Sampai bila, Ayah Chik?

Hadi Awang, the current President of PAS, has questioned the extent to which fear of different ethnicities and religions is used as a political tool. He argues that when a party seeks to eliminate a particular race or religion, its message becomes more than just an attack on a single party; it becomes a threat to the people themselves. This is dangerous territory for politics.

Hadi is not the first PAS leader to make strong statements against DAP. His supporters know he is entitled to criticize DAP, but PAS also has the right to reject the principles and struggles of that party. However, accusing a party of wanting to eliminate the Malaysian Malay and Islam requires evidence. If it is true, provide the evidence. If not, the people have the right to ask why fear is continually being used as a political weapon.

History should teach us that when politics is too closely linked to religious and cultural identity, the struggle between parties can become a division in society. After more than four decades of this, its consequences have become clear: when politics becomes too entangled with faith and identity, the rivalry between parties can turn into societal fragmentation.

Now, four decades later, the roles have changed. It is no longer Umno versus DAP; it is DAP versus another party. But the question remains: why must the opposition be portrayed as a threat to the nation and religion? Show the evidence if DAP truly wants to eliminate the Malays and Islam. What exactly do they want to remove? The status of Islam as the federal religion? The Malay language? The monarchy's Malay institution? The special status of Malays? Which standard, which decision?

Do not repeat the accusation until people start to view it as fact. This does not mean DAP is immune from criticism. If there are policies that harm the Malays, criticize them. If there are decisions that undermine the importance of Islam, question them. That is democracy. But there is a difference between criticizing a principle and accusing a party of wanting to eliminate a race and religion.

Claiming something is wrong is an argument. Claiming a party wants to eliminate Malays and Islam is a serious accusation. And serious accusations require evidence.

It's no wonder Hadi's statement has received harsh reactions from DAP, who accused him of trying to be a religious judge. CEC Vice Chairman Sheikh Umar Bagharib Ali labeled Hadi as a religious judge and accused his political approach of being dangerous because it seems to turn PAS into a symbol of Islam. He said, "Hadi does not practice the approach recommended by the Khwaja al-Muslimin, Hassan al-Hudhaibi: 'We are witnesses, not judges.'"

Here, the question is not who is more Islamic or who is more Malay, but how far religion should be used to determine who is considered right and who should be feared in politics. If every political opponent is labeled as a threat to religion, political differences will no longer be based on principles alone; they will become moral and religious conflicts.

Malays do not always need to be afraid; the challenge is to uphold Melayu and Islam with evidence, arguments, and results, not by scaring the people about an imagined enemy. Malays still work with Chinese people, and Muslims still trade with non-Muslims; children still learn and grow in the same society. This is the reality. Therefore, if the Malays and Islam truly want to be protected, they should do so with evidence, arguments, and results, not by scaring the people about an enemy that does not exist.