Tajuddin likes to talk about the Islamic reform movement he was a part of back in the day, while I can only rely on the fact that I a non-Muslim, was serving king and country.

So, I may have no useful insight about Islamic reform or politics beyond firsthand experience in how it reshaped the various branches of the state and federal government.

I can make no useful contribution to this discourse beyond the first-hand experience of racial and religious prerogatives that seeped into the system alienating many serving officers. This was not confined to the security apparatus but also the civil service.

In fact, Malaysians of a certain age have nothing to contribute to this discussion because their experience as Malaysians – whatever their ethnic heritage – means nothing when it comes to politics and Islamic reform which swept through this country but which is apparently something we cannot comprehend.

Controlling narrative

Tajuddin talks of Mahathir wanting to control the narrative which is exactly the point I made in my piece he finds so objectionable – “Dr Mahathir Mohamad, when in power, played it both ways. He demonised PAS and allowed his bureaucracy to be shaped by religious forces which had deep roots in both the political Islam of PAS and whatever was shaping the Middle East back in the day.” This is the part that Tajuddin overlooks.

The author dismisses Sisters of Islam and I, which is fine because people should be free to express their dismissal of other people’s opinions as they see fit, but the problem with the strategy of controlling the Islamic narrative by empowering governmental agencies like Mahathir did, was an organisation like Sisters of Islam was deemed as deviant.

Now perhaps the author could explain the “good” this does when it comes to the religious discourse in the majority community. By controlling the religious narrative this way, did Mahathir change mindsets or merely get Umno the vote, while embedding the community with anti-democratic impulses and empowering a theocratic class?

Now what Tajuddin should explain to the reader is how exactly Anwar's religious narrative is helping subdue the religious forces in this country as Mahathir’s did at that time.

Mind you I do not think Mahathir was successful because in attempting to control the religious narrative what he did was plant the seeds for a theocratic class which Anwar and PAS are attempting to control and use now.

I get some people are fixated when Mahathir and Harry Lee are mentioned in the same sentence but what I find interesting, is that Mahathir with his run-in with the royalty for instance (for self-serving interests no doubt) enhanced the democratic processes in this country by curtailing their powers.

Of course, he messed up the judiciary but there you go. What is the upside of what Madani is doing?

Changing whose mindset?

Now for Tajuddin, all this sandiwara by Anwar is an attempt to change mindsets. We have to ask ourselves two questions.

The first is what mindset is Anwar trying to change? We know PAS’ religious positions, what is the different position that Madani wants the Malays to change to?

The second question, if there is no difference between these positions, then what was so egregious about my piece that warranted his response?

In other words, since I apparently know nothing about politics and Islamic reform, please enlighten us as to how this sandiwara helps us reinforce the democratic guard rails of this country and maintain the racial and religious equilibrium of this country? Or is this not what this reform is about?

When the democratic guardrails in this country have been supplanted by theocratic diktats, would we be shocked that “…. political change requires many other art forms and war strategies …” and wonder where it all went wrong?

Look how the country has changed over the years. You see, politicians do not use religion to empower people. They never have. What they use religion for, is to subjugate people. This is why the country has changed so much after all these brilliant art forms and war strategies.

Maybe if folks in power and people who gave them power, listened to people writing from conscience (which is never easy because you alienate so many people as people have always been tribal in their political allegiances and you open yourself up to abuse), we could have had a real chance for political change.