Malaysian Deputy PM Najib Razak sprung a surprise recently when he casually declared that Malaysia had never been secular "because being secular by Western definition means separation of the Islamic principles in the way we govern a country". He was in other words declaring Malaysia as an 'Islamic state'.

Was this declaration necessary to begin with?

What did it seek to achieve?

It is one thing to project a saintly, pious and religious facade on the exterior but it's not quite the same thing if the interior paints a different portrait.

Malaysia has long been plagued by rampant corruption in government which shows little sign of abating. Would an Islamic-state label achieve anything in assuaging this? Or is it merely window-dressing, of playing to the gallery, or putting a convenient gloss over the administrations's misdeeds, a white-wash?

The necessity for such a label is however not the only issue.

Being multi-religious and multi-ethnic, there is nothing like a call to Islamisation to send the country's non-Muslims (which account for a significant 40% of the population) into a tizzy. Najib's declaration on the country's Islamic status was no exception.

A statement like that not only encourages the greater assimilation of Islamic values into the Malay-Muslim dominant administration, it also has the pernicious effect of driving deep wedges of religious (and ethnic) division between the communities.
 
The irony of it all is that barely a week after that declaration, the Deputy PM found himself addressing the Senate about the dearth of ethnic Chinese in the armed forces. But can the Chinese be blamed for staying away? If the country's policy makers and politicians haven't yet grasped the reasons for this after 50 years of independence and nation-building, it speaks woefully of their caliber.

Non-Muslims have long been wary of Islamisation creeping into the country's public administration system. No thanks to the little Muslim chiefs presiding over their respective local government bailiwicks and who assume unbridled liberty to assert their religious bigotry through arbitrary and sometimes bizarre policies that directly impinge upon the day-to-day lives of non-Muslims.

Such policies will sprout in the name of Islamic values which would in some way or other chip away at the liberties of non-Muslims - these could take the form of requiring women to cover up more skin when presenting themselves before officialdom for matters as ordinary as applying for a passport or renewing a driving licence; or of requiring school girls to cover their heads in the same way as policewomen participating in a parade were recently directed to do so; or of accosting and detaining courting couples in public parks for conducting themselves 'indecently'; or of putting bureaucratic obstacles to the importation and serving of turkey during the Christmas season; or of denying permission for building churches or temples (and when permission was finally given for a certain church to be built, the authorities ordered that its design be modified to make it 'less church-like' - the building now looks like just another ordinary building form the outside)... the list goes on.   

Although vehement protests from non-Muslim groups and political parties have managed to somewhat temper the encroachment of Islam into the ordinary lives of non-Muslims, many concede that the 'Islamic-tide' has advanced considerably in recent years and only looks set to keep pushing its agenda on the whole country.