UMNO is an 'ulama-friendly' party. Make no mistake about it. It 'appreciates the role of religious scholars'. UMNO 'understands when our leaders struggled to gain independence, religious scholars also played a role'. There are 'attempts of late to pit the institutions of the ulama against UMNO leaders'. Thus spake the deputy prime minister and UMNO deputy president and deputy ulama-in-chief of UMNO, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. As usual he fudges history. If the ulama were prominent in the march to independence, they certainly were not on UMNO's side.

In 1951, when Dato' Sir Onn left UMNO as its president when his proposal to open its membership to non-Malays was rejected, one group that walked out with him him was its religious wing. That became what we now know as PAS, an opposition party with a religious bent and which UMNO insists is politically apostate. Since then and until Dato' Seri Abdullah's earth-shattering insistence of an ulama-friendly UMNO, the role of the ulama was miniscule. It still is. In the runup to independence, a few who did not desert UMNO in 1951, stayed on, but they were no more than a handful of those who joined PAS.

At that time, UMNO and every Malay party or group fighting for independence were all wedded to the idea of a Malay Nusantara, its natural leader Indonesia. Which is why UMNO and PAS flags have the same 'merah-putih' design as the Indonesian flag; and why when Singapore left the Malaysian federation, it aligned itself to protection from Singapore against Malaysia, and adopted the merah-putih as its flag. Tengku Abdul Rahman took UMNO apart from this Nusantara view when Britain was prepared to hand over independence to people it could trust to look after its interests afterwards.

UMNO then had the cultural and political support, what with the sultans firmly backing it. UMNO was a cultural and political party, never a religious one. So, to now claim, as Dato' Seri Abdullah does, UMNO is ulama-friendly because it always has been misquotes the past.

A slight on a Muslim anywhere in the world, but especially in Singapore, gets government ministers involved. So, the deputy education minister, Dato' Aziz Shamsuddin, ticks off the Singapore government for refusing to allow Muslim Malay six-year-old girls to wear the tudung (head scarf) with their school uniforms. Not to be outdone, PAS gets into the act. Its mentri besar in Kelantan write a letter in Malay to Mr Lee Kuan Yew no less voicing the same emotive reaction.

Politics in Malaysia is now clearly Islamic-oriented. At independence, Malaysia was multiracial in government. Now it is Malay and Islamic, the non-Malays here on sufferance. UMNO once ensured the interests of the non-Malays are looked after. Now, it ignores them and pitches hard for the Islamic community. The two main Malay political parties, UMNO and PAS, must prove to the Malay ground it is more Islamic than the other. The government allows its Malay civil servants to Islamise the administration as best he can. Civil servants prove to each other they are more Islamic, and show it by erasing all traces of non-Islamic and non-Malay contributions to Malaysian society. The non-Malay has become an insufferable appendage of a Malay Muslim Malaysia.

UMNO, mark you, contributed more to Islam than PAS. So PAS is wrong, Dato' Seri Abdullah infers, to claim it has done more for Islam than UMNO. When the Ulama Association of Malaysia (PUM) criticised five writers for disparaging Islam and ulama, it provided Dato' Seri Abdullah a forum to show how ulama-friendly UMNO is. But he evaded the question if the ulama was right in its criticism of them. The PUM, it need not be said, is UMNO-friendly. You should know that by now. What it says gets press and TV treatment. UMNO is caught in a bind over how it should react to the PUM allegation. But the Muslims generally are up in arms over it. It does not matter here if they are UMNO, PAS or neutral. I have spoken to all three groups, and all three spoke in unism that the five men should be, if such a practice is allowed, fried in oil, so horrendous their un-Islamic comment. As Mr Bush finds out, allies does not mean total support.

When you espouse religion as a political weapon, you do not know when it turns around to whip you. The Shah of Iran found that out to his eternal regret. When you decide religion to be the centre of politics, which is what UMNO and PAS now insist, you must be prepared for religious scholars and teachers to criticise you as harshly as your enemy. So, the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, is accused of denigrating the ulama. The PUM would not, it is fair to say, dare to criticism him. But the Malaysian Youth Council does not wait for that. Its president, Mr Saifuddin Abdullah, says this accusation against the Prime Minister is unjustified "because Dr Mahathir has always consulted the ulama on development programmes and policy matters"! The ulema is not concerned if the speech was made in New York in the context of the terrorist attacks on 11 Sept; as far as it is concerned, it is insulted.

But, UMNO is ulama-friendly -- as schools are children-friendly and offices worker-friendly and income tax officers people-friendly -- and all it needs to defend its stance is to say anything stupid that seem logical, and the policy comes to pass. So, has Dato' Seri Abdullah given a local policy decision why UMNO is ulama-friendly? Of course, not! That can only be by the ulama-in-chief, unavoidably away in the Antarctica.

But there is one thing which niggles me: The deputy president of UMNO officiated at the annual general meeting of Perlis UMNO branches at the Perlis Mentri Besar's official residence. How is this allowed? Is it now an official rule now that government residences can be used for political meetings? If it is, is it rent free? If it is, why? If it is now, who authorised it, what is the rent and to whom was it paid? There should be a clear distinction between government and political functions, and residences should not be used for party functions.

I have raised the propriety of UMNO delegates gathering at the Prime Minister's residence for meals during the party's AGM. How much rent is paid for that? Who pays for the meals? UMNO or the Government? By past practice, it is the government. So, Dato' Seri Abdullah needs first to state categorically the ulama-friendly UMNO's reaction to the ulama accusing five writers for denigrating them; then who authorised the Perlis mentri besar's residence for an UMNO annual general meeting to which he attended as a party functionary, what the rent is, to whom it is paid.

Did he advise Perlis UMNO it should not hold its AGM at the mentri besar's residence? Obviously not. Why not? Did he come as deputy prime minister, as the newspapers said, or as deputy president? If as deputy prime minister, is that his practice that he would attend any political party, government and opposition which invites him? Or is this a clever way to make the government pay for a political function? Or to put it another way, can political parties now book government-owned or -run halls and stadia if the fees are paid?

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my