Ketuanan Melayu

1. Apakah maksud Ketuanan Melayu? Perkataan tuan lazimnya diberikan kepada orang yang berada pada kedudukan yang tinggi. Justeru, ada yang mentakrif Ketuanan Melayu sebagai Ketuanan Raja-Raja Melayu. Takrifan ini mudah difahami kerana dalam sistem kerajaan Melayu tradisional, Raja berada pada kedudukan yang paling tinggi. Hari ini, Yang di-Pertuan Agong, yang dipilih setiap lima tahun sekali di kalangan sembilan Raja-Raja Melayu, adalah Ketua Negara, iaitu kedudukan tertinggi dalam negara.

2. Walaupun digelar Tuanku atau Yang di-Pertuan, agak kurang tepat untuk menggunakan istilah “ketuanan” kepada Raja. Istilah yang lebih tepat ialah “kedaulatan” atau dalam bahasa Inggeris “sovereignty”. Kamus istilah politik Oxford mentakrifkan “sovereignty” sebagai “the ultimate political authority, subject to no higher power, as regards the making and enforcing of political decisions”. Atau dalam Bahasa Melayu bermaksud “kuasa politik tertinggi, yang tidak tertakluk kepada kuasa yang lebih tinggi, dalam pembuatan dan pelaksanaan keputusan politik”.

3. Maka tepatlah istilah kedaulatan itu digunakan untuk Raja. Dalam sistem pemerintahan kerajaan Melayu tradisional, Raja adalah tonggak kekuasaan di mana kedaulatannya tidak diatasi oleh apa atau sesiapapun. Dalam sistem pemerintahan moden hari ini, Raja adalah Raja Berperlembagaan, di mana kuasa Raja adalah tertakluk kepada Perlembagaan. Konsep kedaulatan juga telah mengalami evolusi, di mana dalam sistem antarabangsa, ianya dirujuk kepada negara. Negara berdaulat (sovereign state) adalah negara yang merdeka, berpemerintahan sendiri (self-government) dan tidak tertakluk kepada kuasa asing.

4. Bolehkah Ketuanan Melayu disamakan dengan Kedaulatan Raja? Tentu sekali tidak. Dalam perbendaharaan sejarah, orang Melayu disebut sebagai “the subject of Malay Rulers”. Subject bermaksud “hamba” atau “rakyat”, bukan tuan.

5. Jadi, apakah maksud Ketuanan Melayu? Ada yang mentakrif Ketuanan Melayu satu i’tiqad atau kepercayaan tentang keunggulan atau keagungan bangsa Melayu yang bercanggah dengan Islam. Orang Melayu itu seperti bangsa Jerman di zaman Hitler yang menganggap bangsa Jermanlah bangsa paling agung dan bangsa-bangsa lain itu hina-dina semuanya.

6. Anggapan seperti ini hanyalah khayalan semata-mata. Orang Melayu rata-ratanya tinggi budi pekerti dan sentiasa merendah diri. Jika orang Melayu mempunyai sifat superiority atau supremacy seperti bangsa Jerman, barangkali sudah berlaku holocaust di Malaysia . Tetapi hal itu tidak terjadi.

7. Malah, penghormatan yang diberikan oleh orang Melayu kepada kaum-kaum lain amat tinggi. Orang Melayu amat senang memanggil Ah Chong dengan panggilan tauke, Samy dipanggil macha, malah pekerja Bangladesh pun dipanggil boss. Jika Ah Chong atau Samy adalah pegawai kerajaan, kedua-duanya dipanggil tuan.

8. Ketuanan Melayu tidak ada hubungan dengan semua ini. Ia bukan bermaksud Kedaulatan Melayu kerana yang berdaulat bukan Melayu, tetapi Raja Melayu. Ia juga bukan bermaksud hubungan tuan dan hamba, di mana orang Melayu adalah tuan dan orang bukan Melayu adalah hamba. Secara realitinya tidak pernah berlaku begitu. Ia juga bukan bermaksud ketaksuban kepada faham keagungan atau keunggulan bangsa. Fahaman ini langsung tidak disokong oleh fakta psikologikal atau empirikal.

9. Jadi apa maknanya Ketuanan Melayu? Baru-baru ini saya ada berbual dengan seorang ahli sejarah. Bagi beliau, ketuanan Melayu itu bermaksud keterasan bangsa Melayu. Budaya Melayu, sistem kerajaan Melayu, agama orang Melayu iaitu Islam, bahasa Melayu, adat Melayu adalah sifat-sifat penentu (definitive characters) Tanah Melayu yang berterusan sehingga ke hari ini.

