Middle Malaysia vs One Malaysia

The to-use-or-not-to-use-Allah controversy and the attacks on places of worship are definitely conjoined events for one special reason – together they show where the government’s habit of muffling whatever voices it does not like to hear has led.

It should not really surprise anyone that the increasing restriction on public space through a barrage of laws, warnings, regulations and fatwas has precipitated a conflict that has confused most people. 

Should a certain religious word be allowed to be used by a certain group of people in a certain context, given the infinitesimal possibility that members of another clearly defined group of people who would normally not be found in that context, may become confused by that usage to the extent of slipping into a personal crisis of faith? 

Try explaining that dilemma to non-Malaysians, in whichever language. It is no wonder that the world press is still trying to get their heads around it, and can’t make head or tail of the latest pig-head desecration at two Kuala Lumpur mosques.

Now, whether or not the Catholic Church’s monthly publication The Herald is given the final go-ahead by the legal system to use the word “Allah”, the government still retains the right to withdraw its publishing licence, which according to the Printing Presses and Publications Act, must be renewed annually anyway.

But events have no doubt overshadowed the court process somewhat.

The misuse of racial and religious sensitivities as a reason to diminish public space has over time had the cumulative effect of creating frustration; and indeed, the Allah controversy does suggest desperation on the part of someone who feels his or her back is against the wall.

This systemic creeping silencing has been accompanied by a steadily growing gap between Malaysians sorted – or nailed – into different groups whose main means of mutual contact is through controversies. 

And so, provocation becomes an effective means of opportunistic politicking.

But still, there are reasons to stay positive. The successive strangling of political discussion has now come to a point where its consequences are overly shocking and are not acceptable to most Malaysians.

At least three occurrences require attention if we are to understand where Malaysia’s national discourse is going from here.

Firstly, we see how the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), despite claims that its ulama faction had retained power despite the success of its “professional” wing in the 2008 general elections, chose to support the High Court decision to lift the ban on the A-word. This has made it appear a party that is more mature than the ruling United Malays National Organisation(Umno).

The significance of their stand is even greater if one considers how controversies about religion had in the past always managed to excite PAS into acting in a fundamentalist manner. The party seems to be seriously attempting to leave that phase behind.

Just as interesting is the way Umno Youth members have been acting. Actually, they have not been acting, and that is certainly thanks to their leader Khairy Jamaluddin, who has called for calm and who has condemned the attacks on churches. Again, in the old days, members of this Umno wing would have been in the forefront “championing” race, religion and what not.

Thirdly, the concept of “Middle Malaysia” has been injected into the public sphere by Penang’s Chief Minister, Mr Lim Guan Eng. He introduced the term at the recent convention of the Democratic Action Party (DAP), causing eyebrows to be raised in the process, some in thought and some in confusion.

The reason Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s “One Malaysia” has been failing as a call to action is that it wishes to embrace all without conjuring the image of a united country. At a time when divisions cut deep in Malaysia, the notion has not been taken seriously.

“Middle Malaysia” has the advantage of being open-ended since its defining embrace extends from the middle outwards and not from the fringes inwards, and can appeal to tentative groups such as “The Middle Class”, the Moderates of all colours, the non-extremists, open-minded Malaysians, and even the fence-sitters. Basically, it denotes the country’s middle ground.

The DAP’s replacement of “Malaysian Malaysia”, which is laden with historical baggage, is in many ways a worthy and timely response to its ally, PAS’s new liberal stand.

The issue now is, how will the federal government play this new hand?