Top 20 things to ban in Malaysia by Ramesh Rajaratnam

 I have been following the pace of events that suggests there is a move to ban or declare illegal certain activities in this country because we are no longer sensitive to others' feelings. I am now fully convinced that our moral guardians are acting in our best interest because we are weak of faith and morals.
 
So, being a good citizen who is ever ready to assist the politicians to discharge their very heavy workload, I have compiled a list of things that we should ban and the reasons for doing so:
 
1) Thaipusam - because the chariot procession causes chaos in certain parts of Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor Bahru at 3am and parading Hindu deities on our streets may offend some people's sensitivities and this should not be tolerated.

2) Hungry Ghost festival - we definitely do not want to feed the ‘syaitans’ and encourage belief in the supernatural. Furthermore, it too may offend some people's sensitivities.
 
3) Bars and pubs - there is already a move to ban them in some parts of Malaysia, I think. Instead of making it a district-based ban, as we are a country that believes in fairness, I propose that all bars and pubs that serve foreign alcohol be banned. In this way, some people with weak faith shall not be tempted to imbibe.
 
But here we must exempt the ‘tapai’ sellers because they don't offend our sensitivities. Unlike Chivas and VSOP, the alcohol in ‘tapai’ is locally made and therefore perfectly tolerable as it will promote SMIs (small-minded investors).
 
4) Astro - there is unnecessary truth and transparency portrayed on this satellite TV. Besides, channels like CNN and BBC, with their decadent sense of independence, do not meet the high journalistic standards of local media reporting where the people are daily told what is necessary and what is right for them.
 
5) Facebook - because this application is owned by a Zionist who reportedly ‘locked out’ a past Malaysian leader, and perhaps plotting to topple a current one by meddling in Malaysian affairs with his Jewish capitalist friends and backed by the Christians.
 
6) Cone-shaped ice-cream - because the way people lick the ice-cream is totally disgusting and may hurt some people's sensitivities. In fact, it may even encourage people to engage in oral sex in a country where such acts are never practised by sensitive people.
 
7) The image of KLCC- because the shape of the towers is phallic looking and may hurt the sensitivities of some people whose faith is weak. Besides two phallic images next to each other may tempt the morally weak to engage in homosexual activities.
 
8) Hindu/Chinese/Buddhist temples - because these shrines tend to carry statues or idols that may hurt the sensitivities of certain people. Besides, if these places of worship are torn down, then people who go to pray there will no longer park their cars indiscriminately all over public roads and cause a general inconvenience to other road users on a weekly basis.
 
9) Women's tennis - because the dressing of these athletes is too revealing and may hurt the sensitivities of some people. They will be, however, allowed to be seen/shown if we could persuade the ladies to wear track-bottoms under their skirts so that people of weak faith may not be tempted to commit rapes after watching these games.
 
10) Men's wrestling (‘gusti’) - because watching two or more grown men in tight leotards/underpants grapple each other may lead us to engage in homosexual activities. Besides, we should not turn our back on such public display of groping as it would hurt the sensitivities of some people.
 
11) Bak kut teh - well, it should have been long ago banned simply because it was the centre of some insensitivities recently. Besides, people whose faith is weak may be tempted to take mushroom during fasting season.
 
12) Public swimming pools - obviously having dozens of semi-naked people in one place can only mean that they will be tempted to engage in sexual orgies and we cannot have this in a morally righteous country like Malaysia. Surely we cannot have 78 percent of MPPJ/DBKL officers stationed in such places to arrest indecent bathers.
 
13) Opposition parties - the BN government has taken good care of Malaysians since independence. Why waste taxpayers money on the lame-duck opposition MPs who cannot do much anyway. We should be grateful to the government for it has wonderful rakyat-centric policies.
 
14) Indian Muslim restaurants - besides the vernacular schools where potential DAP and Hindraf members are groomed, I think this is where most PKR and PAS supporters meet to hatch plans to topple the government democratically. A word of caution, calling these ‘mamak’ shops can land you a sedition charge.
 
15) International schools - these places breed future intellectuals who will speak English well and possess high IQs. They will be a danger to our society of underachievers where we can always adjust the passing mark to meet national aspirations.
 
Imagine if we were a society that was based on meritocracy - oh no, it will never work here as this type of liberated thinking will only support the opposition cause.
 