10. Sistem Kerajaan Melayu sudah wujud di Tanah Melayu lama sebelum kedatangan penjajah Inggeris. Di bawah sistem ini, agama Islam, bahasa Melayu, budaya Melayu dan adat istiadat Melayu mempunyai tempat yang amat tinggi.

11. Penjajahan Inggeris merubah sedikit sebanyak sifat-sifat definitif ini. Sistem birokrasi moden yang dibawa oleh penjajah Inggeris mula menghakis kuasa Raja. Di Negeri-Negeri Melayu Bersekutu, Raja tidak lagi mempunyai kuasa pemutus kecuali dalam hal-hal berkaitan agama Islam dan adat istiadat Melayu. Malah, dalam hal ehwal agama Islam pun seringkali berlaku kekaburan antara kuasa Raja dan kuasa Residen Inggeris. Misalnya, kutipan zakat. Adakah zakat tergolong dalam hal ehwal Islam yang berada di bawah bidangkuasa Raja, atau hasil negeri yang berada dalam kawalan Residen Inggeris.

12. Pun begitu, apabila Tanah Melayu merdeka, sifat-sifat definitif ini dikekalkan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Kedaulatan Raja-Raja Melayu, Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan, Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan dan hak-hak keistimewaan Melayu adalah teras Perlembagaan kita.

13. Di samping itu, oleh kerana kaum-kaum lain juga sudah menjadi rakyat negara ini, mereka juga mendapat naungan Raja-Raja Melayu. Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan mempertanggungjawabkan Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk mempertahankan hak-hak yang sah bagi semua kaum, di samping memelihara hak-hak keistimewaan Melayu. Sebagai timbal-balas, orang bukan Melayu juga mesti taat kepada Raja Melayu, seperti yang termaktub dalam Rukunegara.

14. Hari ini, subject of Malay Rulers bukan sahaja orang Melayu, tetapi orang bukan Melayu juga. Malah, darjah-darjah kebesaran yang dahulunya dikhususkan untuk golongan bangsawan Melayu, hari ini turut dianugerahkan kepada orang bukan Melayu. Satu ketika dahulu, seorang kenalan bukan Melayu yang mendapat gelaran Datuk menceritakan kepada saya, betapa bangga beliau berada pada kedudukan yang tinggi dalam sistem kerajaan Melayu. Sedangkan teman-teman Melayu beliau pun tidak berada pada kedudukan itu.

15. Pada saya, Ketuanan Melayu, jika difahami dari sudut Keterasan Melayu yang sebati dengan Islam dan diwarnai dengan budi pekerti yang mulia, akan mewujudkan keadaan yang adil dan harmonis di negara kita.

16. Malangnya, istilah Ketuanan Melayu itu sudah dihantukan (demonize) oleh ramai orang. Wan Azizah bertegas mahu membakul sampahkan Ketuanan Melayu. Apa yang beliau maksudkan dengan Ketuanan Melayu, saya tak tahu. Chua Soi Lek pun lantang berkata Ketuanan Melayu adalah perkataan terlarang (taboo). Apa yang dia tahu tentang Ketuanan Melayu, saya pun tak tahu. Katanya, orang sudah tidak suka dengar perkataan Ketuanan Melayu, distasteful begitu. Oleh itu, tak semena-mena Ketuanan Melayu menjadi perkataan terlarang.

17. Perkara yang ramai orang tak suka dengar tak bermaksud terlarang. Malah, perkara yang ramai orang suka itulah kadang-kadang dilarang.

Facts and Fallacies in Malaysian Politics

What people perceive in politics is sometimes far more important than the reality. In the world where information too often implodes into meaningless symbols, facts are perceived as fallacies, while fallacies are perceived as facts. The ability of political spinners to create perception that matters is thus central to maintaining one’s political prowess.

Creating perception has therefore been an important art of politics. This rule of thumb was acknowledged by none other than Machiavelli. A virtuous prince, according to this political guru, must create lasting perception of his grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude so that the people will perceive him as a strong leader. He must endeavour to obtain fame for being great and excellence. He must foster a psychology of success to win people’s hearts and minds. His end is to make people love him and loyal to him.

If that does not work in commanding people’s love and loyalty, a virtuous prince must create a perception of his strength and supremacy. Even though the people will not love him for the show of brute force at his disposal, at least they will be less tempted to challenge his authority. By doing this the prince will retain his power and perpetuate his rule. He will be a virtuous prince as long as he is able to play this perception game tactfully.

But in politics, creating perception is not the sole prerogative of those in power. Those who are eyeing for power are also very much at it. Furthermore, the advancement in information and communication technology facilitates the creation and dissemination of perceptions by those in power, as well those who are not.

