I was in Japan recently when the Federal Court gave its judgment on former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's final appeal against the conviction to his first trial.

If what was reported of the public's sentiments on the outcome in the international media and regional newspapers were anything to go by, those who had hoped that the crisis of September 1998 would usher in a new Malaysia of good governance, judicial independence and people-oriented development policies would probably have to come to terms that it is now a distant dream. Few had expected a favourable outcome for Anwar, but many had thought that at least by taking the sentence to start from the date of his arrest, that would have been a reasonable face-saving compromise for a judiciary that's serious about redeeming its sullied reputation.

That this was not so and it only generated muted protests that were a far cry of April 14, 1999, did seem to suggest that the spontaneous show of popular discontent against the hegemony and abuses of the Barisan Nasional government may be running out of steam.

The authorities took the gamble of repressing virtually all avenues of legitimate dissent, brazenly manipulated the media as its propaganda tool and detaining reformasi leaders without trial to break the will of disenfranchised citizens and succeeded.

Goodbye, reformasi?

Now the accepted argument is not whether Anwar has been given a fair trial and received justice, but rather that this is the price to pay for going against his boss.

Even more ludicrous, some say he deserved the jail sentence for wanting to implement IMF-like policies in the wake of the Asian economic crisis.

We would like to think that maybe it's just reformasi fatigue, and that the embers still smoulders inside, but I suspect that many who had supported the idea of change four years ago have now grudgingly accepted that we have to live with the present state of affairs for quite a long time still.

Ah, let's get back on that scramble up the social ladder, and anyway, how many times can one repeat the litany of corporate-political scandals of Malaysia Pte Ltd without annoying one's listeners even if they are of grave import for the nation's future?

Many may have finally realised that their kids have grown up and now they need to find money for that quality private education. So, goodbye, reformasi?

'New politics' unravelled

When the opposition coalition was cobbled together in anticipation of the 10th general election, many had high hopes of the birth of a new era in Malaysian politics. The front managed to come up with a common manifesto which seemed like a reasonable framework for a reform programme that envisions justice and democracy for multireligious, multiracial Malaysia. This was supposed to be the vehicle for 'New Politics'.

But it seemed to have all unravelled spectacularly in the past year or so, first over the thorny issue of the Islamic state and today the polemic on hudud has sharpened that division within the ranks of opposition supporters even further, catalysed of course by Sept 11 and the "war against terror", which in reality is acute wariness towards anything to do with Islam.

I guess the voting patterns of non-Muslims in the Pendang and Anak Bukit by-elections last week in Kedah can be taken as a measure of this divisiveness that was fully exploited by Umno-BN.

Was the PM's declaration of Malaysia as an 'Islamic state' a cleverly calculated bait to draw out PAS' hard-line conservatism to the fore and in one fell swoop, erase its stature as a party with broad national aspirations, making it appear as a provincial, communal party serving the narrow interests of one religious community in the eyes of non-Muslim Malaysians?

On the face of it, it does not seem unreasonable for states with more than 95 percent Muslims like Kelantan and Terengganu to implement the hudud for the believers if that is what the people really want. That is after all, what democracy is all about, no matter how archaic the specific provisions of hudud appears to be in the eyes of many.

Blind spot

But Muslims around the world have good reasons to be wary of defenders of democracy who have a blind spot when it comes to Islam, whether out of prejudice, ignorance or realpolitik.

In the 1990s the FIS in Algeria were robbed of victory and the Welfare Party in Turkey were ousted from power because of their Islamic leanings and intentions to implement the syariah. Both parties took the path of popular elections, but the not-so-hidden hands of France in Algeria and the US in Turkey, in the name of democracy, saw it fit to supplant them with regimes well known for their repression and gross human rights abuses.

Even if we don't have a very clean record, murderous regimes of the likes of Middle East dictatorships are a stranger to us, and given our demographic makeup, the non-Muslims have better familiarity with Islam and Muslims compared with the average westerner. The non-Muslims within the opposition and civil society NGOs have a better understanding of the aspirations of Muslims on the place of Islam in our polity.

