“I will never surrender let alone apologise. Because I was taught to defend religion, race and my motherland even if I have to put my life on the line.”
- Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh
At the launch of the Malaysian Action Plan on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (MyPCVE) Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim expressed his concern for the deteriorating racial and religious discourse in this country.
He said - "Who would have thought that when we achieved independence in 1957, everyone was accepted; Malays, Chinese, Indians and then in 1963, together with Sabah and Sarawak, and then the May 13 event (in 1969) happened.
"We know that racial debates and riots through political statements in previous years, especially near the election, have now reached a very intense and dangerous level."
The prime minister claimed that everyone was accepted in 1957 and then things suddenly changed culminating in the events of 1969 - ignoring historical and policy initiatives that have engineered a voting polity who not only vote along ethnic lines but also a political class which benefits from Malaysians voting along ethnic lines.
Hence, any racial and religious debates are going to fall within those lines and any attempt to address this situation has been shut down, even more so in the era of Madani.
These days, the non-Muslim polity cannot rely on their political power brokers to dissent against the hegemonic religious and racial policies because these power brokers belong to a coalition which is grounded in the Malay uber alles paradigm - which Anwar and his allies at one time rebelled against or at least wanted to reform.
Now, since the prime minister has said that “the plan needs to be strictly implemented and exposed to the people, especially when there are quarters in the country using racial elements to threaten peace” - rational Malaysians have to ask themselves which quarter they belong to.
Understanding the irony
Mainstream political rhetoric and policy are determined by race and religion and, more often than not, share many similarities with the extreme ideas the state claims it wants to constrain.
What we are dealing with is groups or individuals who think that the state is not going far enough when it comes to the theocratic state project or, for political reasons, believe that race and religion are under siege.
We are dealing with groups or individuals who think that there should only be one R in the 3R (race, religion and royalty), which is what makes them so dangerous to the mainstream Malay political establishment.
However, the problem is that because of the way politics is defined in this country, what we are left with is ample recruiting grounds in the forms of polarised universities, unchecked madrasahs and independent preachers who are coddled by the state and, of course, a political apparatus which radicalises mainstream politics with race and religion.
Non-Muslims are told to fear the “Green Wave” on one hand and the other, have to accept the theocratic ideas and policies of a supposedly moderate coalition.
In 2015, Joseph Chinyong Liow wrote a piece for the Brookings Institute titled “Malaysia’s ISIS conundrum” which is applicable even today - “…rather than extol the virtues and conciliatory features of Islam’s rich tradition, many Malay Muslim political leaders have instead chosen to use religion to amplify difference, to reinforce extreme interpretations of Malay Muslim denizen rights, and to condemn the ‘other’ (non-Muslims) as a threat to these rights.
“For fear of further erosion of legitimacy and political support, the Malay Muslim leadership of the country have in their public statements circled the wagons, allowing vocal right-wing ethno-nationalist and religious groups to preach incendiary messages against Christians and Hindus with impunity.
“In extreme cases, they have even flippantly referred to fellow Malaysians who are adherents to other religious faiths as ‘enemies of Islam’. Even state-sanctioned Friday sermons have occasionally taken to referring to non-Muslim Malaysians as ‘enemies of Islam’.”
Akmal vs Kok
Keep in mind that by claiming to defend the motherland, what Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh is saying is that he believes that DAP MP Teresa Kok or what she said, goes against the motherland.
Isn’t Malaysia Kok’s motherland as well? This is a motherland where Kok does not have the special privileges that Akmal has.
This is the motherland where the social contract binds the way Kok expresses herself when it comes to issues deemed sensitive to the majority but is grounded in democratic first principles. This is the motherland where the sensibilities of the majority trump everything else, even utilitarian ideas for the betterment of all.
Remember when PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang claimed that the G25 group were more dangerous than Al Maunah?
Now, claiming that a retired group of civil servants are more dangerous than a group of religious extremists who actually murdered Malaysians is indicative of the kind of propaganda used against liberal or moderate Muslims in this country.
The fact that any kind of progressive movement or ideas are deemed "deviant" and anti-Malay Muslim should tell us something about how the state defines "extreme".
Let us break down religious or racial extremism, for instance. Take the quote that opens this piece. Forget for a moment that this was coming from the Umno youth leader.
What would a rational person think, when he or she reads this - “I will never surrender, let alone apologise. Because I was taught to defend religion, race and my motherland even if I have to put my life on the line.”
Well, a rational person would think that the person who said this has obviously been indoctrinated and radicalised to wage war against people, even citizens of his or her own country, in the name of race and religion, even if it meant martyrdom.
So, what is this plan actually going to do in terms of combatting the quarters who are using racial elements to threaten the peace?
Keep in mind that for the majority, race and religion are not mutually exclusive. Can the Madani regime give an example of racial and religious extremism?
These days, fighting for secular or democratic rights is defined as "extremism", while those fighting to keep the racial and religious barriers up are defined as following the Constitution.
There is a disconnect between the state security apparatus (or at least those who want to do their jobs) and their political masters.
These committed security personnel who tread where angels dare not, do the rough work necessary for the rest of us to sleep peacefully in our beds, have their work hampered by policies of the state and politicians who have used the religion of the state as a weapon and now find it turned on them.
The Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) scandal is more than just a horrific instance of child sexual abuse but also how the state security apparatus, the religious bureaucracy, and the political class, for whatever reasons, allowed this to happen under their watch.
This is why this programme is a punchline to a tragic joke. The enemy has always been within. - Mkini
S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.