There is no harm in creating perception that wins or erodes people’s confidence in a politician or a political party. That is the rule of political game. Politicians know this very well, and they are willing to brave the challenge.

However, there is a danger in creating perceptions that go overboard. Reality-defying perceptions that are repeatedly said or depicted over time will create long lasting fallacies that will cloud and contaminate people’s mind.

In that sorrow state of mind, people will not be able to distinguish perception from reality. While democracy is about making choice, living under the spell of fallacies will make it hard for the people to make the right choice. Democracy is meaningless when the people fail to make the right choice.

There are too many fallacies in Malaysian politics, but I will only focus on one, i.e. Malaysia is an authoritarian state where the scope for political competition is very limited and the government often resorted to undemocratic means to retain power.

Too often we come across these perceptions. Our election is perceived as not free and fair; our media is muted; and people’s rights and freedoms are unjustly curtailed. These are just some of the mind-boggling perceptions in the marketplace of Malaysian politics.

The existence of Internal Security Act, University and University Colleges Act, Sedition Act, etc. which restrict the enjoyment of certain rights and freedoms exacerbated these perceptions. The repeal of these laws, as some people argue, will pave the way for Malaysia’s transition into full democracy.

It is true that these laws must be enforced sparingly and legitimately. Its excessive enforcement for illegitimate purposes will of course lead to transgression of people’s rights and freedoms. No amount of force will be effective in containing people’s anger and hatred toward the government once their rights and freedoms are excessively encroached upon. The government itself runs the risk of losing its legitimacy altogether if this happens.

But the fact remains that these laws are useful and effective in maintaining law and order under exceptional circumstances.

Just take the recent discovery of al-Qaeda operatives in Malaysian universities as an example. Had it not because of the existence of the Internal Security Act, our police force will face difficulties to act swiftly in containing al-Qaeda’s activities on Malaysian soil.

We know very well that our democracy will be at stake if we allow these militant activities to gain ground in our own backyard. We cannot imagine living under the rule of extremist militants who regard democracy as just another devil.

The role of democratic government is not only to allow people to exercise their democratic rights, but also to protect these rights from erosion.

Merely saying that the existence of preventive detention laws impede democracy is thus a fallacy. The fact is, under certain circumstances, their existence is essential to defend democracy itself. In a nutshell, or rather ironically, the use of ISA under such circumstances promotes rather than erodes democracy.

What is even more, Malaysia is already a democratic country even with these laws in place. Not only that we have periodic elections at least once in every five years, our electoral politics is also highly competitive.

Both the ruling party and the opposition have to fight tooth and nail to win elections. Unlike in other authoritarian states, election in Malaysia is not a sure thing. The ruling party is not always assured of its victory. The people are free to make their own choices, and they will not be persecuted for making those choices.

We have a vibrant civil society too. Just browse through our newspapers. We will find leaders of non-governmental organizations, politicians, intellectuals and individuals making comments about national policies and issues of public interests. Some of the views are in line with government policies, while the rest are opposed to it. This is in the so-called mainstream newspapers.

What about those comments in the opposition-inclined newspapers and online news portals. You can hardly find views which are supportive of the government. And yet, these views are tolerated as long as they do not transgress the law or contain fabricated lies. No one has been detained for expressing their views, unless those views border on sedition or national security.

Opposition newspapers are granted publication permits. They are normally left to their own devices except when they transgress the permissible limit of law and ethics. Reporting lies – such as Felda going bankrupt – is just an example of transgressing the parameter law and ethics.

And most of the time, the government responded to the public views expressed through the media. Nowadays, it is not strange to find government changes its policy after receiving feedback from the people.

In drawing up certain policies, the government even consulted various interest groups that form our vibrant civil society. Of course, it is impossible for the government to accept all those views, but the propensity to provide avenues for expression of such views and to listen to them alone constitute an important characteristic of a democratic government.

In this era of information revolution, or rather implosion, people tend to perceive political blogs and online news portals, especially if they are critical of the government, as independent, unbiased and trustworthy.

This is another fallacy. Just look at a number of popular local online news portals. They too have their own political masters. In most cases, they are aligned to the opposition which explains why their reporting is often biased and sometimes even rogue. And the fact is, this kind of news portals are mushrooming in Malaysia, despite the existence of the allegedly draconian laws.

Describing Malaysian political system – whether democratic or otherwise – is thus not a straight forward task. One has to look at the nuances to arrive at a fair conclusion. Looking at the nuances means the ability to rise above perceptions and discover the realities. It also means less emotion, and more objectivity.

