I know the kind of political operatives, social activists, members of the legal fraternity, and concerned public voices who are championing the cause of Tengku Maimun and judicial independence. What I would like to know is, who was championing the cause of the MACC chief commissioner?

All about catch and release

The prime minister doesn't care what the perception of the MACC is. All these so-called high-profile cases where titled folks are targeted mean very little.

Without an independent AGC, judiciary, and MACC, all these takedowns are merely pantomimes of justice and who knows what kind of horse trading is going on in the corridors of power?

Remember, for Madani, it is all about catch and release. The narrative is that the MACC catches and the judiciary releases.

We know that the prime minister thinks that the MACC chief commissioner is brave, but he has remained silent on the retired chief justice. Why?

If there is a movement of citizens, social and legal activists that questions her lack of reappointment, isn’t the prime minister obligated to answer the question of why a highly respected civil servant’s tenure was not extended?

Former law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz believes that the reason her tenure was not granted was because of remarks she made at a conference in Malta.

While Nazri may claim that this is just his opinion, I have no doubt, coming from an insider like him, that there is more truth to it than the horse manure that seeps out of the Madani press machine.

The purported JAC minutes leak paints a picture of political malfeasances of the worst kind. Not only has it given rational Malaysians a sobering view of how justice plays out in this country, but it is also an indictment of Madani and a sitting prime minister.

I could make the argument that it is worse than the VK Lingam case, and the fact that the AGC does not think so says a lot about the kind of individuals hand-picked to lead that institution.

Weaponising reform

The prime minister has weaponised reform against the public clamouring for it. When he wants to exercise his power and influence that his office grants, he does so.

However, he hides behind constitutional procedure, legalese, the royal institution, false equivalencies and twists the rhetoric of reform when attacking reform-minded citizens, painting them as the problem and not the solution.

The prime minister accuses his critics of wanting him to become a dictator, when the Madani regime is defined by laws curtailing free speech and weaponising public institutions to go after his critics (or so the opposition claims).

His Goebbelian Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil is ever ready to offer conflicting statements on behalf of the prime minister.

Fahmi’s response to this leak is predictable. Hiding behind the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and, of course, veiled warnings to the press to keep their mouths shut: "If it is authentic and classified as secret, especially for my media friends, I urge you to be careful - do not disseminate it. If a document is classified, the OSA applies."

Remember when the prime minister, who says that he does not want to interfere with public institutions, ordered the state security apparatus to investigate Baling MP Hassan Saad for calling the prime minister an Israeli agent?

Fahmi confirmed that the prime minister ordered the police to investigate, but this was denied by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail.

Lawyers for Liberty then asked for a clarification.

“It was Fahmi who made the public statement on Nov 28 that Anwar ordered police to investigate those who slander him or call him an Israeli agent.

“Fahmi’s statement was never rebutted or denied by the Prime Minister’s Office or Anwar himself,” it said.

On Jakim

Remember when Anwar expanded the budget and role of the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) because he wanted to introduce a more “moderate” form of Islam in the Malaysian body politic?

Dissenters who were appalled by this move were dismissed by the prime minister, who reportedly said: “I want Jakim not only to talk about religion and Islamic law. Jakim is to expand its duties, talk about economic issues, look at digital programmes, and look at the education curriculum.

“The responsibility is broader, so that the values of Islam can be applied, and this is opposed by those who do not understand, a small group of non-Muslims who write that ‘Anwar is now displaying his strong Islamist attitude, which he has tried to hide all this time by ordering Jakim to control all the systems’.”

This is what the prime minister does. He weaponises reforms against the very voices that elevated him to power. Mind you, these by far are not the strongest voting bloc in this country, but it is the bloc that ensures that Madani sustains.

All DAP can muster is being a fait accompli to more courageous voices or playing lapdog to the ruinous powers of this country.

What Tengku Maimun said at that conference in Malta is ironically what Anwar is doing. By making this political play, he has ensured that anyone who is appointed by Madani is suspect and the whole judiciary is tainted.

The purported JAC minutes leak is Exhibit A of this.

So, what are the reasons for Anwar’s failure to present to the king the name of the CJ’s successor? Had the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) failed to make their short-list? Had Anwar disagreed with their suggestions? Or was the stumbling block. -the king - who had his reasons for rejecting the name(s)?

Or, once the king had decided, did the Conference of Rulers then object?

Promise yet to be fulfilled

Didn’t the Anwar of a few years ago, when he was leader of the opposition, impress upon us that if he were to be made prime minister, his administration would be transparent and we, the rakyat, would not be left in the dark? We have yet to see this promise being fulfilled.

If Anwar was really serious about reform, he would take on board Tengku Maimun’s suggestion, and perhaps salvage a bit of his reputation.

Last April, when she was in Malta for the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference, Tengku Maimun gave a speech in which she urged the removal of the PM in making judicial appointments.

She said that this would “...reinforce the impartiality of the selection process, ensuring that judicial appointments remain firmly grounded on merit and free from any perception of political influence.”

Naturally, Umno-Baru’s Nazri Abdul Aziz grabbed the wrong end of the stick and displayed to perfection, the Malaysian art of ampu-bodek (currying favour).

The former law minister described Tengku Maimun’s remarks as “unprofessional” before accusing her of shaming Malaysia, for implying that Anwar had meddled in judicial affairs. He demanded stern action to punish her for tarnishing Anwar's image.

Worse was to follow, when Nazri told The Scoop that Tengku Maimun’s tenure had not been extended, because of her speech at Malta. He claimed her mistake was that she failed to voice her concerns privately.

Unsurprisingly, Nazri will forever remain a two-bit politician-cum-lawyer with his outdated Umno-Baru lack-of-transparency methodology, unlike the fearless, principled and upright Tengku Maimun who, upon retirement, would probably be head-hunted by the Commonwealth or other global body, to advise them on legal matters.

Confused mixed messages

Another worrying development was the confused mixed messages from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, defending the PM’s remarks about the judiciary.