16) Ipomoea aquatica - ah, got you there, didn't I? This vegetable's name has been used in vain and it's such a bad word now that we can even charge the user with sedition. Therefore ban this vegetable so that nobody can use this word to describe a certain hardworking politician in Malaysia.
 
While at it, ban the word ‘yellow’ also, because it's an unclean word used to fool the people into doing the right things and hurt the sensitivity of those who don't.
 
17) Condoms - this is a product of Zionist capitalism and it will literally enter your body without you realising it, especially the super fine types. When Astro, pubs and bars are banned, the people can devote their time towards fulfilling the population target of 70 million. In other words, let us screw ourselves properly...
 
18) The letter ‘C’ and number ‘4' - because we are a nation whose students get some 17,000 straight As in every major examinations and about 120,000 Bs. So we have no use for the letter C.
 
The number 4 can mean ‘death’ in Cantonese and because we are sensitive to the feelings of the Cantonese people, we should avoid using this number. Because Malaysians these days don't have a good command of a second or third language, we may translate these words/numbers wrongly and ‘blow’ it out of proportion.
 
19) Sepak takraw - because we are now behind Myanmar in this sport. Most Myanmar people only heard of this game when they came to work in Malaysia. Now they can soundly "sepak" Malaysia.
 
To respect the feelings of the people who once used to reign supreme in this game, it's best that nobody plays this game so that we can proudly say we came sixth in the next Asian games even though we don't play it anymore.
 
In Malaysia, we should be proud that we can consistently lower standards to meet national expectations. After all, there are some 42 other universities that fare worse than Universiti Malaya in the world’s top 250.
 
20) MIC - well, might as well, anyway, since they represent an insignificant minority. I think there is another Indian party that says it has more members. Either way, both are immaterial.
 

Putrajaya working to keep Malaysians apart, says Ambiga

There is a concerted effort by Putrajaya to keep the races in Malaysia apart, said Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, singling out the government's education policies for promoting racism.

In a forum held in Petaling Jaya last night titled "Stemming the tide of racism in our nation"‎, the activist also noted that the government had an agenda behind its efforts to widen the racial gap through education in schools, to enhance its "divide-and-rule" policy.

"They may set up the NUCC (National Unity Consultative Council) and they may do a lot of things but actually there is a‎ concerted effort to keep the races apart‎. ‎That is what we Malaysians are up against," she said.

"Ultimately, it is about power. It is creating first- and second-class citizens in Malaysia."

‎The Negara-ku patron said the Malaysian education system had played a big part in creating this mentality among the young and it went on throughout their schooling life.

"It is the systems that are put in place‎ where the Malays are told and are made to understand that they are better, the others are merely 'pendatang'.

"And this goes on throughout their schooling life. Then we try to fix it through the National Service programme when they're 18 after they finish school.‎ But too much damage has been done by then," Ambiga added.

‎The former Bersih co-chair was commenting on the recent attack on a purdah-wearing Muslim woman known as Melati‎ for joining DAP, which is a Chinese-majority party.

"‎The kind of attacks she has faced is unbelievable. What has happened to us that we have gone to that extreme, where they feel it is wrong for a Malay to be in the same party as a Chinese?

‎"So when people think this way, we, in urban areas, know it's ridiculous and wrong when anti-Chinese or anti-Malay statements are made.

"‎But there are many people in this country who have been through our education system‎ and think that it's fine to say things like that‎."

‎Melati was slammed for joining DAP, with one blogger even saying that it was better for the purdah-wearing 22-year-old to have become a prostitute instead.

In a posting entitled "Melati, lebih baik jadi pelacur dari sertai DAP”, the writer – KuntaKinte – said the action of Muslim girls or any Muslim youth in joining the DAP was actually strengthening the party's efforts to weaken the role and position of Islam in the country.

He had implied that a prostitute who sold herself would not decay the position of Islam in the country, but those who joined DAP were helping them destroy Islam in Malaysia.

"The reality is, it is more noble to be a prostitute who sells herself for a mouthful of rice, than being those in tudung and purdah who 'sell themselves' to the DAP for the riches of the world until it weakens Islam',” he said in www.mykmu.net.

However, Ambiga said this was a game that Putrajaya was playing, to make out that Malays and Islam were under continuous attack.