This reminds me of my professor, Harold Crouch, a renowned political scientist who authored Government and Society in Malaysia about two decades ago. Unlike other Westerners who often had jaundiced view about Malaysian politics, he is a man of objectivity who never allows emotion to taint his analysis of Malaysian politics.

Given that no democratic political system is perfect, Professor Harold describes the degree of democratic practices in a political system by using repressive-responsive model. Putting a country in a repressive-responsive political continuum, he observed that a country often moves back and forth the two ends of political continuum like a pendulum swing.

When the country moves closer to the repressive end of the political continuum, by using repressive apparatuses to limit political competition for instance, it becomes less democratic and more authoritarian. Likewise, when it moves closer to the responsive end of the political continuum, by responding to the demands and aspirations of the people for example, it becomes more democratic and less authoritarian.

Analysing Malaysian politics in the 1980s through the 1990s, Professor Harold described Malaysian political system as neither authoritarian nor democratic. The country’s political dynamics dictated that its political system moved back and forth the two ends of the political continuum without following a particular pattern.

Using the same model of analysis, I would argue that Malaysia is now moving closer and closer to the responsive end of the political continuum. Malaysian government has responded very well to the wishes and aspirations of Malaysians irrespective of race, creed or colour through its Government Transformation Programme, People First Performance Now policy and 1Malaysia concept.

It is no exaggeration to say that these policies and programmes are drawn up based on people’s views about things that top their priority list, things that really matter to them.

Today, the voices of ordinary Malaysians find its expression into public policies through opinion polls and letters to the editor. This is not to mention the many memoranda and petitions submitted to ministers and government officials. As far as policy making is concerned, participatory democracy is now at work beyond the confine of the ballot boxes. There are so many channels through which people can express their concerns, air their views and convey their messages to the government. Ballot boxes are the last resort.

Political parties and interest groups too are pressing hard to get their voices heard by the government. And the government cannot simply ignore these voices given that the political landscape has changed significantly. It has grown more competitive and any slightest mistake the government makes will put it in a very bad light. No government wants to take the risk of losing electoral support for publicity blunder.

Considering all these facts, I will not be apologetic in saying that Malaysian politics is now far more competitive and far more democratic – both in form and substance - than many people may perceive.

This is fact, not fallacy.

I'm Malay First

This is a very good article written by a friend of mine. He chooses to remain anonymous but allows me to publish it. Thanks bro!

I am totally upset with the current issue of Muhyiddin v Lim Kit Siang regarding "I am Malay first". With all respect for your privacy and political stands, I cannot help but share with you my personal view on this.

Kit Siang's question, whether he realises it or not, is absolutely seditious and is indirectly posed to every Malay on this land.As if he deliberately wants to question our legitimacy as Malay! Why must we decide whether we are Malay first or Malaysian first? We are simply BOTH, what is wrong with that? Why can't he accept BOTH to be definitive features of us? This question is so childish; it is just like asking "whom do you love most - dad or mom?" Of course we love BOTH! Regardless whether we answer dad first or mom first, the reality remains both are dearest to us and we will never compromise or undermine any of them, isn't it?

Imagine if the same question is posed to someone of mixed parentage, like Eurasian - "Are you white first or Asian first"? The answer of course would be I am BOTH! Even if one said I am white first, Asian second or vice-versa, it doesn't change the reality and the fact that he fully recognises that he is of mixed parentage. Why must others make an issue with that? Can't we just accept everyone for what he/she is, and just work together like family for a better Malaysia, 1 Malaysia?

Kit Siang must realise that for the sake of peace and stability in Malaysia, Malay interest IS Malaysian interest, and Malaysian interest is Malay interest. If Malay's interest is not well taken care of, the majority race will continue to be left behind in the economic field and later vent their frustrations to create social and political problem which can be very costly to our beloved country. Similarly, if Malaysian interest is not catered for, Malay cannot benefit from overall peace and prosperity because the marginalised minority can cause instability and break up the country.

So there is nothing wrong at all if Muhyiddin wants to be Malay first, Malaysian second, as long he has full conscience that both are dearest to his heart. I remain respectful to him as a national leader and I totally abhor Kit Siang's conduct which has nothing to do with the people's interest and everything to do with scoring political points.

All Malaysians should condemn Kit Siang's cheap tactics and remain respectful of the rights of all Malaysia to be *religion* first, *race* first or Malaysian first - and let us all love Malaysia with every beat of our heart and till the last drop of our blood.

Anwar Tawar Zambry MB Perak

Saya tahu siapa yang dihantar oleh Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk bertemu Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir bagi menawarkan jawatan Menteri Besar Perak selepas PRU 12. Saya boleh dedahkan nama-nama mereka dan saya berharap mereka boleh berkata benar. Dua daripada mereka ialah Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat sekarang. Kepada Anwar, berkatalah benar walaupun ianya pahit!