On June 30, Anwar said that he had not interfered in judicial appointments, but when the AGC said that “the PM can ignore the Judicial Appointments Committee’s (JAC) recommendations for the sake of ‘protecting’ the judiciary,” what does this suggest?

On one hand, the AGC is stressing the PM’s right to interfere, but this contrasts sharply with the PM’s remarks, when he had claimed non-interference. Why the contradictory messages?

Moreover, why was the AGC acting as if he were the PM’s spokesperson? The AGC is in charge of the legal business of the government. He is not the PM’s personal mouthpiece.

To add to Anwar's woes, the Malaysian Bar has organised a march from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister's Office on July 14, to submit a memorandum containing four urgent demands on judicial independence.

Former economy minister Rafizi Ramli, now an ordinary backbencher, has added his voice to the simmering discontent.

Together with eight other PKR backbenchers, he has demanded an RCI to get at the truth. He fears that this crisis could be bad as the VK Lingam video tape scandal of 2007, about fixing the appointment and promotion of judges.

It is also alarming, that with several PKR politicians openly expressing dissent, the newly installed deputy president of PKR, Nurul Izzah, has remained extraordinarily quiet.

Surely, it is within her remit to rein in the dissenters, while her father was overseas?

Concerned public

Malaysians are concerned. Tengku Maimun and her team’s stellar efforts to act without fear or favour to implement the law, in the past six years, have restored our faith in the judiciary, especially after the damaging judicial crisis of 1988 and VK Lingam scandal of 2007.

The failure to fill the CJ and other senior judges’ posts has made a mockery of all her efforts. Are we to return to the bad old days of when we mistrusted the judiciary?

More importantly, foreign governments will view unfavourably the attacks on the judiciary and how easily we dismiss the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which lies at the heart of our democracy.

At a time when we need to rebuild our economy, attract foreign investors, and present a successful democracy to the outside world, our politicians decide to play politics with the judiciary. How self-defeating!

Take Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin, for instance. When he insulted the Hindu community with his cow poem and faced no sanctions from the state, from reportage - “His poem had, among others, touched on ‘cow worshippers’ and the caste system and stated that there were limits to tolerance and patience.”

Basically, he was claiming that Hindus needed to be self-reflective when it came to their religion, and he, as a Muslim, was exercising his right to free speech by writing that poem.

He claimed this was because there were aspects of culture and religion that were not exempt from criticism, as tolerance and patience have their limits.

Of course, he would never impose such thinking on his religion, but the point remains that religions need to be open to debate, especially by adherents of the religion.

In this country, the dominant polity gets it worse. Why do you think this is?

Well, because speech which includes art that deviates, offends, and genuinely tackles social issues goes against the political and religious narratives of the state.

“Hurt feelings” and “cause confusion” are the tools that keep the majority polity in check.

It may seem like the targets are non-Malay/Muslims, but the objective is to ensure compliance when it comes to the narratives of the religious state.

Religious exploration taboo, but deception is fine

In this film, a young girl explores other religions in hopes of seeking answers to her questions.

It really does not matter what her questions are, only that to the religious far-right, their religion and those who have control over it, provide all the answers one will ever need.

Religious exploration is normal, especially during teenage years.

Now, someone like Firdaus Wong, however, would have non-Muslim teenagers lie to their parents.

This preacher uploaded a video on how to enable minors to lie to their families, subvert religious rituals (prayers in toilets), empower teachers to transmit religious dogma to minors under their tutelage and make it very clear that religious morality trumps legal requirements.

Hence, for him, religious exploration and deception go hand in hand.

In a democracy, religious exploration is normal, but this does not apply to Muslims in this country because any kind of religious exploration is met with sanctions by the religious state.

This is why moderate Muslims always preface their objections to anything that comes to religion by claiming that they are not religious scholars. In no other religion do believers do this.

The exploration of the Islamic faith by the filmmakers of “Mentega Terbang” is verboten because such works of art would confuse the average Malay.

In other words, the only interpretation of religion should come from the state and all other intellectual thought is considered anathema.

Madani laying groundwork for theocracy

The banning of this film is in line with the Madani goal of controlling the religious narrative.

Do not take my word for it, take the word of Madani’s Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Religious Affairs) Na'im Mokhtar, who said: “I would also like to advise creatives to be more careful in producing and distributing content to the public so that the government’s goals for Malaysia Madani can be achieved.”

The problem with Anwar Ibrahim’s Islamisation is that it gives cover to Perikatan Nasional when it decides to do the same thing.

If PN eventually comes to power, what it will rely on is the blueprint set out by Anwar and the support of the non-Malays who did not raise any objections to Anwar’s Islamic agenda.

This is already peddled to the base if people are actually paying attention and not merely getting their news from the echo chambers of the Pakatan Harapan support system.

We are talking about a film here, but keep in mind that Madani’s religious czar believes that the Malay polity could be so easily “confused” that he wanted “guidelines for Muslims attending non-Muslim” events.

If you care to remember, these were things that could offend the sensitivities of Muslims - speeches or songs in the form of propaganda and the distribution of religious pamphlets, performances or speeches that insult or mock Islamic religious beliefs, carrying out the event during Muslim prayer times, event location close to a surau, mosque, Muslim cemetery, or wakaf (endowment) land, and the premises containing non-Islamic religious symbols.

All laws are created to discourage certain types of behaviour and thinking.

What were these rules or guidelines designed to discourage?

You only have to look at Muslim culture in Malaysia before the religious bureaucracy, enabled by political cretins, took over to see how diverse it was.

And you only have to look at the scholars, artists, and thinkers that the religious state goes after to understand why they want to stamp out any kind of plurality in the polity.

Imagine the diverse voices being snuffed out all over the world by theocracies or would-be theocracies.

Ultimately, these laws are designed to discourage questioning. This is the first principle of the theocratic state.

Anwar may have thought that he had avoided the rakyat’s opprobrium because he had to attend to matters of state, on his official visit to Italy, France, and Brazil.

But as his visit coincided with Tengku Maimun’s official day of retirement, his absence was all the more jarring and only fuelled further speculation.

