by Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, PAS Research Centre
The pronouncement made by the DPM that Malaysia is an Islamic State has expectedly sent shock waves across the nation. Already we are measuring swords between detractors and advocates of the 'Islamic State'.
The full-blown outcome of this 'debate', now turning into a war of words, has yet to be witnessed. Despite frantically writing "Dark Alley of Self-Destruction" following his "Jurisdiction Fault-line: Who's To Blame", the writer has now to pen down this piece, in an effort to mitigate the anticipated damage that will be caused by this edict made by the most uncelebrated scholar of neither Secular nor Islamic origin. Very sad indeed.
The DPM has chosen such an opportune time to unleash his 'well contrived strategy'. This may very well be presumptuous. What could be better than to have it pronounced on the occasion of the "International Conference on the Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World"? If Malaysia is anything but an Islamic State, what business has she to do with that conference? Hence, his insistence that 'we have never, never been secular...we are an Islamic State", logically fall in place, when refuting an allegation by a pressman that Malaysia is going secular. Appropriate though it may seem, it is not as innocuous as we would like to believe so.
The writer has deliberately used the word 'well contrived strategy' of the DPM. Yes it could have been his knee-jerk response given the theme of the conference. To say anything less than one that is premeditated, doesn't befit his stature as the heir to the future 'throne' and equally debasing to his supposedly high intellectual caliber.
Given the various debacles of the current regime and on the eve of the looming 12th General Election, what could be most efficacious than to distract the entire nation, nay plunge it into a fury of endless raging dispute of the 'very nature' of this 50 year-old nation. If it has worked the first time it was exploited by the then PM in September 2001, it should work equally well this time round. Why? Well, the gullibles (read Opposition parties, civil society and some sincere partners of the BN) are still as vulnerable as they were used to be. If the parameters are still the same and kept constant, the same approach should deliver the same result. So he thinks.
For as long as any notion of an 'Islamic State' is anathema to non-Muslims and a 'Secular State' equally an abhorrence or abomination to the Muslim constituency, the Umno-BN regime will continue to exploit this dichotomy as the best 'bogey' to keep the nation 'torn apart', 'united' and 'ruled' under the BN's hegemony. This is the greatest Malaysian paradox. The perpetrators turning saviors, while the citizens of the nation relentlessly mandating them, come every election. This is truly and uniquely Malaysian.
So what should be done?
Precisely this is the reason for writing this piece.
The writer is of the strong opinion that the continuing debate in this manner is in fact totally counter-productive to every effort of reform and change towards the betterment of the nation. Already the DAP is organizing an English forum entitled "An Islamic State After 50 Years?" parading on the panel everyone else except those representing the most ardent advocates of the 'Islamic State'. The inclusion of a panelist from them however, will only add to the vigour and rigour of the debate without alleviating its problem.
The plethora of writings by very distinguished columnists and academics now abound, are no less inimical to the one on the 'other divide', to say of the least. Both are waging their 'jihad' or 'crusade' and equally adamant to defend their democratic rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The writer could empathise and concur with most of the arguments, be they historical, legalistic or intellectual in nature, coming from 'both divides'. However, he neither thinks it is necessary nor finds it fruitful to comment on each. He would simply side-step the entire debate.
If at this juncture, you think that the writer is merely trying to appease everyone you are totally in error. That will be the last thing he intends to do. On the contrary, he is almost at war with everyone, especially those who are espousing change and reform, yet taking the path of self-destruction! Let it be known to all and sundry, that no amount of debate will substantively change anything in the Federal Constitution.
It neither secularises nor islamises the Federal Constitution further. We can debate and discourse until the cows come home, but that doesn't change anything to the very foundation of this much embattled nation. It only deepens the fault-line, aggravates the prejudices towards the 'other' and delays the seeking of a new nationhood further.
If anything, the writer is keen to advocate that the nation is certainly a constitutional monarch supposedly practising a constitutional democracy. However, what is obviously and grossly wrong is that, this democracy has been relentlessly raped and trampled upon by the power-that-be. It is this crisis that is now most deserving of our focus so as to enable us to redeem our lost opportunity for genuine democratic reform and change.
Given the multitude of challenges at hand, from endemic corruption in government machinery to the sky-rocketing crime rate and all, we must not be sidetracked or distracted from standing united in addressing the real issues of the nation and swayed into the alley of self-destruction by the unending debate of semantics and rhetoric created by these inept leaders.
The nation on the verge of celebrating her 50th independence, deserves a mutually respecting citizenry celebrating our multi-cultural heritage and our religious plurality, so as to enhance our effort at national unity and integration. Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will ensure and provide for everyone to partake and advocate their respective ideological commitments on a truly level-playing-field.
This shall remain our enduring mission that will unite us together. -ES
