In Romeo and Juliet, the heroine, referring to Romeo, soliloquised:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Nevertheless, she also admitted that "'tis but thy name that is my enemy" (Act II, Scene II).

Names, indeed, are more important than most people realise, or the Bible would not have emphasised that Adam "gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field" (Genesis, 2 : 20).

The giver of names is often situated in a dominant position: Thus it came to pass that every fowl of the air and every beast of the field came under the dominance of mankind. It is not surprising, therefore, that during the Age of Imperialism, the colonialists gave names to every continent, nation, city, and people they conquered. It was only after decolonisation that the European names were erased and Rhodesia became Zambia, Penang became Pulau Pinang, and Ceylonese became Sri Lankans.

Names can also designate class, dehumanise enemies, and consign whole ethnic groups to second-class citizenship. In Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, Wamba the Jester noted that when the pig was reared by the lowly Saxon slave it was called "swine", but when served at the Norman master's table it was called "pork". Similarly, the same ox that was under the charge of Saxon slaves became "beef" when placed in front of Norman jaws (Chapter 1).

Likewise, in the past every Malaysian dissident was called a "communist", if not "communist terrorist". "Extremists" were reserved for minorities who wanted to preserve their mother tongue, not those who wished to wipe out other people's language and culture.

Today, the word "terrorist" is back, and it is pinned on anyone the ruling party dislikes, including people such as, to imitate Gomer Pyle — surprise! surprise! — Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor, Hishamuddin Rais, Chua Tian Chang, Saari Sungib, Dr Badrulamin Bahron and Lokman Noor Adam.

And labels such as "communists" and "extremists" are still useful, as witnessed during last year's Merdeka celebrations.

Instrument for apartheid

It is not necessary that the names or labels correspond with reality: to dictatorial governments that is an unnecessary and rather cumbersome requirement. And quite rightly too, for if one wants to be too particular about word-reality correspondence, then one would have to call those who threatened to burn down the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall "terrorists", that those who waved placards showing a kris with a bloody red background were indulging in a terroristic act.

Instead, all a dictatorship needs to do is to reserve flattering names for itself and unflattering ones for the opposition. Thus, oppressors are "patriotic" people and the oppressed are "ungrateful" plebeians — quite similar to the Cold War days when it was almost impossible to read anything from the Soviet Union without being reminded of the "great leader and genius, comrade Stalin" and of the "capitalist lackeys" who had some kind words for freedom and democracy.

Perhaps nothing is so devastating as when entire ethnic groups are given a label that puts them in perpetual second-class citizenship. This was what happened when Umno invented the term "bumiputra", for its instantly entails its binary opposite "non-bumiputra".

To be born a non-bumiputra is to be discriminated against in university admissions, to be told that his/her language and culture is superfluous and an obstacle towards nation-building, to have difficulty when applying for business licences, and so on.

Most of all, the non-bumiputra are supposed to have little or no say in how the country is governed, even in how their tax dollars are being spent. What was originally envisioned as a limited, finite, affirmative programme to help economically backward communities became an instrument for apartheid.

Then, late last year, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared that Malaysia was an Islamic state. Ironically, such a declaration seemed to be a logical step, for as is well-known, Umno had from the 1970s onwards already conducted a mass, intensive Islamisation campaign, a campaign that literally changed the cultural milieu of the country.

Today, Kuala Lumpur and other Malaysian cities are full of people with Muslim-styled dresses and Islamic institutions have been set up all over the country. In other words, to all intents and purposes, Malaysia already functions as if it's an Islamic state.

That the country could go so far down the road towards a theocratic state without provoking a whimper from anyone testifies to the insidious nature of Umno and its secretive plans.

And yet, for all its Islamisation efforts, Umno, and especially its President Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had little desire to hand over the country to a bunch of clergymen. Religion was, for the Umno leadership, a means to an end, and not the end itself: it was a way to gather all Malays under the Umno umbrella, a way to perpetuate the supremacist myth of Ketuanan Melayu, besides making a lot of money for its leaders. In other words, Umno had operated on the premise that the country's Malay/Muslim majority would be grateful to the party for turning Malaysia into what appears to be an Islamic state, albeit a money-worshipping one.

Concern over PM's declaration

Yet this pandering to the religious impulse of the Malay/Muslim majority did not work for several reasons. One is that religious sentiments, whether Christian, Buddhist, or Islamic, tend to gravitate towards pietism, towards a rejection of materialistic values engendered by pure capitalism.

And as if pure capitalism has not created enough havoc on what was formerly a rural society, the ruling party itself has behaved in ways that no self-respecting religious person, whether Muslim, Christian, or Buddhist, could've tolerated: the nepotism, cronyism, and corruption, the subversion of the judiciary as reflected in the unjust imprisonment of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, all served to turn away the very people Umno's Islamisation programme was supposed to attract.

Umno's problems were compounded when PAS, though new to the national scene, quickly seized its opportunities to appear as the true Mosque, the true citadel of Islam. Undeniably cleaner than Umno, PAS has captured the Malay heartland through the personal self-sacrificing example of most of its party leaders. It was within this context that Mahathir declared Malaysia an Islamic state.

The declaration seemed innocuous, for as we have seen the country has been building up its Islamic infrastructure for decades.

