AND NOW TO THE NEXT LEVEL

“More political rather (than) religious?” said Mohsin Abdullah in his piece in fz.com today in reference to JAIS’s raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia and the confiscation of the 300 Bibles (READ HERE).

Now, how should I respond to this piece by Mohsin? Should I say it is quite a brilliant analysis of the real situation? Or should I say Mohsin is just repeating what I have been saying all along over the last number of years?

The only problem is when I first said this I was whacked good and proper and was vilified. My warning was taken as an attempt at trying to play the race card in the interest of Umno’s agenda. Even my friends called me a racist.

Anyway, this same issue was the gist of my lecture in Cambridge last year and I made it very clear that we can expect the 3R issue to be raised to the next level once Umno realises it has lost the Chinese vote for good and that the only way it can stay in power would be to increase its share of the Malay vote.

Incidentally, Mariam Mokhtar also attended that lecture of mine so she knows what I talked about.

As I tried to explain before, there are 34 words that non-Muslims are forbidden from using and ‘Allah’ is just one of them. And this was a law passed way back in 1988.

The Malay Mail said today that three DAP State Assemblypersons — Yeo Bee Yin, Rajiv Rishyakaran and Lau Weng San — are going to push for this law to be amended. Hence DAP accepts the fact that the ban on the use of the Allah word (plus 33 other words) is actually the law.

How then would this support the cry that banning non-Muslims from using the Allah word (plus the 33 other words) is unlawful, a violation of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, a breach of civil rights, draconian, and whatnot? DAP has accepted the reality that this is actually the law — and hence they want this law amended.

I have said this before: the law is an ass (donkey). But then the law is the law and if we break the law we suffer the consequences, ass or no ass. So the only way to free the people from ‘donkey’ laws would be to remove these laws. As long as we do not remove them, these laws would be hanging over our heads.

Okay, from the legal viewpoint this is a sensible move. The law is a bad law so we must remove bad laws. And banning non-Muslims from using ‘Allah’ and 33 other words is a bad law and thus should be removed.

But then what about from the political viewpoint? Is this move a DAP Selangor effort or a Pakatan Rakyat Selangor effort? Has DAP discussed this matter with PAS Selangor and PKR Selangor or are they just assuming that since DAP, PAS and PKR are all allies in Pakatan Rakyat then for sure PAS and PKR would support DAP’s move to push for the amendment of this law?

They will need to table the proposal to amend or abolish this law in the Selangor State Assembly. I am assuming that DAP will carry this motion since they are proposing this amendment.

And that means DAP will have to enter into a discussion with PAS and PKR before they do this to make sure that all Pakatan Rakyat State Assemblypersons ‘toe the party line’, do not ‘break ranks’, and demonstrate solidarity.

But then you are asking the Muslims in PAS and PKR to choose between party loyalty and their loyalty to their religion.

The Umno Selangor State Assemblypersons for sure would vote against this amendment. The DAP Selangor State Assemblypersons would vote in favour of the amendment. I can only assume that the non-Muslim PKR State Assemblypersons would vote with DAP and not with Umno.

So that leaves us with the Muslim State Assemblypersons from PAS and PKR Selangor.

If these people feel that their conscience as a Muslim would not allow them to support the motion to amend or abolish this law, then they would vote with Umno. And that would mean the Selangor State Assembly would no longer be split along party lines but would be split along racial lines.

However, if they want to ensure that they demonstrate solidarity and not be seen as supporting Umno’s opposition to the amendment, then they need to support DAP’s motion to amend this law.

But how would that look to the Muslims on the streets? More importantly, would that not just allow Umno to tell the people that PAS and PKR are tools of DAP — even the Muslims in PAS and PKR — and that the Pakatan Rakyat Malays are even prepared to ‘sell’ their religion in the interest of political power?

This is going to be a very interesting development and I eagerly wait to see how this is going to be played out. No doubt PAS and PKR Selangor can advise DAP Selangor that this is a bad move. It is very risky to place Malays in a situation where they are forced to choose between Islam and the party.

Nevertheless, even if they abort the move to push for the amendment to this law, the damage would already have been done. It shows that DAP does have the intention to amend or remove this law even if they do not proceed with it in the end because of lack of support.

Now, let us assume that what I said does not happen. In other words, all Pakatan Rakyat State Assemblypersons stand united in support of the motion to amend the law with the Barisan Nasional State Assemblypersons equally united in opposition to it. Is that the end of the story?

There would still be one more hurdle to jump over and that would be the Selangor Palace. Can the Selangor State Assembly pass this amendment based just on majority vote without having to take His Highness the Sultan’s opinion into consideration?

What if His Highness withholds consent or expresses his displeasure? Can Pakatan Rakyat tell His Highness that the people have spoken and the law is being amended or abolished based on majority vote in the Selangor State Assembly and what His Highness feels or wishes is not of any consequence?

Umno is hoping and praying that Pakatan Rakyat Selangor will go into a Constitutional Crisis with the Sultan. Would Umno’s prayers be answered and its wishes be granted with the possible Constitutional Crisis looming over the horizon?

But then what about Islamic teachings? What about what the Quran says? What about the opinions of the Muslim scholars or ulamak? Do all these not matter?

I suppose it would if this was a theological matter. But then we all know this is not about theology but about politics. And you mean to tell me you did not know this?