Invictus

Invictus asalnya sebuah sajak yang ditulis oleh seorang penyair Inggeris, William Ernest Henley. Di tangan Clint Eastwood, Invictus menjadi sebuah filem yang hebat. Kehebatannya bukan pada sinematografi atau barisan pelakon yang jelita. Tetapi pada mesej dan jalan cerita.

Filem ini mengisahkan cabaran yang dihadapi oleh bekas Presiden Afrika Selatan, Nelson Mandela, dalam perjuangannya meruntuhkan tembok perkauman selepas pemerintahan rejim apartheid di Afrika Selatan. Beliau memilih untuk melakukannya melalui sukan ragbi.

Apa yang menarik dalam filem ini bukanlah kehebatan pasukan ragbi Afrika Selatan, Springbok, yang berjaya meraih kejuaraan piala dunia pada tahun 1995. Tetapi bagaimana Mandela berjaya mengikis perasaan benci kaum kulit hitam terhadap Springbok.

Springbok dianggotai oleh kaum kulit putih, kecuali seorang sahaja pemain kulit hitam. Kerana itulah Springbok dibenci oleh kaum kulit hitam. Pasukan ini adalah lambang kekejaman apartheid di mata mereka. Sebaliknya, bagi kaum kulit putih, Springbok adalah kebanggaan mereka.

Filem ini menampilkan keberanian dan keazaman politik Mandela untuk mengikis stigma perkauman ini. Walaupun terpaksa menghadapi tentangan hebat kumpulan ekstrimis kaum kulit hitam pada awalnya, Mandela memberi sokongan kuat kepada Springbok. Bagi Mandela, dalam membawa penyatuan di Afrika Selatan, tidak wajar baginya mengambil sesuatu yang menjadi kebanggaan mana-mana kaum.

Usaha ini berhasil. Kejayaan Springbok merangkul kejuaraan piala dunia telah meningkatkan rasa bangga rakyat Afrika Selatan terhadap negara mereka. Springbok bukan lagi lambang kekejaman apartheid, tetapi sumber inspirasi rakyat - baik kulit hitam atau kulit putih - untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa yang bersatu.

Keberanian Mandela berhadapan dengan kaumnya sendiri untuk melebur stigma perkauman yang tebal menjadikan Mandela seorang pemimpin yang hebat. Tindakan beliau menyokong Springbok, pasukan ragbi yang paling dibenci oleh kaum kulit hitam, memberi mesej yang kuat kepada rakyat Afrika Selatan untuk meruntuhkan tembok kebencian yang sekian lama membelenggu mereka.

Menonton filem ini, teringat saya kepada cabaran yang dihadapi oleh Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock dan Tun Sambathan di zaman awal selepas merdeka dahulu. Mereka terpaksa berhadapan dengan desakan, asakan dan tentangan yang hebat daripada kumpulan ekstremis kaum yang menuntut sesuatu yang lebih bagi kaum masing-masing.

Kalaulah bukan kerana keberanian pemimpin-pemimpin ini untuk berhadapan dengan kaum masing-masing, memupuk perasaan saling hormat menghormati antara kaum dan menegaskan keperluan kepada politik akomodasi dan toleransi, kita mungkin telah lama gagal dalam usaha untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa yang harmoni. Sekarang inipun, kita masih bergelut dengan cabaran yang sama.

Sifat berani inilah yang cuba ditonjolkan oleh Clint Eastwood dalam Invictus. Keseluruhan filem ini memaparkan keazaman dan kekentalan semangat Mandela untuk meruntuhkan tembok kebencian antara kaum dan memupuk rasa bangga pada sebuah negara bangsa yang bebas dan bersatu.

Biarpun tindakannya dicemuh oleh mereka yang skeptikal, Mandela tahu bahawa beliau seorang pemimpin. Sebagai pemimpin beliau tidak harus tunduk kepada cemuhan dan asakan. Sebagai pemimpin tugasnya ialah untuk memimpin rakyat ke jalan yang diyakininya benar. Bak kata Mandela dalam filem ini, yang dipetik daripada sajak Invictus, "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul".

Berapa ramaikah pemimpin seperti Mandela?

Invictus bukanlah filem bagi penggemar sukan ragbi. Ia adalah filem bagi mereka yang mahu mendapatkan inspirasi tentang bagaimana untuk menjadi pemimpin yang sebenar.

