civilised”.

Because our beloved country cannot afford religious battles for the narrow political gain of some quarters.