We may recall that the convicted felon, Najib Abdul Razak, would also plan overseas trips to avoid various crises at home.

Nevertheless, Anwar’s failure to extend Tengku Maimun’s contract by six months, which incidentally is stipulated under Article 125(1) of the Constitution, was highly irresponsible.

On the defensive

Stung by the criticisms, Anwar went into defensive mode and accused his critics of politicising the appointment of judges. He even had the brass neck to claim that the prime minister plays no part in judicial appointments.

He said, “... regarding civil servants, or judges, when any official reaches their retirement age, there is a procedure in place. One does not get their tenure extended automatically upon retirement.”

He failed to explain how the MACC chief’s tenure was extended thrice.

It is disingenuous of Anwar to claim that the PM has nothing to do with judicial appointments. Of the nine members of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), five members are the PM’s appointees.

Of the five, one is a Federal Court judge, whilst the remaining four non-judges are selected after prior consultation with the Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, the attorney-general of the Federation, and the attorney-general of a state legal service.

None are from the executive or public service.

It is clear that the PM’s five appointees have the majority and decisive vote, and can exert considerable influence in recommending who becomes a judge.

Just imagine these appointments as a version of Najib’s “You help me, I help you” axiom. It is something we know that happens in everyday life. A boss and an employee. A benefactor and beneficiary. The politician and his constituency. A lecturer and his pupil.

Think power, position, perks and promotion. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Why not extend Tengku Maimun’s tenure?

Two days after the former CJ’s retirement, the chief registrar of the Federal Court announced that the Chief Judge of Malaya, Hasnah Hashim, would temporarily serve as the chief justice until the vacancy was filled.

Why overload her work with both the powers of the CJ and her own? This preposterous decision appears as if it were a knee-jerk reaction to our criticisms.

It would have made perfect sense to allow Tengku Maimun to continue for another six months without disrupting both women’s roles and the smooth functioning of the courts.

In the judicial/constitutional crisis of 1988, the judiciary was emasculated by the erstwhile prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

After an internal Umno dispute about election rigging in 1987, High Court judge Harun Hashim declared Umno “an unlawful society”.

A livid Mahathir sought revenge, with the forced suspension and removal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Salleh Abas, and two other senior judges.

In the second scandal, 19 years later, the VK Lingam video clips showed how Malaysian justice was sold to the highest bidder.

The nation was in turmoil, and a royal commission of Inquiry was set up. In 2009, the Malaysian Bar proposed the formation of the JAC to vet judicial candidates.

These judicial scandals sent shock waves throughout Malaysia and the world.

Last March, Tengku Maimun spoke at the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference in Malta and urged the removal of the role of the PM in the appointment of judges.

Removing the PM’s role had also been echoed three years earlier by Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir.

Malaysians desperately yearn for judicial independence and constitutional supremacy, but as recent events have shown, are we at risk of another judicial crisis?

"Chua (Soi Lek) is unethical, immoral, and irresponsible for referring to a Facebook page '1M Malaysians Support Lim Guan Eng To Be Prime Minister Of Malaysia' when making his remarks," Guan Eng told the media in Butterworth.

"It seems that the MCA is now working with Utusan Malaysia to attack us; they are in the same boat, playing the same dirty tactics."

Equality

Also keep in mind that the non-Malays/Muslims and the DAP base would never entertain the idea of a non-Malay/Muslim prime minister because that would not be “pragmatic”.

This, of course, proves the big lie that of fighting for equality and the non-Malay/Muslim place under the Malaysian sun is a desideratum of the DAP.

“Equality” is, unfortunately, an all-or-nothing proposition, and while there will always be systemic imbalances that need to be addressed, there should always be equality before the law and a constitution that recognises such imperatives.

I realise that many non-Malays/Muslims do not subscribe to my views on this issue, but ultimately, when we pick through the wreckage of this country, historians will realise that we never really had a chance because we never really had a committed civil rights movement to stem the tide of racial and religious supremacy.

Two years ago, the grand old man of Malaysian politics and someone who, even though I have criticised, I still consider one of the few remaining Malaysian originals, Lim Kit Siang, was investigated by the state for having the audacity to claim that one day Malaysia may have a non-Muslim prime minister.

From reportage: He spoke of the possibility of a non-Malay prime minister in Malaysia when commenting on how Barack Obama, who is African-American, could become the president of the United States after more than 230 years since the founding of the country.

Kit Siang, however, said that for a non-Malay to become the prime minister is a "statement of fact", not a "statement of reality", and he did not expect it to happen within the next 100 years.

According to Kit Siang, his statement was also supported by the fact that the Federal Constitution provides that non-Malays can become prime minister.

PAS and ketuanan establishment

PAS and the ketuanan establishment obsess over a "Chinese PM” because they are acutely aware of how the non-Muslim bumiputera of Sabah and Sarawak have just as much right as anyone (in Malaysia) to aspire to the highest office in the land.

They realise that there is an awakening in Sabah and Sarawak, and who knows what kind of political realignment will emerge from a nationalistic Sabah and Sarawak. And if non-Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak who are bumiputera can become prime minister, why not non-Muslims in the peninsula?

Non-Malay/Muslim political operatives exhibit outrage because it is good politics for their base. It doesn't mean that they want to change the system, and indeed they wouldn’t because this would give ammo to the ketuanan establishment.

Of course, PAS wants to distance itself from what Hadi’s son-in-law said, but that is just for politics, too.

Keep in mind when Hadi’s son-in-law says this: “There was no explicit or implicit insult or belittling of the appointment. I meant to say that appointing a non-Muslim bumiputera is a norm, but a non-Malay PM should not be treated as normal like non-Malay appointments in the armed forces.”

This is exactly what the mainstream political establishment, Malays and non-Malays, subscribe to.

And, of course, all of this detracts from the failings of the reform government, which was supposed to bring reforms but instead relies on the BN era social contract to control the non-Malays/Muslims and appease the religious state through tax ringgit.

What did Noam Chomsky say? “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views.