Berikut adalah bait-bait sajak “Invictus” yang menjadi sumber inspirasi Mandela ketika beliau berada dalam kurungan rejim apartheid.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Of Allah, Anwar and False Consciousness - Part II

In my previous posting, I argued that the brand of politics that Anwar is espousing now can only survive on three main pretexts, i.e. : (i) promoting unbridled human rights and freedom; (ii) sheer disregard of ethnicity and religion as the main marker of group identity and solidarity; and (iii) full acceptance of western secularism.

These three main pretexts underpin Anwar’s new political “ideology” that is supposed to drive his political ambition. Anwar portrays himself and the conglomeration of opposition political parties that he leads – i.e. Pakatan Rakyat - as defender of democracy and human rights; that the PR heralds a new vision of non-racial, free and united Malaysia; and that it respects individual rights to freedom of religion, conscience and belief.

Against the backdrop of this ideological construct, Anwar stepped up his attack on the “old” religious and race-based political ideology. First, he ridicules the concept of “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Supremacy) in favour of “Ketuanan Rakyat” (People’s Supremacy). It is unclear what Anwar really means by “Ketuanan Rakyat”. Does he mean “Kedaulatan Rakyat” (People’s Sovereignty or Popular Sovereignty) – i.e. definitive decision making power rests in the hands of the people - or total rejection of the special position of the Malays, which may not necessarily be contradictory with the concept of people’s sovereignty? However, as Anwar uses “Ketuanan Rakyat” as an antithesis to “Ketuanan Melayu”, the answer to this question must be total rejection of “Ketuanan Melayu” and, impliedly, any view that relates the Malays with any kind of special position they may enjoy as the sons of the soil.

Second, to solidify his new ideological construct, Anwar finds a new brand of Islam that fits neatly into the brand of new politics that he is espousing. This new brand of Islam is essentially different from the canons of religion that he used to propagate when he was the President of ABIM. That “old” brand of Islam, which stresses the supremacy of Islam over and above anything else, can no longer serve as the main catalyst of political change that Anwar expects to materialize.

So, what is the brand of Islam that Anwar is espousing now?

I believe that the brand of Islam espoused by Anwar now is akin to what American anthropologist Professor Robert Hefner identifies as “Civil Islam”. This brand of Islam promotes the privatization of religion – i.e. religion must be confined to the realm of one’s private life and never to enter the public sphere – as the main condition for the nurturing of democratic culture in Muslim societies.

Under this brand of Islam, the Muslims must regard Islam as just one of the many religions that co-exist in the material world, without any claim to its supremacy whether in private or public life. Gone were the days when Islam is regarded as the most supreme religion and no other religion is more supreme than Islam (Islam ya’lu wa la yu’la ‘alaih). Simply put, if Muslims expect liberal democracy to flourish in their society, they must accept the fundamentals of western secularism without exception. Anything less than this is unacceptable.

I believe that Anwar’s recent views on Islam are identical with this brand of Islam. One of them is his criticism against the Federal Court decision in Lina Joy’s case. In an interview with foreign media some time ago, Anwar said that the Federal Court was wrong in not allowing Lina Joy’s application to change her religion without first obtaining a certificate from the Shari’ah court. This, Anwar maintained, is as a blatant encroachment of her right to freedom of religion and conscience. The interview is available on the Youtube.

This criticism runs counter with the view held by a majority of Muslims, including Anwar’s young brothers in ABIM who spearheaded the campaign against Lina Joy’s application. To these Muslims, Lina Joy’s action is tantamount to apostasy, nothing more and nothing less. This is certainly not a Right but a grave sin in Islam.

Furthermore, in a speech he delivered in Perth last year, Anwar even interpreted preservation of religion, which is one of the main objectives of religion (Maqasid Al-Shari’ah) developed by Imam Al-Shatibi, as freedom of religion. Understood in its western liberal context, freedom of religion also entails freedom to change one’s religion and freedom not to practice any religion at all. Anything less than this is undemocratic and uncivilized.

Then came the Allah controversy. This is an explosive issue that warrants Anwar’s response as the leader of the opposition coalition. His stand is the policy of the coalition on the matter of religion. Again, as the leader of the opposition coalition, he must respond to this issue in such a way that it fits neatly not only into the brand of Islam he is promoting, but also the brand of politics that the opposition is espousing.

Naturally, it is beyond comprehension to expect Anwar to say that Muslims have exclusive right to use the word Allah. Saying this is tantamount to deconstructing the pillars of the “new ideology” that he is constructing.

First, it negates the notion of unbridled human rights and freedoms that form the basis of his ideological construct. Confining the right to use the word Allah to Muslims only encroaches upon the right of non-Muslims to use the same word, regardless of whether the usage is theologically correct or incorrect. After all, as Civil Islam entails, religion is a matter of one’s private life.

