KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — This country is looked up to for its moderation, stability and impressive eco-nomic gains. But under the surface, a different reality appears to be unfolding, with potentially far-reaching con- sequences for this “model Islamic democracy.”
Hard-line Muslims have grown angry in recent months, demonstrating at forums held by a coalition of nongovernmental organizations known as Article 11, which wants the government to put its weight behind the constitution as the supreme law of the land. The constitution guarantees equality and freedom of worship.
Article 11, named for the section in the constitution that guarantees the right of every citizen to “profess and practice his religion,” is concerned that Shariah courts recently have taken primacy over civil courts, after several controversial judicial decisions. Muslim hard-liners also oppose efforts to set up an interfaith commission to increase understanding among religions.
The latest protest occurred July 22 in Johor Bahru state.
As Article 11 members gathered in an upper-floor hotel ballroom, about 300 Muslims behind a police cordon at the hotel entrance brandished signs reading “Don’t touch Muslim sensitivities,” “Destroy anti-Muslims,” and “We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for Islam.” In May, hard-liners threatening to storm an Article 11 venue brought the meeting to an abrupt end.
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who has been championing a moderate form of Islam since becoming prime minister three years ago, has issued a warning — not to hard-liners but to Article 11.
“Do not force the government to take action,” he told the coalition.
He accused Article 11 of playing up religious matters and threatening Malaysia’s fragile social balance by bringing up “sensitive issues.” In Malaysia, sensitive issues such as race, religion and affirmative action are not talked about openly. But they inspire passionate discussions behind closed doors and among one’s own community.
Mr. Abdullah also has told the press to stop reporting on issues related to religion. And he has not ruled out using the Internal Securities Act, which allows indefinite detention without trial, against Article 11 should it continue its activities.
His position appears rooted in trepidation, which has guided several of his decisions since he came to power.
For example, he declared an all-out war on graft, but it fizzled, because, many suspect, he fears confronting the old guard in his ruling party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).
But it also follows another trend of the Abdullah era, which is to assign Islam a special role in Malaysia’s political and social landscape. The Muslim-dominated leadership has long given Islam priority in Malaysia. The constitution recognizes Islam as the official religion. It is illegal to debate the affirmative-action program benefiting the majority ethnic Malays, who by law are born into Islam.
Mr. Abdullah’s predecessor, Mahathir Mohamad, called Malaysia “an Islamic state,” and all of Malaysia’s five prime ministers have promoted Islamic values in one form or another.
The Abdullah era, however, has witnessed a growing number of politicians, religious administrators, authorities and activists making their own rules, pronouncements and judgments on things beyond their purview, to paraphrase noted lawyer Zaid Ibrahim.
Last year, a mob attacked a commune run by a Malay apostate. Muslim moral police have more aggressively targeted Malays for “deviant” behavior and have tried to establish “snoop squads” in some states. And Shariah courts, based on Islamic law, are said to be overstepping their bounds in making rulings involving non-Muslims.
Mr. Abdullah’s handling of the creeping fundamentalism has been criticized as less than resolute, but there is little suggestion that the former Islamic scholar is promoting an intolerant strain of Islam. Moreover, Malaysia is a tricky place to govern and requires deftly balancing the needs of the Malays with those of the Indian and Chinese minorities to prevent social unrest.
Mr. Abdullah knows that maintaining political control requires, first and foremost, placating the Malays.
But by caving in to hard-line sensitivities over interfaith dialogue and the supremacy of the constitution, Mr. Abdullah appears to be going beyond accommodating the Malay community to empowering its fringes.
Mr. Abdullah’s stance against Article 11 may reflect Mr. Mahathir’s belief that greater freedom of expression will stoke ethnic tensions. But he also has been called selective, allowing hostile segments of the Muslim community to use free speech to dictate the limits of free speech.
In July, his powerful son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin rallied members of UMNO in a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. Traffic stalled as the mob chanted, “Down with Israel,” and burned Israeli and American flags.
Analysts have noted that the Malays, Indians and Chinese have been drifting apart. A recent survey found that most Malaysians do not trust one another and seek refuge in their own ethnic community, contradicting Malaysia’s boast of embracing multiculturalism.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.