“That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

Notice how everyone in Pakatan Harapan is attempting to define this outrage about a non-Malay/Muslim getting a promotion (the highest ever) in the armed forces, but nobody in Harapan is asking what is wrong with Malaysia having a Chinese prime minister?

Here is another snippet from the interview, the context of which was a statement Nurul Izzah Anwar had made at the time – “But scholars have no influence in Malaysia; only religious bureaucrats.

“Nurul Izzah is brave to express an opinion; but in Malaysia, Muslims have no right to an opinion on their own religion. They can be punished. Only the state can issue opinions.”

So, Islamic policy here is defined by the religious bureaucracy and enabled by ethnocentric politicians.

So, the test is whether the state and its religious bureaucracy would allow Muslims to be moderate?

Let us talk about Iran and its clerical rule. Why do you think that young people, women and various minorities - yes, there are minorities in Iran - are rejecting clerical rule, the religion of the state and there is a growing movement towards authentic pre-Islamic Persian traditions?

Why do you think the Mahsa Amini protest and its ancillary demands of social freedoms happened? All this was a rejection of clerical rule that doesn’t allow the majority of Iranians to be “moderate” in their belief in God.

One Islamic narrative

People who vote for PAS understand exactly what they are signing up for.

It doesn’t matter if it is the clerical leadership or any of its other branches of internal power; what people want from PAS is the kind of atavistic religion that the state has indoctrinated them to want.

With each passing day, its party president Abdul Hadi Awang and his bunch of religious extremists are getting stronger. They are getting stronger because they believe the state security apparatus and religious bureaucracy are on their side.

The history and culture of Islam in Malaysia are tributaries of religious expressions, a kind of Islam Nusantara, if you will.

You can witness the polychromatic nature of Islam in Malaysia in bygone books and films.

The problem with the religious dialectic in this country is that it is defined between Muslim and non-Muslim, and this is what the people in power want.

While the state attempts to control the Islamic narrative, there are a myriad of Muslim voices attempting to be heard and express themselves while constraining against the confines of the religious bureaucracy.

This is why books, films and plays by scholars, poets, academics and average Muslim citizens are banned by the state. The religious class wants you to believe that there is only one Islamic narrative. This is why there is this obsession by the state about ideas that "confuse" Muslims.

Religious bureaucracy

There is very little daylight between the religious bureaucracy and PAS, and it really doesn't matter which coalition controls the religious bureaucracy.

PAS doesn't need to be in power to reap the benefits of Madani’s religious policies.

Take the proposed mufti bill, which in essence is merely a religious power grab by the Madani state.

Lawyer Latheefa Koya, in a piece every rational Malaysian should read, issued this chilling warning - “It will give power to the government through the mufti to control or police every aspect of the life of Muslims in this country.

“No government should have such powers over its people in a democracy, purportedly under the guise of religion.”

Sisters in Islam (SIS), which recently succeeded in its legal challenge against the Selangor state fatwa committee labelling it deviant and had parts of the fatwa overturned, said - “Without oversight and recourse for appeals or legal challenges, the unchecked powers of institutions or figures directly undermine the rule of law and justice.”

All this points to the reality that this country is already heading towards clerical rule.

Meaningless non-Malay votes

PAS just has to be patient and Madani will deliver a theocracy to PAS, and best of all, it would have the stamp of approval of non-Muslims, because their representation in Parliament bends the knee to the religious class.

When PAS gains federal power, it 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 four 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.”

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 Perikatan Nasional is enjoying the antics of someone like Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh.

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”.

When you use religion as a political tool, you then have to demonstrate how much commitment you have towards the religion. Then the narrative becomes Manichaean.

You either support the religion wholeheartedly or you do not. PAS gets to claim that their Islam is more powerful because they have demonstrated their will to turn the states they rule into a theocracy or as near to it as possible.

This is why the prime minister is enabling the religious apparatus and demonstrating his religious bona fides at every opportunity.

He knows that a good chunk of the majority believe that PAS, as a religious party, can deliver a religious state.

In the name of God

Zaid claimed that “… there is one aspect of PAS which proved to be the party members’ greatest asset, which would also benefit the country - their genuine fear of God.”

Here is the thing. People who believe in the kind of religion that PAS advocates, that the religious bureaucracy advocates, do not really fear God.

They fear losing dominance over others in the name of their God.

This is why they do not want moderate believers. They want believers who will abide by what they say in the name of God.

If Zaid really believes that clerical rule and PAS are the panacea for what ails this country, all I can say is that this cure is worse than the disease.

The connective tissues between all these issues are the racial and religious agendas of successive governments that desire a narcotised majority and a disenchanted, aggrieved minority.

This plays into the Manichean political narrative that communal agendas need to safeguard political interests.

The prime minister blames the so-called “liberal” media for calling out the slow pace of reforms, but had no problem running to the liberal media in the decades he was out in the political cold.

In those days, the prime minister had all the answers. He was determined not only to point out the mendacity of the system but also the hypocrisy.

During an interview with CNN a decade ago, Anwar said this about the deliberate politicisation of race and religion of that time: “The antidote for this behaviour is to restore credibility to the institutions of civil society.

“The media should be free, politicians must be held accountable through free and fair elections, and the judiciary must be able to operate without interference from politicians.

“Economics also factors importantly into the equation. Income inequality in Malaysia is among the worst in the world.

“Despite decades of an affirmative action policy designed to uplift the poor and marginalised Malays, in Malaysia, the rich get richer while the poor stay poor - and that includes poor Malays, Chinese and Indians.

"We need to revisit the design of economic policy and how the country allocates welfare and resources. Affirmative action remains essential to ensure that the poor and marginalised are not forgotten.

"But there is no reason to exclude poor Chinese and Indians from the policy, as has been the case for so long. Endemic corruption has enriched a few well-connected businesspersons and politicians, but the vast majority of their wealth never trickles down.”

So, we understand that a few well-connected businesspeople and politicians are engaged in endemic corruption, and these people would be hostile to reform, right? The question remains: Why are these people still allowed to operate?