"We also have ministers saying that. So 65% of the population is under attack by 35% of the population? How is that even possible? It doesn't make sense.

"But unfortunately, when indoctrination takes place on and on, that's how people feel and that's why people think it's all right to make the racist statements like they do," she added.

Ambiga also said the government was "rewriting ‎history" or distorting historical facts in schools to promote only a certain race and their role in the nation's history.

"They are trying to change our cultural and historical background ‎to discount the role of non-Muslims.

"We have to be vigilant about what our children are learning. Let us ask for a study into the education system.

"We should act to object to anything that our children are taught that are bigoted, racist and are based on lies. We have to speak up." 

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-working-to-keep-malaysians-apart-says-ambiga#sthash.VPmyH26i.XCva2Hue.dpuf

A dangerous precedent in Selangor By P Gunasegaram

QUESTION TIME Most legal authorities and previous judgments on such issues are clear on one thing – the sultan/governor/Agong must choose the candidate who is most likely to command the support of the majority of the state assembly or Parliament for the post of menteri besar/chief minister/prime minister.

And where it is clear that a single candidate commands that majority support, there is no need for the titular head of state to ask for any other names to be nominated but he has to follow the constitutional duty of endorsing the candidate who legally commands the majority support.

This is what a constitutional monarchy is about, where the the head of state lies above politics, does not interfere in the administration of the state, and whose only role here is an important, non-partisan one of ensuring the person who commands the support of the majority of the assembly is the chosen one.

That is the essence of Parliamentary democracy and this must not be allowed to be played around with by any party as the will of the people is reflected through elections in the composition of the state assembly and Parliament. The role of the monarch is to ensure that the will prevails no matter what.

The sultan of Selangor had insisted on other names to be submitted for consideration, but this was not done by PKR, who said that they need to submit only one name. And indeed, according to most sane legal opinion, that is correct.

What happened in Selangor is a dangerous precedent because the candidate who enjoyed the majority support of the Selangor state assembly, PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, as indicated in statutory declarations, was not even so much as considered for the position of menteri besar, let alone chosen.

Imagine if you will a situation in the next general elections: if BN wins, can the Agong demand that the coalition submit a few names for him to consider for prime minister? And if the Pakatan Rakyat coalition wins, can the Agong turn down the person who commands a majority in Parliament for prime minister when he satisfies all other conditions?

Yes, unthinkable. So what’s the difference now?

The issue is not that Dr Wan Azizah is Anwar Ibrahim’s wife or of nepotism, whether it exists or not. What matters is that, if she meets qualifying conditions, then she is entitled to become the menteri besar so long she commands the majority support in the assembly.

But PKR’s decision to name only one candidate was pilloried in the mainstream press which supports the BN, including one that is currently making a big show of endorsing bold and brave views towards moderation.

It was made to appear as if Anwar was being rude and even treasonous to the sultan, and Anwar uncharacteristically apologised to the sultan while gently maintaining that the decision to nominate one person was correct. Indeed it was.

Constitutional crisis?

PKR had its infamous differences with PAS over the issue. The way the whole thing proceeded, it threatened to take the nation into a constitutional crisis which promised to be long, drawn-out, and involve a series of battles in court.

But in what seems to involve backstage bargaining and posturing, the eventual person chosen as menteri besar, Azmin Ali (left), was not even on the list of candidates submitted to the sultan by PKR and PAS.

How can that be? And why are all parties so quick to accept a solution that goes so much against constitutional law in Malaysia? Why has PKR backed down on its insistence that just one candidate is all that it should nominate and now supports Azmin?

Perhaps for PKR, the consolation is that the new menteri besar is from PKR and is its deputy president. For BN and the sultan, the acceptance from PKR avoids a potentially damaging and embarrassing constitutional crisis whichever way the courts decide. And for Selangor and the nation, it means things can go forward.

The question that remains unanswered in this sad and sorry saga is this – why is Azmin, deputy president of PKR, acceptable as menteri besar, and why is Dr Wan Azizah, the president of PKR not? Especially when she commanded majority support of the assembly in the first place.

One more question – why is everyone now agreeing that Azmin be menteri besar? Expediency perhaps, political expediency. But this does not come without a cost.

The biggest loser from this prolonged crisis and its eventual unsatisfactory outcome is the rakyat because the people’s right to chose their leaders has been eroded. An incident like this one is only likely to encourage the palace’s greater interference in choosing the country’s leaders.