Yet there is a great difference between an undeclared Islamic state and a declared one: it is easier to halt, modify, or even dismantle the former than the latter, for the act of naming the country an Islamic state gives it a legitimacy and a propulsion that would be hard to control. It is not surprising that after the declaration, PAS has become even more inclined to toy with the idea of implementing the syariah criminal laws, and even Keadilan appears to be moving towards accommodating them.

In short, the much-maligned DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang is right to be concerned over Mahathir's declaration. Lim is also right in pointing out that no previous prime ministers had ever considered Malaysia to be an Islamic state. As the first Prime Minister, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, noted: "Malaysia is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood, we merely provided that Islam shall be the official religion of the State" (Hansard May 1, 1958). Other leading personalities and government reports had also more or less implied that Malaysia was a secular state.

Mahathir was able to declare Malaysia an Islamic state partly because of the spinelessness of BN component parties such as MCA, MIC, and Gerakan. The parties that had heaped abuses at PAS for wanting to transform Malaysia into an Islamic state suddenly turned about face and said they supported Umno's version. One idiotic MCA leader even called Umno's version a "secular Islamic state" — an unparalleled oxymoron if ever there was one.

Lessons from Massachusetts experiment

The consequences of a full-fledged theocratic state can be grim: Christians have seen how the 16th century Calvinist Geneva experiment produced the most egregious infringements of individual rights and how, about a century later, a somewhat similar experiment at the New England colonies resulted in the banishment of dissidents and the burning of "witches". Both experiments did not last long, but that was small comfort to the people who suffered under the harsh reign of those who thought they were acting in the name of God.

There were many reasons why the theocratic state experiment at Massachusetts failed, chief of which, this writer thinks, was the basic incompatibility between some ancient religious beliefs and capitalism. To a large extent, capitalism thrives on a certain amount of personal greed, and this of course conflicts with pietistic sentiments. Furthermore, as commerce blossomed and society became more complex, the simplistic exhortations to Godly behaviour inspired by some desert peoples thousands of years ago became irrelevant and perhaps even ridiculous.

The failure of the Massachusetts experiments taught Christians to adapt and modify their religion. Religious authorities began to see the wisdom of Jesus' injunction of rendering to Caesar things that are Caesar's and to God things that are God's, thus giving rise to the concept of a separation between Church and state. At the very least, the idea that scriptural laws were from God and, therefore, immutable was rejected. In its place was the belief that a good and great God must necessarily want humankind to develop and grow and thus learn to adapt to new environments.

This is a great lesson to all religions and it offers hope to Malaysian Muslims that their religious leaders, too, would adopt a broadminded and liberal approach towards their interpretation of the Quran.

Today, both PAS and Umno seem intent on establishing an Islamic state and it is yet unclear what the final configurations of such a state would be. As PAS is a Barisan Alternatif component party, some non-Muslims are jittery and at a loss as to which coalition, BA or BN, to support in the coming general elections.

The answer, I think, is obvious, for while PAS might capture the Malay/Muslim votes, it does not have enough non-Muslim votes to toy with the Constitution. This is not the case with Umno, which has the unquestioning support of MCA and other quisling parties.

As Kit Siang correctly observed, the people should be more worried about Umno as "the ruling party has the power to impose its Islamic state regime immediately".

Another danger behind Umno's version is that it is poisoned by a very unIslamic racist streak. It should be noted that May 13 and other intermittent riots had taken place largely in areas where there were considerable Umno presence. The party that cynically uses religion for worldly purposes is also the party that uses race to perpetuate its seemingly endless rule.

Task for all

Fortunately, there are several entrenched obstacles confronting the Umno version of Islamic state. One is the perennial economic power of the non-Muslims. The ruling party knows that any further restrictions on the non-Muslims, religion-inspired or otherwise, would be counterproductive and would turn the country into another economic basket case like Indonesia. This possibility is too scary for the money-loving Umnoputras.

Another, perhaps even more important obstacle, is the rise of well-educated Malay Muslims who know that laws devised hundreds of years ago are either not relevant to modern societies or that such laws need to be modified in order to meet new situations.

Finally, there are now substantial groups of democrats of all races and from all parties who would oppose or at least dissuade the powers that be from implementing laws or edicts that might infringe individual, group, or community rights.

The most important task for all Malaysians might be to strive to democratise the country. This means more devolution, more decentring of power to states and cities and local town councils. The opposition should call for the restoration of local town board elections in order to realise basic representative democracy. Given the lackadaisical attitude of government-appointed municipal councils, calls for elected office bearers might strike a chord in the hearts of the voters. With more power in the hands of more diverse groups of people, national policies that sideline minority groups would be more difficult to implement.

Furthermore, voters should be informed about the need to ensure that BN does not have the two-thirds majority to change the secular Constitution. Such checks and balances would also help rein in the chronic nepotism, cronyism and corruption and the lack of respect for democracy and human rights that form the bases for Opposition cooperation.

Decades ago, Umno divided citizens with the names "bumiputra" and "non-bumiputra". Today, in naming Malaysia an Islamic state, the country is going to split further into believers and unbelievers. It is most unfortunate that while speaking of unity, the BN leaders are taking the road to disunity and possibly fomenting racial as well as religious strife.

"What's in a name?" asked Juliet. Plenty, especially when names are used for nefarious ends.

L CHUAH is a self-proclaimed literature hog who is interested in applying a multi-disciplinary approach to world affairs.