Political expediency is no excuse for naiveté

30 years ago in Iran, a fundamentalist posing as a moderate conducted a social reform movement so popular that everyone from the beguiled illiterate to the beguiled atheist with the religiously inclined in between, enthusiastically helped him overthrow the Shah.

Then, as soon as he garnered enough power, he ‘threw his friends under the bus’ and thrust upon the people a theocracy where low drop hangings, amputations and stonings underscored its implementation.

Now, Iranians romanticize and reminisce the rule under the Shah. They realized too late that the toss was between a corrupt but secular dictatorship and a fanatical ideology that used the premise of social reform as a ‘Trojan horse’. Several dictatorships in the vicinity have learnt from their neighbour and are understandably, resisting their own groundswell clamouring for reform.

Malaysia, a vibrant multi-cultural-religious fabric, is an example of a dangerous reformation in flux. With the veneer of political correctness removed, its present situation is analogous to Iran of the past. Down the pike, the ruling party is a secular dictatorship in disguise, while the opposition coalition, premised on democratic social reform, unwittingly represents an ideological streak detrimental to the fabric.

Political expediency is no excuse for naiveté. Is the coalition having trouble reading its partner’s lips, which shouts repeatedly that it wants to ‘Islamize Malaysia’ or has it not come to terms with the motives of the offender who openly subscribes to a dogma that is anathema to the secular constitution of the nation?

The extent to which the partner is underestimated is the extent to which its dogma is misread. If the aspiration of the coalition to form the next government comes to fruition with the partner who is not disciplined or defanged, the very people who embrace it will in the near future, romanticize and reminisce the dictatorship of the ‘previous government’.

Posted in The Sun (September 9th 2008)

The above commentary appeared in the letters' column (Speak-up) of The Sun on Tuesday, September 9th 2008. The next day one Anti-labellist responded and the same evening I penned a response to his but, which did not see print.

Response by Anti-labellist, Shah Alam – The Sun, September 10^th 2008

‘Islamist’ label not appropriate – Anti-labellist, Shah Alam

THE assertion that the Opposition coalition should be wary of its "Islamist" partner in turning this multi-cultural democracy into Iran’s theocratic rule, "Political expediency no excuse for naivete" (Sept 9) is naive. If not because of this partner, the opposition coalition would not make it to where it is today.

There is no proof that the accused party shouts repeatedly that it wants to convert all Malaysian non-Muslims to Islam. Indeed, the party will be guilty of violating its own Islamic principles of non-compulsion in faith if it is caught doing that. Last year’s Merdeka Centre poll showed that a significantly high percentage of grouses among Muslim Malaysians was on the lack of application of Islamic principles of social justice and good governance within the administration. Can we justly label this majority as "Islamist", which means "backward-thinking propagandists" in the western dictionary?

Amplification of wrongfully associated labels on people who want to assert their rights to be governed by principles derived from their faith can be no further from the continuing efforts by Islamophobes to denigrate Islam itself. The western media has long been subduing the minds of Muslims and non-Muslims alike with all kinds of pejorative terms with the term "Islamic" attached to it that they seem to be acceptable when they shouldn’t

**********

My response to Anti-labellist, Shah Alam, sent to the The Sun on September 10^th 2008 but, which did not see print.

‘Islamist’ label not appropriate - Tommy Peters, Kuala Lumpur

In ‘Islamist’ label not appropriate’ the author is right in asserting that ‘I wrongfully associated labels’ in my commentary ‘Political expediency no excuse for naiveté’ for which, I sincerely apologise. Given the dualism of the doctrine, at some point I alluded to the religion of Islam rather than its political ideology.

In comparing Malaysia to Iran from another perspective, Tom Holland’s ‘Persian Fire’ depicts 1000 years of pre-Islamic Persian history up to the advent of Islam where, although Cyrus the Great ruled with a brand of ‘Persian supremacy’, a potpourri of religions and cultures half a century ahead of Europe were thriving quite nicely there. The ancient Persepolis provides an uncanny resemblance to the current situation in Malaysia but only if the ‘Malay supremacy’ doctrine is not theological in disguise.

Persian history tells us it was an unvarnished ‘theological supremacy’ that upset the utopia Cyrus had envisioned. Removing the theological cloak surreptitiously enveloping the nation, Malaysia has the potential to mirror the utopian combination of the Persepolis.