And in future, together with the politics of brinkmanship which Malaysia is increasingly heading towards, one wonders what this means towards a smooth transition of power according to the wishes of the people.

Democracy was the major loser in how the Selangor menteri besar was chosen, and by extension, the people whose right to choose had been curtailed.

Where are the honourable men? BY DATUK ZAID IBRAHIM

SOME years ago, a low-ranking police officer in a Midwestern state in America struck a lottery. Just before the draw, he frequented his usual pancake parlour for breakfast; and as part of his usual banter with the old lady who had been serving him over the years, promised her that he would give her half of his winnings if he got lucky.

Well he got extremely lucky soon after, when he struck close to a quarter of a million dollars. To the surprise of the pancake lady, and the whole community in that small town, the policeman gave her half of his winnings.

He need not have given her the money, for what he said was a gratuitous promise, unenforceable in law. He could have just given her a small part of his winnings if he wanted to keep the old lady happy, but not half.

The extraordinary generosity of the policeman epitomised the true character of a man of honour. Honourable men like the policeman keep their word and their promise with no exception.

To them, honour and integrity supersedes all other matters in their lives. This is a far cry from men who claim to be moral and religious, for these men do not always keep to their word, using their position in society to selectively apply their morality as determined by them.

Let’s examine what happened at the PAS muktamar. Many strange things took place, which should open our eyes to how religious people conduct themselves.

There was a delegate who lambasted his opponents through prayer, which allowed him to exceed the permitted time limit for each speaker and to use words that would not otherwise be allowed in a speech – but because it was camouflaged as a “prayer”, the chairman didn’t dare stop him.

Next, we were given a lecture by certain groups of senior ulama who said that a promise, commitment or an undertaking need not be observed if Islam demanded a departure. How conveniently these religious people make rules to suit themselves.

Even the PAS president accused two of the party’s state assemblymen in Selangor of “treachery”, and he used words that we less religious folk would not think appropriate to use.

As such, I think the people of Malaysia must be very careful when it comes to trusting so-called religious leaders regardless of which political party they come from.

The religious outlook of some of them might be just for show – they know that many voters are easily im­­pressed by those who speak Ara­bic – and to them, Islam is a selling point: when they go to the Holy ci­ties for their pilgrimage, they make sure the media is present to show they are pious men of God.

When they speak they always invoke God’s name, so there will be no opposition and to give their words divine force – to question them would be to impair one’saqidah or faith.

These people are actually the new tyrants. They tell lies and stab their friends in the back with impunity, and their lack of integrity and moral compass is staggering.

As leaders, they will not help the people of Malaysia in any meaningful way. Instead, they will retard the growth of the rakyat – both physical and moral – to no end.

It would be better if Malaysians were to put more trust in leaders who were honourable and who ac­­tually conducted themselves with integrity instead of “religious” lea­ders who trade on little more than public demonstrations of piety.

The ulama can always abandon accountability, change their positions, disregard their commitments, or even issue new “rulings” to the contrary of what they preached before because they can always invoke God to defend their actions.

It’s a strange irony that the PAS secretary-general warned in his speech that the party would be blind without the ulama: from where I stand, it’s the ulama who appear to be blind. They are blind to Malaysian women, to friendship, to what is right and wrong and to honourable conduct.

Honourable people are more reliable: they keep their word, they do not make false promises, and even if they have to take actions to their own detriment and personal loss, they will do so to defend matters of principle and honour.

The reason why our country was able to forge unity amongst the different races during the time of independence, and later on to form Malaysia with Sabah and Sarawak, was because our leaders then were honourable and could be trusted.

Those same leaders would fail miserably by today’s “standards”: in their day, there was a nice bar on the lower floor of Parliament – and a few of them would even gather at the race track – but they were sincere, honest and, most importantly, they were principled.

Malaysia benefited from their leadership and service and from the values they imparted towards the governance of our country.

There is no doubt that honourable men are much preferred to those religious ones.

The measure of their character is visible and quantifiable. The benefit such men confer to the community is easy to identify.

They do not pretend to be anything other than their true nature; and they do not find it necessary to tell lies, antagonise their opponents or mislead them into believing anything that is untrue.