Second, promoting the exclusivity of Muslims in using the word Allah confirms religion and to certain extent ethnicity as the main marker of group identity and solidarity. In this regard, maintaining that the word Allah can only be used by Muslims, a vast majority of them are Malays, emboldens Muslim’s identification with race and religion, which negates the notion of non-racial politics that Anwar himself is trying very hard to promote.

Third, if Anwar is to say that only Muslims can use the word Allah, he will eventually have to concede that the government has the authority to restrict the right of the Herald’s editor to use the word Allah in the weekly publication. This certainly militates against the notion of privatization of religion - the banning of religion from the public sphere and its retreat into the realm of individual’s privacy – that forms the third pillar of Anwar’s ideological construct.

This is something that Anwar must avoid at all cost if he wishes to drive his political ambition on the strength of the new brand of politics. However, already there are ruptures in the opposition coalition regarding this new brand of politics. Although Anwar is successful in enlisting the support of the more secular-liberal section of the opposition politicians to push his political agenda further, the Islamically inclined started to question his personal credentials. Zulkifli Nordin’s recent outburst is just a tip of the ice-berg that reflects internal resentment against Anwar’s new brand of politics.

The question is, given the political context within which Anwar attempts to build his political platform to drive his personal ambition, is this new brand of politics sustainable or self-destructing?

Of Allah, Anwar and False Consciousness

Since the past few weeks, my fingers have been itching to put my thought to paper on the current issue of Kalimah Allah. I only have a window of opportunity tonight, and I will do so without qualms.

To begin with, as a Muslim, I do not subscribe to the argument which says that it is correct for non-Muslims to use the word Allah to refer to the Christian god simply because the Christian Arabs have been using the word prior to the Islamic era. This argument is lame and lacks intellectual rigor.

Though the Christians have been using the word Allah, or any of its variants, to refer to the Christian god since the pre-Islamic era, the word has been “Islamized” with the coming of Islam.

Surah Al-Ikhlas rectified the error of the usage of the word Allah by the Christians. Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.

Allah is the one and only God. This is what Islam means by the word Allah. This is what the Muslims understand by the word Allah. If someone believes that god has a son, or not the One and Only, that god is not Allah. This particular belief cannot be justified in Islam.

There is no truth in saying that the Muslims are monopolizing the word for the sake of monopolizing, for their failure to understand the faiths of other people. Even the Christians say that “Allah” does not mean God in Christianity. Dr. Louis A. Turk, a lead translator of the Bible into the Indonesian language, in his article “A Sharp Two-Edged Sword for Indonesia”, has this to say:

“Allah is not the common name, and does not mean God. Instead, Allah is a proper (personal) name for Islam’s God”

“So what a word means to the Muslims here (Indonesia) is important – when they read an Islamic term in the Bible, they are going to think it means what it commonly means to the vast majority of the vast population. This is especially true for the word Allah. It is wrong for a translator to try to make a word mean something different than what the word means to 88 percent of the population”.

The Muslims are not blindly possessive of the word for their own ignorance. Even right-minded Christians do not think and believe that Allah means God in Christianity.

Those Muslims who are adamant to say that the word Allah means other than what the vast majority of Muslims understand are resorting to its usage in the pre-Islamic era, the period of the jahiliyyah. Those who have received the light of wisdom, of hikmah, will never do so unless out of desperation, albeit a political one.

Now, I shall turn to my main subject.

In essence, the crux of the issue is not about the right of non-Muslims to use the word Allah, or the exclusive rights of Muslims to claim possession of the word. It is more than this. It brings to the fore the inevitable eruption of the tectonic plates of the political madness that for a long long time have been lying underneath the Malaysian political landscape.

To elucidate this point, let us see what Zulkifli Noordin, the PKR Member of Parliament for Kulim Bandar Baru had to say in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times today (27 Jan 2010).

“When this issue (the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims) came out, Anwar called me and said he knew my stand, but tried to be polite. But I told him, Datuk Seri, you are a Muslim leader with Islamic credentials and people never forget that. You know very well there are two contrasting views, so why didn’t you take a neutral and non-partisan stand?”

Well, everybody knows that Anwar had not taken a neutral and non-partisan view about the issue. Anwar even accused Zul Nordin of going off the limit when the latter lodged a police report against Khalid Samad, the MP for Shah Alam, for insulting Islam.

But Zul Nordin goes on to say:

“At the moment, I still limit (myself). You never see me criticize Anwar. I still appreciate that he is my boss although in this “Allah” issue, the pressure is so enormous on me to criticize him, but I say no. But if it is fated that I am out of PKR, may be it will be a different ball game altogether”.

