The Christian cabinet minister Idris Jala prefers race and religious differences considered as "polarities to be managed" rather than problems to be solved. He talks of the North Pole and South Pole balancing the Earth on its axis as an analogy of how to arrive at equilibrium.

Idris forgets that the two geographical 'poles' are not lopsided, unlike his metaphorical 'polarities' (word meaning two opposite tendencies, opinions) between the Malaysian citizenry belonging to different races and religions. While there may be antipodean opinions, it is only on one side that the opinion makers are threatened with police action.

Take for example, this latest agitation by the blogger Big Dog -- who is Mukhriz Mahathir's loudhailer and fang barer; the Umno deputy minister in turn who is a backer of Perkasa. On Sept 16 Malaysia Day, Big Dog again called for Umno ministers to "take action against personalities like Lim Guan Eng, Karpal Singh, Theresa Kok, Helen Ang and most recently [to cause 'offence'] Wee Meng Chee (Namewee)".

Note that the police crackdown is sought against members of the Chinese and Indian minorities (as per the name list above). The racial skew does not bespeak of polarities equal in strength as would be in the case of the two poles of a magnet.

Note too that once before, a representation of 10 non-Muslim ministers had petitioned the then prime minister to redress the acute bullying suffered by adherents of the minority religions. Yet within the blink of an eye, the 'mighty' ministerial delegation -- after a little dissuasion -- withdrew its protest, tail between their legs.

If there are polarities, the two are not "managed" (to quote Idris's desired wish) but it is one polarity -- the ultra sensitive one -- that harasses and intimidates the other, easily cowed one.

Action speaks louder than words

Also in the plenary session at UCSI's 'National Congress on Integrity', Idris in his commemoration of Malaysia Day said: "The way to become 1Malaysia is not through government policy but through behavioural change". 

But who is it asked to change their behaviour? Idris as a member of the Najib administration should look in his own backyard first. Isn't it the keris-kissing Perkasa that should behave better? Is Idris's boss looking at all into making Perkasa behave?

And going by the Idris formulation, government policies should be left unchanged even though their inherent discrimination is the fundamental reason why 1Malaysia is stillborn.

His keynote address is full of 'Let's-all-sing-Kumbaya' soundbites but short on substance as he does not address the hard issues. His is only a softsell, like the Yasmin Ahmad Petronas ads that used to be aired every Merdeka anniversary.

Idris calls for the different communities to move beyond 'tolerating' each other to 'acceptance' of our differences. From 'acceptance', Idris preaches that the next and top rung of the ladder for us step up to is "to celebrate each other's differences".

But first, let's look at who Idris is preaching to. The entire day's proceedings where he was feted was conducted in English -- from emcee to guests-of-honour opening words to VIP presentators to roundtable participants to workshop speakers to moderators to the observers summing up.

Although a Malaysia Day function, the national language was not heard except in one or two questions from the floor and the speakers' replies.

It was an English-speaking audience that day listening to Idris. Demographically, only half the country's population is English 'literate' (in the sense of accessing media in the language). Hence, Idris was making his pitch at a banquet room urban crowd that is unrepresentative of the larger Malaysia. The Minister, despite his Muslim-sounding name is really a Sarawak Kelabit, and reputedly very popular with churchgoers.

Although Malays are the country's majority, they were discernibly the handful minority present at the event and thus the orthodox Muslim viewpoint missing in the audience.

Anyhow, to evaluate whether Idris's pontification of "celebrating diversity" is realistic or not, a review of controversial episodes occurring the past week is in order.

Wanting to be seen as liberals

As recently as Saturday (Sept 18), the Muslim missionary organization Pertubuhan Kebajikan dan Dakwah Islamiah SeMalaysia (Pekida) urged the government to take stern action against crematoriums.

Pekida special affairs chairman Shahril Abdul Aziz told reporters: "We no longer wish to [permit] this burning of corpses because it is a torture, whether carried out by traditional means or in the open air. The authorities must think of an alternative as well as introduce tight laws if this practice [cremation] is to be allowed to continue".