They do not seek God’s name to justify their actions or use religion to further their own ends. So next time we have a by-election, the rakyat should not be too preoccupied with the religious outlook or the dress mode of their candidates. They should rely a bit more on the character of the candidate, whether he is a man of honour.

THE GREAT TANAH MELAYU DEBATE

We hear UMNO’s cries for “Brain Gain”, caused by excruciating “Brain Drain”, in the wake of hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who are fleeing their country. We’ve heard the many alleged reasons provided from both sides of the fence. One of the strongest seems to be the fact that UMNO is asking all “pendatangs” to leave the country if they are not happy.

By Michael Chick

Well, Robert Kwok certainly did just that. And along with him, his entire businesses worth billions in “Tax Drain”. BTN has also been copiously assisting, by enthusiastically brainwashing simple minds into thinking that “Tanah Melayu” is reserved for Orang Melayu. Of course, they quickly tell you that anyone can become an Orang Melayu by speaking, dressing, and behaving like one (whatever that means, who knows?).

Well, UMNO managed to achieve one thing. The BTN-type morons, and their predecessors, have been overwhelmingly successful in brainwashing todays’ 27 million citizens. Who says that the Peninsular was ALWAYS called “Tanah Melayu”? This is a recent British Term!! Let me dedicate this Article to the foremost “so-called reknown Historian” of the country. Prof Dr Emeritus Khoo Khay Khim (and anyone else who claims to be as competent in History as well).

Prior to “Tanah Melayu” being a British Tag in the 19th century, the peninsular was formerly known as Malacca in the 15th century. The newly-renamed book “Sejarah Melayu” (previously known as “Asal-Usul Raja-Raja”) mentions every other place from India to China, including the tiny-speck-of-dirt called Temasik EXCEPT “Tanah Melayu”. Why was Tanah Melayu NEVER MENTIONED in Sejarah Melayu? Simple!! Because that was not it’s name!!  

Tanah Melayu was NEVER the name until the British came and colonized the Peninsular.

(please see map below) 

Since UMNO has a habit of believing that “whatever is older is better”, let’s take a short walk down this slippery slope of history. (Also, BTN-Baru syllabus planners should start taking notes.)

For starters, “Malaya” in Tagalog means “Peaceful” (go ask your Pinoy maid).

“Malai” means “Hill” in Tamil; as in “mini-Himalaya” to describe the Titiwangsa Range on the said Peninsular since the 2nd century by the Gujerati Traders who helped the local Malays set up their formidable Hindu Empire at Lembah Bujang.
ref: Prof Nik Hassan, Tom Harrison, and H.G Quatrich Wales

Also read here: http://www.astigan.com/2009/03/06/ppag-unearths-evidence-of-iron-industry-in-lembah-bujang/ 

Only in the 19th Century was The Peninsular known as “Tanah Melayu”.

In the 15th Century, the Peninsular was known by no other name than “The Malacca Peninsular”.

Before “that Rebel-Indonesian Guy” came over here (look, he wanted to kill his own father; what else do you want me to call Parameswara?), the Peninsular was known as “Barr Kra” in the 10th Century. Before that, the Peninsular was known as the “Golden Chersonese” since the 2nd Century. 

“Golden Chersonese is the ancient name to refer to the Malay Peninsula by Claudius Ptolemy or Claudius Ptolemaeus (Greek: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος; c. 90 – c. 168). Known in English as Ptolemy, he was a Greek-speaking geographer, astronomer, and astrologer. During Roman times, the Malay Peninsula developed an international reputation as a source of gold; hence the name was given.” 

By the way, “Barr”  simply means “Land” in the Persian Language. And Barr Kra above, means “Land of Kra” (as in reference to the Isthmus of Kra).

But I’ve saved the best for last, as usual. And I hope all you soon-to-be “Brain Gain” people are sitting down reading this …. 

The earliest known Arabic Maps refer to the Peninsular as “Barr CHIN”. 

Where Chin refers to CHINA! Why did the Arabs call this Peninsular “Tanah China” instead of “Tanah Melayu”? When Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. spoke about “Exotic Tanah China”, was he actually refering to Malaya? After all, according to records, Malayan Gold Mines was already famous 500 years BEFORE the Prophet was born!! As his wife, Khadijah was a Great Trader. He must have known!

Footnote: Chin is spelt “Xin” by the Portuguese, but always pronounced as Chin.