The one million dollar question is - what is the current “political ball game”?

Zul Nordin is a seasoned politician by now and he must know what he exactly meant.

This is my version of the political ball game.

Many Islamically-inclined PKR enthusiasts believe that Anwar is a credible Muslim leader. Anwar for them, in flesh and blood, is an ardent Muslim activist. He will never, they believe, abandon the Islamic cause for which he was known to be its main exponent before. His relationship with Muslim scholars like Totonji, Qardawi, Jamal Barzinji, just to name a few, reinforces this belief.

But what about his relationship with Paul Wolfowitz - the well known neo-con architect in the Iraq war? The Islamically-inclined Anwaristas will say: “We know that very well. Wolfowitz is a criminal of the highest order. But Anwar’s relationship with him is just a ‘political ball game’. Anyway, Anwar is the one and only moderate Muslim political leader in the world who can relate well to the West. He is doing a great contribution to the Ummah, especially at this trying time. In flesh and blood, he is still our brother in Islam, syeikh”.

I will take this excuse with a pinch of salt. What if I say Anwar is the one and only friend of the neo-con who can relate well to the Muslim world? What if I say, in flesh and blood, Anwar is no longer an ardent Muslim activist who die-hard Anwaristas used to believe before?

Well, this may sound a bit too harsh to some people. But I believe many out there hold this view. And Anwar knows about this too.

But more than this, even if Anwar is not a neo-con darling, and he is very much still an ardent Muslim activist, which I wish he is, will he be able to do what the Islamically-inclined Anwaristas want him to do?

I will say NO he CANNOT. Why?

The brand of politics that Anwar is espousing for now will not allow this to happen. This brand of politics will only survive on the pretext of promoting unbridled ‘universal’ human rights, sheer disregard of ethnicity and religion as the main marker of group identity and solidarity, and full acceptance of western secularism.

Even when his staunch supporters in the former ABIM or his critics in the more conservative camp in the current PAS or his loyalists in the more Islamically-inclined faction of PKR want him to champion for the cause of Islam that they understand, Anwar will never be able to do so. And, even if he so does, he will fail miserably. So he will not.

The point is the brand of Islam that these Anwaristas believe in does not fit well into the brand of the “new politics” that Anwar is espousing.

But why do many Islamically-inclined Anwaristas fail to understand this?

I guess I have the answer. I may be wrong, but I will state my case anyway.

The Marxists believe that the proletariats have long suffered from a kind of mind subjugation that frustrates their vision for a worldwide revolution of the workers. This subtle subjugation is called “false consciousness”. The proletariats understand very well that the more they succumb to capitalism, the more they are alienated and oppressed.

However, they resolve the experience of alienation and oppression under capitalism through a false understanding of the natural need to compete with others for limited goods. By doing so, consequently, workers all over the world failed to unite and pin capitalism down.

I am not a sympathizer of Marxism, let alone a Marxist. But I believe the Islamically-inclined Anwaristas are enduring a similar fate of being in the state of “false consciousness”.

This “false consciousness” is perpetuated by Anwar through his charming charisma; sometimes little words he borrowed from Qardawi or Zuhaili to lend Islamic legitimacy to his political stance – rejecting other more authoritative and intellectually sound arguments; and the rumblings of organic intellectuals like Khalid Samad and Zaid Ibrahim.

The Islamically-inclined Anwaristas realize that there is something wrong somewhere, that they are in a great dilemma, that they risk abandoning their fundamental conviction about the religion, about the da’wah, the politics. But the more they think about it, the more they ponder upon it, the sense of confusion, of desperation, of hopelessness, will set in.

They resolve this state of confusion by staying true to the promise of reformation, to the hope of the return of the past glory, to the good faith they have in brother Anwar.

But sadly, those who fail to get rid from this quagmire will slowly be sucked into the black hole of intellectual corruption and perpetually immersed in the hollowness of the arguments of the organic intellectuals, who are in not for a revolution (I believe the word revolution used by Zul Noordin in his NST interview is too noble a word to be applied in that context), but an intellectual conspiracy to corrupt the minds of unsuspecting believers – Muslims or Christians alike.

These organic intellectuals – be they Muslims or Christians or Buddhists or Hindus – share one thing in common. Religion. They truly believe in the sanctity of unbridled universal human rights and freedom over and above anything else. This is their Religion.

Only those who take the time to pause, have a deep breath, and listen carefully to what their conscience wishpers will find a way out from this predicament, this false consciousness.

Perhaps, this is what Zul Nordin and others who are in the same ‘political ball game’ have to do. And the time is now.