What we get under the Madani regime, as far as political stability is concerned, are institutions that appear to be weaponised, enabling the religious bureaucracy, turning a blind eye to the corruption scandals-laden personalities that form this coalition government, coddling religious and racial agitators within the regime, and of course, a clampdown on free speech.

Reforms of state institutions that minimise corruption and deregulation, which minimise cronyism, are some things we can all agree with and, perhaps, the most economically viable way to sway the Malay public opinion.

This is why PAS, in particular, wants this to be about a culture war.

Role of religion

When it comes to the role of religion in this country, the prime minister has taken every opportunity to demonstrate his religious bona fides.

He proclaims victory over the demolition of a 100-year-old temple. He oversees the religious conversion of minority youth.

The concept of Madani is based on Islamic philosophy, and he enables the religious bureaucracy to an extent never witnessed before in this country.

Close to a decade ago, Anwar said this of politicians who proudly display the religious flag: “In Malaysia, such posturing by Muslim leaders has much more to do with politics than religion and ideology.

“The ruling government hopes that by taking a hard line, it will curry some favour with an increasingly radical right wing upon which its party is increasingly based.”

I do not know if those words were prophetic, but the underlying cause for the religious turmoil was not the hate speech of Perikatan Nasional but rather the policies of Madani.

Malay rights have been weaponised to the point that the Madani regime would rather not carry out any utilitarian policies that would benefit everyone, especially the Malays, for fear of the opposition claiming that Malay/Muslim rights are being sidelined because of the DAP.

Public institutions have been weaponised, giving more political ammo to PN, or weaponised against free speech, which only enables the hate speech of PN.

By designating DAP as anathema, PN has done Pakatan Harapan a huge favour.

The prime minister and his staunchest allies understand that the DAP base will never vote for PN or abstain from voting because they fear the “Green Wave” of PAS, but will either overlook or are in denial of the green waves emanating from Harapan.

Anwar has decided who he wants to be a prime minister for, and his policies reflect this.

DAP, his staunchest ally, also knows who he wants to be a prime minister for and enables Putrajaya. It remains to be seen if the base he hungers for wants him.

This is why, under various propagandistic tools like Asian values or whatever morality that religions peddle, the idea that young people are ignorant and have to be subservient to values that supposedly served an earlier generation, while ignoring context, is drummed into the minds of young people.

This is why you see young politicians in positions of power kowtowing to older politicians because: (1) They want to get to that position of power and influence, and (2) They understand that these old politicians could potentially be around for decades.

Now, if there were term limits, the system would be in a constant state of flux.

When people know that their time is always running out, they understand that what they do will be open to scrutiny and accountability by the next person who comes in.

Indeed, their conduct while in office or as an MP could be weaponised for various reasons, and this is a good thing because if their conduct was above reproach, they would have nothing to fear.

Dangerous comfort of stability

People like to talk about stability and consistency, but what they do not seem to understand, or maybe they do all too well, is that systems of corruption and nepotism thrive on stability and consistency.

Here’s the thing, if MPs do not have a term limit, and they are bad for the country, they will still get voted in by people who do not care, or care only because the politicians tell them what they want to hear, even though it is bad for the country.

So, term limits are not a panacea but rather a democratic hurdle that makes it harder for old ideas to endure.

Did I say political operatives do not want to change the paradigm? What I mean is, they do not want to change the paradigm unless it suits their purposes.

Sometimes the agenda of political operatives aligns with the rakyat, but most times, especially in Malaysia, we have been programmed to accept their agenda as something pragmatic because sacred cows are in reality beasts meant to frighten the rakyat from speaking truth to power.

This is why term limits for elected office are never considered by the people who want to remain in power forever. This is not about age in the sense that old people should be constrained in their political careers, but rather how old people want to stay in power merely to sustain a kakistocracy.

Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, who earned the ire of the state for various reasons, said it best: “Any attempt to break the fortress built around this existing system in order to democratise the space for people to assert their political existence is often met with harsh criticism and rebuke.

“As a result, the power to shape the future and direction of the country remains in the hands of the privileged few, thus further alienating the voices of the many, in particular the marginalised.

“Genuine democracy, which seeks to place people at its heart, therefore remains out of reach.”

Take Madani City. Only a politician who has been in the system for decades and who knows how things work could come up with something like this.

A cornerstone of Iban social organisation was the longhouse (rumah panjai), which served not only as a dwelling but also as the centre of communal life. Comprising rows of individual family units built adjacently, longhouses varied in size and construction.

Some housed as few as four families, while others accommodated up to 80 families with over 500 residents. Access was typically via notched-log ladders or stairs leading to an uncovered porch (tanju) used for drying clothes and goods.

A roofed verandah (ruai) functioned as a communal walkway and workspace, while each family’s bilik (apartment) contained sleeping quarters, a kitchen, and storage for heirlooms.

The Tuai Rumah (chief) and his immediate relatives occupied the central biliks. Above the bilik, a loft (sadau) was used to store rice and served as sleeping quarters for unmarried daughters.

These longhouses were usually built near water sources and oriented eastward, reflecting spiritual significance. Communities often consisted of extended families or the descendants of siblings.

Although traditional longhouses still exist in some remote and rural parts of Sarawak, their numbers have been steadily declining due to modernisation, urban migration, and a growing preference for contemporary housing.

During the Brooke Raj in Sarawak (1841–1946), James Brooke and later Charles Brooke introduced a system of local governance that included titles such as tuai rumah (headman), penghulu (regional chief), and temenggong (paramount chief).

These positions facilitated colonial administration, taxation, and helped curtail practices such as headhunting, thereby reshaping Iban societal structures to align with colonial rule.

Occupations

Traditionally, the Ibans practised shifting cultivation and hunting. Their subsistence economy centred on hill rice cultivation through slash-and-burn methods, with plots averaging one hectare.

Secondary crops included pumpkins, maize, cucumbers, gourds, and cassava. Jungle produce was exchanged for essential items such as iron tools, salt, and cloth.