Alright, it’s now public!! The oldest known Arab Maps called the Peninsular “Barr Chin”; which translates to “Tanah China”, or “Land of Chinese”. BTN can now implement this new found knowledge into their syllabus. You cannot deny that you don’t know it now! Perhaps if you spoke Hokkien, dressed like a Hokkien, and practised Hokkien Customs, the Hokkiens might be gracious enough to accept you. Sounds absurd? Absolutely; and so does the other “Great Race-Changing Trick” practised by UMNO. And I quote Prof Dr Anthony Milner (ANU), “If it’s so easy to join a race, it must be equally easy to ‘un-join’ that race …” 

Alright, Prof Khoo, your turn now … 

This will be the first exercise in “Brain Gain” which UMNO is allegedly proposing, for the greater good of1Malaysia; plus, I’ll even give you a hint: (because I’m nice and assume that you actually really, really, really, don’t know ….)

It’s a Dark Green Hardcover Book about an inch thick; usually reserved for Academicians like yourself. So you won’t find it in Popular, MPH, Wiki, Amazon or any Pasar Malam. I’m sure that Great Historians like yourself, have your own Jstor Account number. 

Unfortunately, it’s written in English, so UMNO people cannot possibly understand it; because, as they say it so eloquently, “…that English sounds like strange babbling ….” So be nice, Prof, and please translate it for them. And in my best Manglish, “Can translate or not? Please?” 

Me? I’ll take a nice stroll over to the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies here in Leiden, to read more on this …. I’d better put on a Jacket too, it’s a little nippy today. 

“Doei!!” Pronounced, ‘do-we’ in Dutch.

‘Leaked messages shocking’

Lawyers for Liberties executive director Eric Paulsen has labelled the alleged leaked messages from PAS which touched on returning Malay-Muslims to power as “shocking.”

Yesterday, Malaysiakini ran a report about a leaked screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation that revealed PAS leaders were mulling the possibility of leaving the Opposition coalition.

One of the alleged messages, however, read that if DAP, the church and non-Muslims harped on religious raids, the Allah issue, they could get back at them. It also said by year end it could return the Malay-Muslim political power.

According to the Malaysiakini report, a Pas member, who did not want to be identified, confirmed that the screenshot was authentic.

Paulsen explained such messages were shocking as it was more in line with what one would expect from the likes of Umno, Isma and Perkasa.

“The theme of these messages are to retain political power based on race and religion rather than what PKR and DAP and many supporters of PR as well as the people have been led to belief,” he told The Rakyat Post.

He said according to the report he read on Malaysiakini, he assumed the messages that were leaked were authentic as neither the Pas central committee member, Mohd Zuhdi Marzuki or any other leader of the party had denied them.

Paulsen asked what had happened to the promises of the Buku Jingga, the name given to the Pakatan Rakyat manifesto.

“What happened to the promise for a common platform for a transparent and true democracy, sustainable economy to generate wealth and social benefits to all as well as social justice and respect for human dignity?

“It seems at the end of the day for a PAS leader like Mohd Zuhdi, it is all about Malay rights and Islam at the expense of everyone else”.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin later seemingly mocked the issue by tweeting:

“That’s why there isn’t a cabinet Whatsapp group”.

The Youth and Sports Minister had earlier shred the story on his Twitter account.

Is Malaysia an “Islamic State”? BY Tamir Moustafa.

Without a doubt, this is one of the most frequently asked questions in Malaysian politics. It is also one of the most polarising and misleading questions in Malaysian politics. This is because the question itself tends accept certain premises of the government’s claim to speak for Islamic law.

In my recent article, “Judging in God’s Name,” I argue that Malaysia is not an Islamic state, but not for the reasons that are usually offered by secular, liberal rights activists. Secular activists typically look to the Federal Constitution or cite the documents of the Reid Commission to establish the secular foundations of the Malaysian state. While these sorts of arguments may be well founded, I argue that their impact will be limited if the government’s claim to implement ‘Islamic law’ is not challenged more directly.

Although Malaysia ranks sixth out of 175 countries worldwide in the degree of state regulation of religion, this should not be understood as the implementation of an “Islamic” system of governance or the achievement of an “Islamic state.” No such ideal-type exists.[1] Instead, Malaysia provides a textbook example of how core principles in the Islamic legal tradition are subverted the moment that a government claims an absolute monopoly on religious authority. The very question, “Is Malaysia a secular or Islamic state?” obscures this fact. In what follows, I provide a brief overview of the argument.