Although the Muslims customarily bury their dead, Pekida has no right to want to put a curb on other religions that cremate their departed.

A day prior to that on Friday, human rights body Suaram circulated a press release saying the government has issued a stop-work order on the construction of a church in a Temiar village. The church in Pos Pasik, Kelantan is merely a small building made of bamboo(left)  which the Orang Asli parishers had wanted to upgrade.

Of course, the question uppermost in the minds of Malaysians is that if it were a surau or mosque to be erected instead, would the villagers have encountered the same obstruction?

It is fine and dandy for those supporting Malaysian First to make a blatant public show of how open-minded they are. But in real life, we're living in a Muslim country and not in Los Angeles.

Take for instance, the 'diversity' presented by fringe communities such as the 'lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders' or LGBT. When reality bites, syariah-compliance means that religious laws governing sexual mores still need to be observed by those LGBTs who are Malay.

All our 14 states have syariah, but we'll use the capital city for an example. Under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, any male person guillty of liwat (sexual relations between male persons) can face one or a combination of the following penalties -- fine up to RM5,000, jail up to three years, whipping up to six strokes.

Musahaqah or sexual relations between female persons carries the same penalty as liwat. Same-gender sexual acts entail stiff criminal sanction.

Meanwhile, transgenders can be fined up to RM1,000, jailed up to one year, and/or both, or in other words, an effeminate man wearing a skirt is deemed a criminal also. Last year, a fatwa was issued by the National Fatwa Council against pengkid (tomboys).

So while a segment of urban professionals and affluent suburbanites might find the diversity of sexual orientation acceptable and even something they are willing to celebrate, in the public sphere, laws prevail.

And not only syariah but the Malaysian Penal Code too. Lest we forget, Anwar Ibrahim is on trial for sodomy and charged under secular law.

Saudi Arabia is irreproachable?

A test for the liberals, then, is whether there is any parity and consistency in their advocacy.

The English-speaking middle-class are cosy in their safe and snug Ketuanan-protected political correctness when they lash out at against those they call 'Islamophobes'.

But these same non-Muslim liberals fail to point out that Saudi Arabia -- the holy of holies land of Islam -- does not allow religious diversity at all.

The 2010 annual report of the United States commission on International Religious Freedom noted: "... the Saudi government persists in banning all forms of public religious expression other than that of the government’s own interpretation of one school of Sunni Islam."

The report further says that "The Saudi government continues to engage in an array of severe violations of human rights as part of its repression of freedom of religion or belief", and adding that Saudi Arabia has been designated as a 'country of particular concern' by the US State Department annually since 2004.

Meanwhile, according to the Freedom House's 'Freedom in the World 2010' survey, Saudi Arabia has for the past 10 consecutive years been given the survey’s worst possible rating for political rights denied its people.

Freedom House noted that "Religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia. All Saudis are required by law to be Muslims, and the government prohibits the public practice of any religions other than Islam." It also noted that the Saudi "regime has blocked access to over 400,000 websites that are considered immoral or politically sensitive".

The day has still not come when our Malaysian liberal elites have the nerve to be as critical of abuses in the Islamic world as they are in their ad hominem attacks on Christian conservatives. The same imbalance applies to their defence of those pushing the boundaries of 'diversity' ala Idris Jala.

Not too long ago, the establishment of a gay church in Kuala Lumpur caused some consternation. Nonetheless, a number of self-professed heterosexuals -- who pontificate that 'love thy neighbour' (be he/she gay or lesbian) is God's first commandment -- had declared themselves more than willing to embrace differences.

In fact, they had argued vehemently in support of this contentious gay church. And not only that, they were quick to label anyone voicing reservations as being 'homophobic', 'bigoted' and 'full of hate'. This is the quite-typical vocabulary of those whose narrow argumentative itinerary gives the lie to their liberal pretensions.

The million-ringgit challenge remains whether these celebrants of diversity would be just as vocal and enthusiastic in their support if it was a homosexual imam who had wanted to start a gay mosque.