By now it should be clear that Dr Mahathir Mohamad's recent declaration that Malaysia is already an Islamic state and Dr Ling Liong Sik's support of it is nothing but opportunistic politics. Mahathir clearly knows that an Islamic state is not workable but is willing to use Islam as a means to his goal of countering PAS. The question I have is that are we, too, used to using means to justify the ends?

Whether it is the New Economic Policy (NEP), corruption or Islamic state, Malaysian politics is filled with using dangerous means to justify the ends. For those who have forgotten since ours is a censored society, the problem with using means to justify the ends, especially in politics, is that often the damage caused by the means cancels or surpasses that of the benefits of the end itself.

If we take the NEP as an example, the original idea was to apply it for a limited period of affirmative action so that the bumiputras can catch up economically. When it failed, the formula was changed to an indefinite period with periodic reviews. When that formula did not work out, they claim 'special Malay rights'.

The original idea for equality of races in the founding of Malaysia in the end is now only an unspoken prayer. Even Mahathir now equates non-bumiputra rights as privileges, indicating the now deep-rooted stance that non-bumiputra be treated as second class and bumiputra as first class and probably some even believe this to be true.

On the issue of corruption, a degree of it was accepted because many of those involved was politically connected. Rooting out corruption would make it even more difficult for bumiputra to compete economically and for the political class, it was a means to rise and maintain power.

Today, the judicial system we have is in trouble because of corruption. Our police remains corrupt. The abuse of government contract is expected and we do not bat an eye-lid when new politicians become rich overnight despite their meagre salary. Mahathir even arrogantly defends corruption in Malaysia as "normal".

The issue of Islamic state was debated during the founding of Malaysia and the secular state we have was in recognition that separation of religion and politics was necessary. Ever wonder why Indonesia with larger majority of Muslim is even more secular than Malaysia in that Islam is not even its official religion? From giving allowance for Islam to be Malaysia's official religion, we now have Mahathir declaring that Malaysia is already an Islamic state.

From the pages that I have read, I find it incredulous that a significant portion of Malay Muslim believe that secularism is a failed principle. When the rest of the world has moved from secularism to pluralism, we have young Malay-Muslims that want to backtrack and mix religion and politics.

In all three examples I have given, it is clear that we have always had a culture of compromise, maybe too much. But from a culture of compromise, we have gone to means-justifying-the-ends in many things. Mahathir thrived on this as he has been a master of compromises throughout his career.

It has come to haunt him from Anwar Ibrahim, to failing bumi conglomerates to PAS being a thorn on his side. I hope post-Mahathir leaders will not condone the means-justify-the-end dogma because I am tired of it. From the sad state of MCA, to Keadilan infighting to PAS double-talk, I am tired of their "means justify the end" rationale.