Fishing, once a key protein source, was conducted using sophisticated methods, including traps and large nets. However, widespread logging over the years has caused river siltation, resulting in reduced fish populations.

Hunting, primarily for wild pigs and deer, employed dogs, spears, and traps. Most families also reared chickens, pigs, and dogs, while water buffalo were used in ceremonial sacrifices. Eggs held ritual significance in Iban ceremonial offerings.

In modern times, many Ibans have moved to urban areas in search of better economic opportunities. While some continue to practise traditional agriculture, many others have become civil servants, teachers, military personnel, entrepreneurs, and skilled professionals.

Language and identity

The Iban language belongs to the Malayic branch of the Austronesian language family. It remains widely spoken and is a vital marker of ethnic identity.

Despite the dominance of Bahasa Malaysia and English in formal settings, serious efforts to preserve the Iban language are ongoing through its inclusion in school curricula, the publication of literature, and the use of the Iban language in print and broadcast media.

Keen interest in Iban songs and music, fuelled by social media, has also helped language retention.

Oral traditions are key to the preservation of Iban history and values. Stories handed down through generations emphasise themes such as bravery, honour, and communal harmony. These narratives, whether epic tales or genealogies, continue to be an integral part of Iban identity.

Customs and traditions

Iban customs, or adat, guide numerous aspects of life, including marriage, inheritance, dispute resolution, and rituals.

Gawai Dayak, celebrated on June 1, is the most important cultural festival. Marking the rice harvest, it features traditional music, feasting, rituals, and dancing.

The Ngajat dance, noted for its rhythmic and symbolic movements, is often performed during these events. Weaving, particularly the crafting of pua kumbu cloths by women, holds ritual significance and is a deeply respected art form.

Marriage and family life

Marriage among the Ibans is both a social and spiritual union, often involving elaborate ceremonies that include dowry exchanges and communal feasting.

Family life is centred around the longhouse, where multiple generations live under one roof, fostering a strong sense of community and mutual support.

Elders are respected for their wisdom, and communal decision-making is a hallmark of Iban society.

Religion

Originally, the Ibans practised animism and maintained a complex spiritual system that revolved around a pantheon of deities, with Bunsu Petara as the creator god.

Rituals and ceremonies are conducted to appease spirits and seek blessings, especially before major undertakings like farming or hunting. Ritual specialists such as manang (healers) and lemambang (bards) hold central roles in Iban spiritual life.

The arrival of Christian missionaries, particularly during the Brooke era and British colonial period, marked a significant religious transformation among the Ibans.

Today, the majority of Ibans identify as Christians, with Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and Methodism being the predominant denominations.

However, elements of traditional Iban spiritual beliefs – such as reverence for ancestral spirits and nature deities – continue to coexist with Christian practices.

It is evident, especially during major cultural celebrations like Gawai Dayak, where rituals and offerings often reflect a syncretic blend of old and new faiths.

Traditional attire and dress

Traditional Iban dress is colourful and symbolic. Men wore loincloths adorned with beads, feathers, and intricate tattoos denoting spiritual protection and warrior status. Women wore handwoven skirts called kain kebat and matching blouses, accessorised with silver jewellery.

While modern western attire is popular these days, the traditional garments continue to hold pride of place among Ibans, especially during official and ceremonial occasions as well as cultural performances.

Cuisine

Iban cuisine is rooted in natural ingredients and traditional preparation methods. A signature dish is pansuh, where meat is cooked in bamboo tubes with aromatic herbs over an open fire.

Tempoyak, or fermented durian paste, is also popular. Tuak, a rice wine brewed for festivals, remains an essential part of celebrations.

Food rituals reinforce communal bonds and are central to festivals, ceremonies, and daily life.

Contributions to nation-building

The Ibans have made significant contributions to Malaysia, especially in the realms of politics and the military. Among the most prominent Iban leaders is Stephen Kalong Ningkan, who served as the first Sarawak chief minister (1963–66).

Ningkan founded the Sarawak National Party in 1961, a party that championed the rights and interests of indigenous communities. He played a pivotal role in facilitating Sarawak’s incorporation into Malaysia.

Another towering Iban statesperson who made a major contribution to nation-building in the formative years of Malaysia was Jugah anak Barieng, who served as the paramount chief of the Ibans. He was also a signatory to the Malaysia Agreement 1963, which laid the foundation for the formation of Malaysia.

Jugah was deeply revered for his wisdom and foresight, encapsulated in his famous remark: “Anang aja Malaysia tu baka tebu, manis di pun, tabar di ujung” (Let’s hope that Malaysia will not end up like sugarcane, sweet in the beginning but less sweet at the end), cautioning against unfulfilled promises.

Building upon the legacy of earlier Iban leaders, Leo Moggie anak Irok emerged as a prominent figure in national politics and public service.

He held several key ministerial portfolios, including energy, telecommunications and posts (1978–89), works (1989–95), and energy, communications and multimedia (1998–2004).

Beyond his ministerial roles, he holds the distinction of being the longest-serving Tenaga Nasional Berhad chairperson (2004–20), contributing significantly to Malaysia’s energy and infrastructure development.

In their service to the nation’s armed forces, the Ibans have earned an outstanding reputation for bravery and sacrifice.

The late Kanang anak Langkau, who retired as a first warrant officer in the Royal Ranger Regiment, is a national hero who received both the Panglima Gagah Berani and Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa (1981) medals for his extraordinary courage in fighting the communist insurgents.

Notably, Langkau is the only Malaysian soldier to have been awarded both gallantry awards.

Beyond politics and the security and defence services, the Ibans have also made significant strides in academia and sports.

The late Benedict Sandin was a distinguished Iban ethnologist and historian who served with distinction as the curator of the Sarawak Museum (1966–74).

He played a pivotal role in preserving and documenting Iban oral histories, genealogies, and cultural traditions. His most acclaimed work, “The Sea Dayaks of Borneo Before White Rajah Rule” (1967), remains a seminal contribution to the study of Iban heritage.