The Islamic legal tradition

The absence of a centralised authority is one of the defining features of Islam. Through the first several centuries of Islam, a pluralistic legal order emerged with dozens of distinct schools of interpretation, each with its own methods for engaging the Qur’an and other textual sources of authority. Within each school of interpretation, private legal scholars operated within a rigorous interpretive framework to performijtihad (the effort to discern God’s way) by issuing fatwas, non-binding legal opinions.

Diversity of opinion among jurists (ikhtilaf) was not understood as a problem. On the contrary, difference of opinion was embraced as both inevitable and ultimately generative in the search for God’s truth. Adages among scholars underlined this ethos, such as the proverb, ‘In juristic disagreement there lies a divine blessing.’ In both theory and practice, Islamic law developed as a pluralist legal system to its very core. More to the point, human understanding of God’s will was recognised as unavoidably fallible, and because of this, religious authority was not considered absolute. A fatwa was simply the informed legal opinion of a fallible scholar; it was not considered an infallible statement about the will of God.

Contrast this with how the Malaysian government has manipulated the Islamic legal tradition. The government replaced the tremendous diversity in religious interpretation with a codified version of state-enforced “Islamic law.” Government-appointed Muftis are empowered to issue fatwas that are “binding on every Muslim resident.” Fatwas carry the force of law and are backed by the full power of the Malaysian state. The Syariah Criminal Offences Act and parallel state-level enactments further consolidate this monopoly on religious interpretation. Article 9 criminalises defiance of religious authorities. Article 12 criminalises the communication of an opinion or view contrary to a fatwa. Article 13 criminalises the possession materials that contain views contrary to edicts issued by religious authorities. In sum, state officials command a complete legal monopoly over religious interpretation.

Naming as a means of claiming Islamic law

In spite of this authoritarian reformulation of the Islamic legal tradition, there was an important shift in the way that “Islamic law” was presented to the Malaysian public beginning in the 1970s. The 1957 Federal Constitution had outlined a limited role for the states to administer “Muslim law.” But a constitutional amendment in 1976 replaced every mention of “Muslim law” with “Islamic law.” Likewise, every mention of “Muslim courts” was amended to read “Syariah courts.” The change in wording soon appeared in statutory law: the Muslim Family Law Act became the Islamic Family Law Act; the Administration of Muslim Law Act became the Administration of Islamic Law Act; the Muslim Criminal Law Offenses Act became the Syariah Criminal Offenses Act; the Muslim Criminal Procedure Act became the Syariah Criminal Procedure Act, and so on.

Why is this important? In all of these changes, the shift in terminology exchanged theobject of the law (Muslims) for the supposed essence of the law (as ‘Islamic’). This is a prime example of what Erik Hobsbawm calls “the invention of tradition.” The authenticity of the Malaysian “syariah” courts is premised on fidelity to the Islamic legal tradition. Yet, ironically, the Malaysian government reconstituted Islamic law in ways that are better understood as a subversion of the Islamic legal tradition. Every reference to state “fatwas” or the “syariah courts” serves to strengthen the state’s claim to embrace the Islamic legal tradition. Indeed, the power of this semantic construction is made clear by the fact that even in a critique such as this, the author finds is difficult to avoid using these symbolically laden terms. It is with the aid of such semantic shifts that the government presents the syariah courts as a faithful rendering of the Islamic legal tradition, rather than as a subversion of that tradition.

The Islamic state debate is misleading because it directs attention away from the fact that a completely new, authoritarian legal form has been created with only tentative connections to the Islamic legal tradition. Ironically, the government’s claim to religious authority rests upon the subversion of the very tradition that it claims to establish.

Liberal rights activists will continue to encounter great difficulty in confronting the rhetoric of conservative NGOs, UMNO, PAS, and the “Islamic” bureaucracy without directly challenging and disarming monopolistic claims to Islamic law. Ironically, this requires liberal rights activists to engage in religious argumentation, or at least to work closely with groups such as Sisters in Islam and the Islamic Renaissance Front, which challenge the government’s claim to “Islamic law” through the framework of the Islamic legal tradition itself.