A cooperation in the form of a political coalition is possible and perhaps the only viable way to loosen and may shake off the unbroken hegemony of BN as long as the common, broad objectives are adhered to democratic reforms, judicial independence, restoration of the institutions of the state and good governance.

Divisive insistence

While everyone recognises the rights of PAS to have its goal of establishing the Islamic state and the syariah which includes hudud, politics in a modern nation-state is about bargaining and compromises, and working within the constitutional boundaries.

To insist on the Islamic state and hudud at this juncture is plainly divisive and effectively stalls the momentum for democratic reforms. While it may be true that those who vehemently oppose the recently enacted hudud law in Terengganu probably do so out of ignorance and prejudice, its not really fair to level the same accusation on civil society NGOs and independent-thinking individuals who up till now have been sharing the same platform with PAS on many issues.

PAS' increasingly conservative, sectarian stance may have affected little of its support in the Malay heartland but many believe it has greatly weakened, if not paralysed what was not too long ago a popular, broad-based movement for change. With the mainstream media under its control, the BN has no difficulty in persuading non-Muslims to be fearful of an extremist PAS yet projecting itself as the paragon of Islamic moderation, openness and tolerance while the old disease of bad governance, lack of accountability and inefficiency fester.

Referendum on hudud

I admire the courage and honesty of Dr Syed Husin Ali, the PRM president, when he suggested to his Barisan Alternatif ally to put it to the people in the form of a referendum with regard to hudud implementation when the time is right, i.e. when the BA forms the government. This is logical as PAS was not swept to power in Terengganu on the strength of one issue, i.e. hudud implementation.

For PAS to insist on this in today's political climate not only derails the broad objectives of BA, but it is unlikely to be workable from the point of view of constitutionality, administration and praxis, so that it merely becomes a self-serving exercise in futility.

It also does not help the debate to cite Saudi Arabia as a model society and to say that Lord Reid is a Christian. His religion has nothing to do with the Malaysian constitution.

But I think it is incorrect either for some quarters to label PAS's insistence on the hudud as politically motivated. It has always been the stated objective of the ulama-led party. It's a question of ordering the priorities and the process of give and take that a normal political party in a modern nation state is expected to submit itself to.

Objective study

The issue of syariah and hudud, and their implementation in the context of a modern nation-state needs all the depth and breadth of a careful, honest and objective study that is only possible by encompassing as many experts and specialist scholars in the field, including those who will be indirectly affected, the non-Muslims.

The present highly politicised polemic on the issue cannot do justice to syariah and Islam. Intellectual laziness and a simplistic approach to the syariah run the risk of turning it into a parody of itself and the mocking of justice, the ultimate aim of syariah. The well-publicised horror stories from Pakistan and Nigeria should make us approach this with a great deal of reflection and thought. They not only serve to perpetuate the negative image Islam as a backward, violent and misogynistic religion, but more importantly, real individuals, mainly women, have suffered terrible injustice in the name of the religion.

While he is here, we should ask President Khatami why the young and the educated middle class in Iran are wary of the conservative ulama and clamour for reforms.

Purpose of politics

Maybe is time for us to take the view that the purpose of politics is not to make people religious. We should leave that to the professional preachers and religious teachers. Rather, in this respect, the purpose of politics is to protect the rights of those who may wish to be religious, to ensure the private space of the individual citizen for his/her spiritual felicity. Men of religion who enter professional politics should know where preaching stops and statespersonship begins. Those entrusted with power need to safeguard the interests of all, including those who do not vote them in or disagree with their policies.

We need not fear the dilution of our religious faith by being inclusive and accommodative of others in our midst. Islam will continue to stamp its mark on Malaysian politics and public life, just as Muslims living in the west accept the role and symbols of Christianity, albeit a very diminished one, in today's post-modern societies. There's no reason why it should not.

Like all authentic spiritual traditions, Islam places great emphasis on positive human values like social justice, compassion for the weak and charity to the poor, and equality among men and women. These can surely serve as the moral foundation of public life in the same way that Christian values had coloured western civilisation.

It is unfortunate that at this most critical juncture of our history, instead of being a unifying force towards democracy, good governance and people's empowerment, Islam has become a force of divisiveness.