Another prominent contemporary Iban academic is Professor Jayum Anak Jawan, a respected Malaysian political scientist. He is widely recognised for his extensive scholarship on Malaysian politics, ethnic relations, and indigenous governance, particularly in relation to the Iban community of Sarawak.

Among his notable publications are “The Iban Factor in Sarawak Politics” (1993) and “Malaysian Politics and Government” (2003), both of which offer valuable insights into the complexities of political dynamics in Malaysia.

In the realm of sports, Watson Nyambek, known as “The Flying Dayak”, attained fame as a 100m sprinter. He set a new national record of 10.3 seconds in 1998, which stood for 18 years.

Rentap: ‘Inland Rajah’ of Sarawak

Any account of the Ibans in Sarawak would be incomplete without highlighting the legendary exploits of Rentap, who has been described by S Baring-Gould and CA Bampfylde in their book “A History of Sarawak under its Two White Rajahs 1839-1908” (1909) as “an active, crafty, and determined man” who was “the centre of all opposition to the rule of the Rajah of Sarawak.”

Rentap, born Libau anak Ningkan, is remembered as a formidable Iban leader who organised resistance against the Brooke government. His battle cry was, “Agi idup, agi ngelaban” (As long as I live, I will fight).

Referred to as the “Inland Rajah”, Rentap led a series of attacks to preserve Iban independence and traditions. He resisted the attempts of the Brooke government to put an end to piracy and headhunting, which were age-old practices among the natives.

In 1853, Rentap attacked the British fort at Nanga Skrang, killing officer Alan Lee. In 1861, Rentap’s stronghold at Mount Sadok was captured by an expedition led by Charles Brooke.

Rentap managed to flee to the Entabai branch of the Kanowit River, where he died a few years later.

Challenges and way forward

Despite their achievements in diverse fields, the Iban community continues to face several challenges.

Land rights remain a major issue, particularly concerning native customary rights (NCR) lands, which are often affected by logging and commercial development. Disputes over land ownership threaten not only the livelihoods but also the cultural identity of the Ibans.

Rural-urban migration has led to the depopulation of longhouses and the declining transmission of cultural practices. Many young Ibans now speak Malay or English as their first language, raising concerns about language attrition.

Educational and infrastructural gaps persist, especially in remote areas where access to quality education and healthcare is limited.

Nevertheless, various organisations and community leaders are endeavouring to address these challenges. Among others, the Sarawak Dayak Iban Association, founded in 1919 under the name of Dayak Federation, continues to advocate for the rights and welfare of the Iban community, focusing on cultural preservation and socio-economic development.

Political parties such as the Sarawak National Party (1961–2013), Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (1983–2004), Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu, and Parti Rakyat Sarawak have also played crucial roles in representing Iban interests (and that of other Dayak communities) at both the state and national levels.

Conclusion

The story of the Iban people is one of courage, resilience, and remarkable transformation, anchored by a steadfast commitment to their cultural heritage.

From warriors who valiantly defended their land and way of life to nation builders who have contributed immensely to Sarawak and Malaysia, the Ibans embody the spirit of independence and self-respect.

"We are committed to fighting IS, Al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf - you name it. They are the enemy of the United States; they are also the enemy of Malaysia, and we will do our part to make sure that our part of the world is safe.

"…the key to it is to support moderate and progressive Muslim regimes and governments around the world because that is the true face of Islam; that is the authentic face of Islam.

“The more you align with progressive and moderate regimes, the better it would be in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world," Najib told Trump during their meeting at the White House Cabinet Room almost a decade ago.

Cutting hospitality

However, if Anwar secures the appointment with Trump, he must be prepared to risk the possibility of receiving the "South African" treatment.

Last month, in an extraordinary Oval Office meeting, Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with a doctored video promoting claims of a “white genocide” in South Africa.

The meeting turned tense after the Trump administration screened the documentary. Responding to the footage, Ramaphosa said the chants don't represent government policy.

Ramaphosa and his delegation went to Washington hoping for a boost and a reset after months of acrimony with the Trump administration.

Instead, they engaged in brutal, high-stakes diplomacy peppered with insults and played out to millions worldwide in real-time. It was like a painful job review conducted by a boss on the microphone.

Trump's claims of white genocide conflict with the actual racial persecution and massacres that took place during the two centuries of colonisation and nearly 50 years of apartheid in South Africa.

Anwar’s proposed meeting with Trump will be far different from the usual shouting down at those who choose to disagree. Remember the infamous incident where Anwar shouted down a student who asked for meritocracy in education?

The prime minister cut the student off before she could explain, saying he already understood the question and had already answered a similar question.

Anwar also said the student should have refrained from discussing the quota system and instead should have pointed out specific cases of non-Malays being denied entry, allowing the government to address the situation.

Showing receipts

Could someone indifferent to opinions and ideas withstand a “lecture” from Trump or US vice-president JD Vance, who made a cameo appearance in the meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky?

What if Trump orders the lights to be dimmed during Anwar's meeting and plays various videotapes of Malaysians throwing insults at the US and burning its flag outside the embassy?

How will Anwar address the issue of his links to Hamas leaders, which he has made no secret of? What if such support of Hamas is rightly or wrongly interpreted as antisemitic by Trump?

What about the calls made by various quarters to boycott American brands and products, which have had a severe impact on businesses? Isn't seeking trade asking for discounts on tariffs with the same country condescending?

What if reports of racial and religious discrimination in Malaysia were in front of the cameras for the world to see, as was the case with Ramaphosa and Zelensky before him?

Although such claims may be exaggerated, the damage done to Malaysia's reputation as a moderate nation will be significant.

Whatever happens at the meeting, and if it does happen, like Najib's “triumphant return” after meeting Trump in 2017, the usual rent-a-crowd mob will be at the airport with banners reading: “Selamat Kembali, Wira Malaysia

“For too long, the issues of child protection have been overlooked, downplayed and even denied and covered up, as there has been resistance to addressing these serious social problems in Malaysian society. There needs to be independent studies on the scope of problems.”

In 2016, Al Jazeera reported on Malaysia’s child brides. The report is a litany of marriage as a defence against rape, an indictment of the fact that rape within marriage is not illegal and the reality that poverty plays a role when it comes to child marriages in Malaysia.

