Former PM Tun Dr Mahathir that started national debate in the first instance by calling us an Islamic state now confuses it further by saying Malaysia is an Islamic state even though it is not officially called that. So there is now such a thing as “official” and “unofficial”, and implies that Islam is an ‘official’ religion in the constitution to support Malaysia being unofficially an Islamic state.

This contradicts what present PM category stated that we were not an Islamic state. But Mahathir also said “I think it (this controversy) is not leading us anywhere except to create a lot of problems” haqrmful to our multiracial country and he may be substantially right. See: http://www.malaysiakini.com/link/eNrLKCkpsNLXLy8v18vMKNFLzs/VTywqyUzOSS3WTyzQNzIwMNc3sNAHkonFmYn6jsG67q5+ur6JOYmVQL6uZ3FOYm5msm5wSWJJql5BRgEAOqga0Q==

For what we’re engaged in presently is philosophical problems on language and its use and abuse and whether definition like “secular” or “Islamic” state could reflect knowable reality. (For pointing the problems of definitions out, Socrates was 2000 years ago sentenced to death by drinking hemlocjk for poisoning the minds of the youths). Such arguments can go round and round. What is our reader/poster Lee Wang Yen, a major in analytical philosophy, whose input on this subject is required?

Most people whose votes count are neither philosophers nor logicians like Ludwig Wittgenstein (of ‘Tracticus Logico-Philosophicus’ fame) or Oxford’s Professor Ayer (of ‘Language and Logic’ fame) specializing in semantics.

But many of us would have read children classics like Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and Through the Looking Glass (1871) by another Oxford mathematician and logician Lewis Caroll pen name for Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

As Alice wanders through Wonderland and engages with the creatures therein there is this classic exchange with Humpty Dumpty – (I quote) “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

UMNOputras are Humpty Dumpties. To them, language convey effectively emotive associations like religious sentiments and attach ‘ketuanan’ symbols, that linguistic power is real power and those who have power like them have the power to decide on the meaning of words as it suits their political agendas and the way to redefine the nation is to get the new definition “Islamic State” repeated as often as possible so that if one repeats it often enough, it becomes accepted.

Of course, I would agree that we should resist any attempt by politicians to manipulate language to justify totally arbitrary results to meet political ends. As wise Confucius said, “When words lose their meaning, peoples lose their liberty.” The world will chaotic if there is no proper frame of reference. What will it be if a cad says “I love you” to our daughter when the word “love” to the speaker means getting under her pants rather than an intended emotional attachment for life even when she is wrinkled, with white hair of which no “maintenance” (in Samy Vellu’s context) could rectify? (Sorry no sexist pun is intended). What happens if someone who bombs our beach club frequented by westerners is not called a terriorist but a freedom fighter? (In philosophy and psycholgy, it is represented by the “half full glass or half empty glass analogy – which is the case?).

To avoid anarchy, reference is crucial. When concepts are defined in certain way (like secular or Islamic) the crucial question is : to what does the defination refer?

There is here on the table a reference to the social contract and the Reid Commission and deliberations in period imediately before Merdeka.
Good. The Constitution might at inception be intended secular in recognition of our multiracial population but the fact that UMNO in Alliance could insert Article 3 on the official religion being Islam (and if I may add 9th Schedule as well) without contest by MCA/MIC leaders means that there was no consensus that the Constitution would be 100% secular – because no secular constitution in its purest form will countenance these provisions as concessions in deference to Malay feudal and cultural imperatives.

At best we can say that the Constitution is predicated on secular premises but being so predicated does not legitimize the extrapolation that we’re entirely 100% secular – and if we do so (because it would meet our Non Malay/Muslims’ agenda of preventing a an alleged slide down the slippery slope of Islamic theocracy) without looking at realities of the land, its peoples (including majority peoples), predominant culture and its rulers, with all four indicia representing the cornerstones of a state – in short denying the unvarnished truth as things are – then we will be just as guilty of the same distortion of truth and no better as those who would seek to deny us our liberty and usher us quickly into an Islamic theocracy by language manipulation.

I think what present PM said that we’re neither secular or an Islamic state is Ok as it is unique to our circumstances and it is no point in trying to pin down exactly what we are that the world and even language offers no equivalent of precedent – which will only generate disunity and give free rein to political Humpty Dumpties to interpret as they wish in advancement of their political agendas.

Our problem is that the character of a state is – whether secular or theocratic or something in between – is as much measured by and reflected in the land, its peoples (including majority peoples), predominant culture, its rulers, institutions and values infused in the administration as it is supposedly gauged from its earlier constitutional documents.

The question may be legitimately asked why when TDM and his deputy DSAI (Anwar Ibrahim) actively embarked on their Islamisation programme for more than twenty years changing the character of the nation to Islamic, which may be said to be inconsistent with the spirit if not letter of these constitutional documents, no malay/muslim organisation or any stakeholders of non malay/muslim interests and even opposition party including the DAP had explicitly objected against TDM/DSAI’s progamme (ie allocation of huge amounts of public funds to establishing Islamic place of worship, institutions of learning, banking, insurance etc and our leaders proclaiming that we’re a modern Islamic state to the whole world and regional organistions and bodies, taking the OIC chair etc, thereby acquiescing with Islamisation of the nation being achieved by fait accompli. So where is the so called “tectonic shift” from secular to Islamic? It has been going on for last 20 over years!

Also constitutional documents including the Reid Commission report may give insights and inspiration of secular intentions and premises of the “Social Contract” but like any other legal contracts may be revised by the parties over time as reflected by their conduct, and the stronger party normally have its way to reformulate it in accord with its wishes.

Take the case of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. It is widely assumed that if and when the Opposition evicts the BN and comes to power DSAI would be the natural choice of a credible Malay leader leading the government. What BN’s detractors should have no illusion about is that DSAI rose to political prominence on the back of ABIM, partook in TDM’s Islamisation programme and even today as he criticized Najib Tun Razak for “abysmal ignorance” in proclaiming Malaysia an Islamic state, DSAI (a likely future prime minister if Opposition wins) has carefully avoided declaring, as YB Kit appears to be doing, that Malaysia is a secular state based on the aspirations underlying the constitutional documents. What more those of you who believe that the hope for getting rid of the “den of thieves” lies in supporting the Opposition front should confront the reality that the Opposition front is still led by PAS (that PKR depends on carrying Malay/Muslim votes) and PAS is dedicated to an unequivocal and unvarnished Islamic state in its purest form. Now if one thinks that DSAI, who is vocal in criticizing Najib for his “abysmal ignorance” is himself privy to knowledge of the country’s secular destiny, think again why, if DSAI truly does not believe in an Islamic State, he is campaigning for a party like PAS which believes that the Sharia should be the supreme law of the land!

Unless YB LKS or non malay/non muslims become prime minsiter and/or form majority of government – or put in another way if non non malay/non muslims become majority of population (which surely canmnot happen because nearly ½ of the commenters here talk of migrating) – the reality is that this country can never be a secular state whatever the constitutional documents stipulate.

This is because no muslim leader today will ever concede that he is a leader of a secular state. There is no muslim leader world over who is like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Turkey but then again in his time (1881-1938) Ayatollah Khomeini was still a teacher not engaged in politics let alone led a revolution!

In the premises of Malaysia being neither a secular or an Islamic state (as PM said), the last word on what we actually are should rightly be attributed to smeagroo who has come out with the original – that Malaysia is a Sorry State – in his posting August 9th, 2007 at 23: 35.35

It is a sorry state that at 50 years old the country has midlife crisis still having no consensus as to what identiity it is.