I completely agree with Narmi Narmi's point of view in his letter, 'Islam whipped like a lion in a circus' (Aug 13). But I do have something that I would like to add to the line of thought found in that article.

An interesting thing about religion, any religion and not just Islam, is that it is a very powerful mind-altering tool with the ability to change perceptions and manipulate actions. A newly-converted Muslim who may have never prayed to Allah even once in his life will gladly go down on his knees five times a day worshipping a God that he may have never once even given a single ounce of thought to before he became a Muslim.

Similarly, a young Palestinian youth could just as easily be convinced that dying a martyr's death would mean instant access to heaven - with that thought in his mind, blowing himself up next to a busload of Jewish children would seem a small price to pay.

Religion, in order words, has the power to make us believe in certain things and translate that belief into actions, sometimes actions as harmless as prayer, and sometimes actions as destructive as suicide killings.

Taking into account these mind-altering effects of religion, it is very interesting to note how politicians use religion to their advantage.

In the last general elections for example, whether true or not it is certainly plausible to imagine, government and opposition politicians frequently invoked the name of Allah in their political speeches.

Speeches would commonly begin with a salutation to God, in the middle of the speech, references to Allah's word from the Holy Quran would be made, and at the end of the speech, it would not be amiss to expect the typical Insyaallah (God willing).

Although they may have never said it explicitly, it would not be difficult to imagine that such presentations with the name of God liberally used would bring about connotations that a vote for that particular politician means a vote for Allah. A vote for the opposing politician means a vote against Allah.

In such a situation, elections no longer become a vote for the most able politician, or the politician with the most sound policies. It becomes a vote for the politician who looks the most religious, who is able to invoke the name of God in the most convincing manner.

And don't kid yourself; although such tactics may not work too well in a more secular society such as Australia or Singapore, it will certainly work wonders for politicians who ply their trade in Malaysia where a large portion of the electorate is very much religiously inclined.

Combined with a relatively lower level of education among the general populace (Malaysia has yet to eradicate illiteracy and only less than five percent of the population have tertiary education), this makes the invoke-the-name-of-God-for-votes strategy a very attractive proposition for any politician to embrace.

Essentially the reason why such a strategy works is because of two factors: the mind-altering capabilities of religion and the fear of non-compliance.

As illustrated earlier, religion can easily shape actions. If it can make a person believe that killing innocent young Jewish children is a passport to heaven, making someone mark a little "x" on the ballot sheet is not terribly difficult. But the ability of religion to shape actions is augmented by the fear that religion generates to compel particular actions to be carried out.

Ask any Muslim - probably the worst fear a Muslim may have in religious terms is to be branded a "bad Muslim", a "faithless Muslim" or "un-Islamic". This is made worse if the person making these arbitrary decisions on who is a 'good' or 'bad' Muslim is perceived by society to be a 'learned' Muslim of good standing, say the imam of a mosque or a Muslim scholar.

Most people tend to understand religion at a relatively superficial level, and thus will often defer to the 'wisdom' of these 'learned' individuals on judgments pertaining to religious matters. From a realpolitik point of view, in a society like Malaysia, such a person would make an ideal politician due to this influence he or she wields over the Muslim community. So, through this fear of being branded a 'bad' Muslim, a person who has the proper religious credentials actually does wield a tremendous amount of political power.

This is the exact situation that you see happening in Malaysia. And as the situation steadily becomes the norm rather than the exception, a worrying trend is emerging: Politicians are beginning to be judged by appearances and their religious credentials rather than what they have actually done to improve the lot of their constituents.

Religion is a tremendously potent tool. It can make people do what they normally would not do in order to gain a reward that they cannot see but they believe in (e.g. heaven) or because they fear the consequences (e.g. hell). One has to wonder whether this sort of carrot/stick approach is a suitable model of governance that will lead to Malaysia's future prosperity and growth.