Malaysia and religion through a looking glass – Gopal Sreenevasan

As the debate rages between the two primary Muslim parties in Malaysia to prove who is a better disciple, in principle, in faith and of course in politics, the true ogre in the argument for the religious fate of the Federation has presented itself.

They are the bureaucrats who are paid to administer not to the needs of the community, but regardless of that, to religion.

The disdain of several of them in the state of Selangor towards the decision (without writ or force it must be said) by the Attorney-General, provides all with a look into the near, not distant future of Malaysia. It brings to the eye a looking glass into the future, a political but very religious Malaysia.

For where we are today, is a Malaysia where secular law is cast aside by the most senior policeman in the country, noses are thumbed at the senior most law officer of the nation, and hate, for other religions and races is not just tacitly welcomed by the leaders of our country, so much as encouraged.

Where does that take us through the looking glass?

To arrive at that answer, one must look to the past, to the clash between religion and political power, for if the narrative today in Malaysia is to be measured, it must surely be against that backdrop, with of course the constant reminder that we are to be judged not by the content of our character but by our race and it seems more importantly our religion.

Race and religion have in the most recent past begun to dominate our national discourse, and for those of us that are not Malay or Muslim and perhaps for some who are, this discourse has ventured beyond faith to political and most sadly to emotional and spiritual control.

The truth is, for a lot of Malaysians who are not Muslims and not Malays, it is exhausting to wake everyday and see every political, social, economic and personal issues defined within that narrow matrix of race and religion. I am sure that is the case for many Muslim Malays too.

With that backdrop, where does this administration of religion leave us and more important our leaders in the next few years? Arguably, we need to reach to the past for that.

Two extreme examples ought to really make our political masters steel themselves against the bureaucracy of religion.

The first is from the 12th century, a lesson in the long time learning. It is the battle between King Henry II and his erstwhile best friend Thomas Beckett.

It is the tale of a political master who appointed his best friend archbishop in the hope he could control the next most important force in England, religion.

What King Henry hoped for did not come to pass; Thomas saw and believed that the power of the church was above that of the King. Thomas of course died in Canterbury at the hands of Henry’s knights, but not at his command as Henry pleaded.

Such was the anger of his people at the loss of their religious leader that Henry succumbed to pressure from Rome and not only did he accept control from the Pope in Rome, but he lay on the ground supplicant to Thomas.

Surely, a classic demonstration of the power of religious administration, over politics?

A traverse of a few centuries brings us to Iran in 1979. As much as there was political will against the Shah, the incredible strength of an administrative force of religion was clearly the base upon which Iran remains till today an Islamic Republic.

The power of administration of religion cannot be underestimated and is a cogent and attractive force, particularly when you can tell your flock that you can control when they descend to hell or ascend to heaven.

“Administration”, as Sir Humphrey (from “Yes Prime Minister") said, “is eternal”. That it might be, but what it should never reach to, is the control of minds, for when we cross that, political power will repose upon those who dictate belief.

It should give all in power a moment to pause and reflect. If not, it will soon be time to relinquish power, hands and all.

* Gopal Sreenevasan reads The Malaysian Insider.