As Shareena Sheriff, programme manager at advocacy group Sisters in Islam, said, “Child marriage is actually exacerbating the abuse of the children by making it legal.”

She also highlighted the fact that politicians and religious personalities make statements advocating child marriages, which in turn makes it conducive so that those “who want to go down that road will feel that it’s perfectly all right to do so.”

In 2010, Sisters in Islam called for an end to child marriage. A passage from the press statement - “Any campaign to reduce the practice of child marriage in Muslim societies faces particular criticisms and challenges from conservative religious forces, as can be seen in the controversy over the two recent cases of child marriage in Kelantan.”

Child grooming on the rise

And of course, all this LGBTQ+ hate is coming at a time when grooming of minors by social media influencers is on the rise, according to Bukit Aman’s Sexual, Women, and Child Investigation Division principal assistant director Siti Kamsiah Hassan:

“Such cases are on the rise because these so-called idols or influential figures are now sprouting like mushrooms on social media platforms, compared to before.

“Not all influencers are just social media content creators. Teachers, artistes, athletes, or religious figures are also often idolised by the public.”

So, rational Malaysians have to ask themselves, why is the state and the religious class attacking the LGBTQ+ community instead of calling on the majority of Malaysians to hate child sexual abuse? Why is the religious state enabling hate against a minority community instead of protecting children? Why is the political class enabling the hate of a minority while enabling the proclivities of degenerates?

Indeed, by never investigating this crime as a murder, the state enables the narratives that this was a suicide. By never investigating this crime as a murder, the state denies the family justice by never acknowledging the crime and gives credence to cretins who delight in claiming that this was a suicide.

I often wonder how these “persons” live with themselves? Are they going about their duties to the state and carrying out whatever religious obligations as though they did nothing sinful? I wonder what they think when they read in the press how Beng Hock’s family is grimly pursuing justice for their murdered son.

Who was there that night?

For instance, when Beng Hock’s sister Lee Lan said at the 2014 verdict: “Now it is clear the court, in its final decision, says that the death is caused by unlawful acts of a person or persons, including the MACC.

“His death is not due to suicide. We want the IGP (inspector-general of police) and AG (attorney-general) to reopen investigations into this case and charge those responsible.” – I wonder if the perpetrators were worried that the state would do something?

Were they fearful when Pakatan Harapan took over with the DAP’s 40 MPs in tow, that they might finally face a reckoning? Or were they secure that they got away with homicide? Did they realise they were untouchable when it came to justice?

And that’s the problem, right? The state security apparatus obviously does not care what the courts rule. They certainly do not care about being seen as mendacious or duplicitous or even murderous, as the numerous deaths in custody demonstrate.

This is what the prime minister said when he met with the family of Beng Hock: “I have heard the grievances and several requests from the family. I have been closely following this case for a long time and deeply understand the sorrow and suffering of the family who have long been fighting for justice for the deceased.

“I affirm the government’s position that it agrees for the police to reopen the investigation into the death of the late Beng Hock.”

You have to wonder, why the police had trouble finding witnesses when the key question posed by the Court of Appeal verdict and articulated by Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement (TBH-ADA) chairperson Ng Yap Hwa was, “They want the police to shift their attention to the MACC officers who were present at the Selangor office on the night Beng Hock died, as these individuals are the most suspicious.”

This is not a high-tech case. Indeed, this is not even a complicated case. Successive governments have created this narrative that any investigation into the death of Beng Hock is a complex, arduous process.

In fact, why was the state security apparatus even harassing Beng Hock’s family about his state of mind when the court had already ruled that the death was caused by a person or persons unknown?

Indeed, if the police followed the ruling, all they would have to do is investigate those individuals who were there the night Beng Hock was murdered. But here is the thing. Politicians are hoping that the passage of time dulls the feelings of outrage. They want the rakyat to forget or, worse, believe that this is a communal issue.

Lee Lan lamented that we seem to be trapped in a BN-era rule and said, “The same MACC remains unaccountable. The same police force refuses to investigate the MACC. The same opaque conclusions are drawn, and the same murderers walk free.”

This, of course, is an indictment of this unity government, the brief Harapan regime, the brief Perikatan Nasional regime, but more importantly, the same political players who continue to enable the people who are responsible for Beng Hock’s death.

Death of a DAP comrade

TBH-ADA said it “believes that DAP leaders should not hide behind the excuse of cabinet collective responsibility without taking action”.

Two minor DAP MPs have made noise, but the big guns in the party are silent on the death of their comrade. Former party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, who used Beng Hock’s death as a political talking point for years, is too busy squabbling with the current chief minister of Penang. Meanwhile, the DAP’s big cheese would most probably remind everyone that cool heads prevail or some such nonsense.

And this is the most shocking part. All those MPs who in the past made use of the death of Beng Hock have not said a word. Can you imagine the message this sends to cretins like Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh and the rabid, far-right, theocratic state-in-waiting?

In fact, they would say, unlike them, the DAP does not even care about the death of their comrade, much less someone from their community. Online trolls rejoice in the fact that the non-Malays will continue supporting DAP even though their political leaders do nothing.

Gerakan is on point when it reminds everyone that DAP used this issue for years, but they are part of a virulent Malay uber alles coalition, which, in terms of outcome, amounts to the same as this coalition government.

But what is shocking and unnerving is when a sister of a slain citizen said, “Under Anwar’s ‘Madani Malaysia’ slogan, will the government stand with the officials who killed a civilian, or with the victim’s family seeking truth and justice? The people are watching closely.”

But are the people watching closely? It certainly does not seem that way. Here is a family who believes that officials within the government murdered their son, and this was confirmed by the courts. They commiserate with the prime minister of this country, and what they get is no further action.

Imagine if this were your brother, father, or loved one. Could you move on?

Of course this is about accountability and it is a two way street. We cannot really blame political parties for not holding the state accountable because we the rakyat do not hold political parties accountable.

And this is how they get away with murder.