The ongoing persecution of dogs is downright petty when viewed against the non-prosecution of the colossally corrupt in Cronesia. It is a cultural phenomenon how jijik (disgusting) the pig and dog are viewed by the Malay-Muslim community. If only a similarly excessive perception of uncleanliness were attached to laknatullah (acts frowned upon by Allah) corrupt practices, criminal breach of trust and profligacy in the lifestyles of the local rich and shameless.

How much of this aversion to dogs is due to religious prohibition and how much a product of our environment?

From my reading of the Quran, I've not come across a single Surah (verse) relating to dogs being viewed in such a condemnatory and derogatory manner. Admittedly I'm a mere layman and as such am willing to stand corrected were an ustaz (religious teacher) is able to point out the relevant injunction(s) contained in the Holy Book.

The Acts from which local council by-laws are derived were by large inherited from our former British 'colonial masters'; hence the 'No Dogs Allowed' in public parks would be civil legislation. That said, the initiatives by the Johor Bahru city council and the Subang Jaya municipal council - to acquire written consent from immediate neighbours prior to obtaining dog licences - are however recent measures.

The honourable ladies and gents sitting on the board of such councils are political appointees, i.e. party apparatchik put there by mainly Umno and to a lesser extent the rest of Barisan Nasional's irrelevant minions. As such, we can infer that these councillors are carrying out the will of the regime, which can be translated to relate to a more widespread Islamicisation in all aspects of life.

Religion and state

Is there a separation of state and religion in this country? It would appear not.

Let's make no bones about this: that the then prime minister of two decades Dr Mahathir Mohamad unilaterally declared Malaysia an Islamic state as of September 2001 should disabuse any misguided soul of the notion that it was otherwise. What the autocrat says is law, never mind Constitutional niceties.

Are the increasingly strict restrictions governing the ownership of dogs coloured by religious considerations? I believe they are.

Enforcement ensuing from these regulations, i.e. the impounding or putting down of unlicensed canines would be carried out under the aegis of local authorities. This official sanction as such effectively blurs the demarcation (if any) left between religion and law.

Let's look at several scenarios. A Muslim couple not married to each other are raided in a room, be it at a hotel or private residence, by officers from the state religious affairs department who are accompanied by policemen. The culprits are then carted off to the police station for the offence of khalwat (close proximity) or zina (adultery).

Or patrons of nightspots and perhaps 4-ekor (betting) outlets are rounded up by the police and placed in holding cells should their ICs (identity cards) show that they carry a 'bin' or 'binti' in their names. Consuming alcohol and gambling are prohibited by Islam but strictly legal. What transpires is that religious transgressors are being policed by secular authorities.

Coming back to the matter of dog ownership, I doubt that under present provisions a 'Westernised' recalcitrant bearing a Malay-Muslim name can be brought before a Syariah court for having a dog in his home. He will be left to merely suffer social opprobrium and be ostracised by those who will need to samak (ritually purify themselves) for coming into contact with his 'dirty' animal.

However, the reporting of other varieties of miscreants by 'religious vigilantes' to the authorities is not unheard of. Khalwat and zina raids result from tip-offs by neighbours or the aggrieved wives/indignant relatives of the cheating spouse. In the office where I work, I've heard of Party X pondering on whether it was her religious duty to 'turn in' Party Y (an apparently healthy Muslim male) for not fasting during Ramadan.

What does this socio-political trend of Islamicisation augur for the community wholly associated with pork-eating and dog-keeping?

The Other will, as usual, be warned to be more respectful of Muslim sensitivities and to keep their complaints to themselves where it regards any 'challenge' to Islam and its attendant encroachment into daily life. The omnipresent spectre of the Sedition Act or a stint in Kamunting will be evoked for the complainant's temerity in touching upon the sacred cow of religious and cultural taboos.

While the non-Muslims are captive within the prevalent culture of fear, the Malay-Muslims themselves are trapped by a culture of acquiescence to the status quo.

As a result, more and more inhibitive civil legislation will be passed in the name of Islam with nary an audible dissent as the channels for public voice are tightly-controlled in Cronesia. Those who profess the pre-eminent religion will stand back while the blueprint for a theocratic state takes shape whereas those who are non-Muslims will be threatened to limit themselves to their own spheres (now very small), never mind that they pay equal taxes and enjoy only half the benefits - for instance, virtually no state support in the building of new churches and temples and for their maintenance.

Racial polarisation

This present 'Dog Complex' is one such piece of repressive legislation that should have no place in a country that claims to be multi-cultural and boasts 'tolerance' (which community 'tolerates' which in what way, may I ask?).

While the separation of secular and Islamic state continues to blur, the line drawn in the sand dividing the mainstream and the 'nons' becomes ever more distinct. Twenty years ago, you would not see non-halal food products shelved only in a dingy corner of major big-town supermarkets. And you would not see these foodstuff having to be paid for at a sole designated counter manned by, predictably, a Chinese or an Indian.

The segregation of the races due to Muslims being particular about food, dress and entertainment is becoming more pronounced. The reverse though cannot be said as there is scant respect paid to the fasts and food taboos of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and vegetarians. The same situation exists where noisy kompang performances are freely allowed throughout the year while noisy lion dances, barring special permits, are restricted to only a fortnight during the Chinese New Year.

The civil authorities paying lip service to addressing racial polarisation are the very ones deepening yet another rift by progressively marginalising the 'Other' - that minority, and by extension, unIslamic segment of the population. It just looks to me like the banner-waving stadium of protesters who pointedly tell Malaysia's 'immigrants' to shut up or ship out are at least absolved from the charge of such rank hypocrisy.

Z SUNDAY is a Joe Public who reads local mainstream print media for their unfunny and unintentional imitation of black and gallows humour. The truth may be out there but he doesn't expect to extract it from the Malaysia Boleh chaff in local newspapers.