A WORD of advice for aspiring bumiputra contractors: specialise in building mosques and you will not go wrong in life.
In the event of an economic downturn, mosque projects are the least likely to be scrapped or abandoned.
Apart from that, during times when demands for transparency have reached a feverish pitch, contractors building mosques need not fear being scrutinised or face political attacks as no one will dare question them.
A good example is the recent remarks by PAS president Datuk Fadzil Noor about auctioning off Putrajaya if the opposition gets into power.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad was quick to react, pointing out that Putrajaya includes the beautiful mosque, Masjid Putra. To him, it meant that Fadzil was also prepared to auction off the mosque.
Fadzil was obviously perturbed and he, too, reacted fast, clarifying that he did not mean auctioning off the whole of Putrajaya or the mosque but merely the residence of the Prime Minister.
That is how it is with the Malays when it comes to mosques. If, to the opposition, Putrajaya is a waste of public funds, they will, however, not include the mosque in their attack despite it being part of the whole complex.
But it is not only the Malay opposition leaders who will avoid questioning the building of mosques, even opposition leaders from other faiths will not dare make an issue out of the construction of mosques.
DAP secretary-general Lim Kit Siang, known for being vocal over issues of wasting public funds and mega projects, will not dare raise a whimper when it comes to projects concerning the building of mosques.
Anyone who tries may be deemed as being less Islamic and labelled as someone who opposes the building of the house of God.
If ever there are any issues raised at all about mosques by a Malay, they will usually revolve around why there are not enough mosques or that the mosques were being used as political platforms.
The controversial statement not too long ago by a khatib (person delivering Friday sermons) in Taman Melawati in Hulu Klang who alleged that there were more churches in Malacca than mosques is a classic example.
The problem at hand for the Malays is not so much whether there are enough mosques or not, but how symbols are more important than the essence of the issues.
For example, if the mosque in Putrajaya had truly been a waste of public funds and overpriced, why shouldn't anyone criticise it just as how criticism had been levelled at the cases of Perwaja, highway projects and other government projects?
Another example is last Sunday's reformasi demonstrations which started at the National Mosque.
Much as the mosque is supposed to be public property as far as the Malays are concerned, it was somehow used to symbolise that the reformasi movement is buoyed by religious sentiments.
Symbolism is not only attached to mosques but also to clothes and positions held.
A good example is the recent mushrooming of nasyid (Arab-influenced singing style) groups.
One of the more popular groups used to be closely linked to the Al Arqam movement which was banned because of its deviant teachings.
This group, very popular among the Malays now, is deemed to be an Islamic group because its songs sing the praises of Prophet Muhammad and the singers don skull caps and wear Arab robes.
Since the group's success, several other groups have emerged and are also well-received on a very simple premise--they are Islamic based on the lyrics of their songs and the way they dress.
In many instances, it is the clothes they wear more than what they sing that make them to be perceived to be Islamic.
If they were to wear jackets and ties but still sing similar songs, it can be safely deduced that they will not be seen as an Islamic group but merely as singers.
It is so easy to captivate the mind of the Malays using religious labels.
A company using some Islamic name or religious slogans to promote toothpaste, soaps or other consumer goods will capture the Malay market.
At one time, the market was flooded with numerous consumer products bearing "Islamic" brand names following the overwhelming success of one particular brand.
All this points towards the naivety of the Malays when it comes to labels and slogans.
As such, it is heartening to read the latest edition of Harakah, the PAS official newsletter, in which party president Fadzil questioned muftis (the authority on Islamic fatwa or decree) over their stand in the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim issue.
Fadzil seems to have broken the taboo because of the fact that the mufti had always been regarded as an institution and those holding the position should not be questioned.
Based on the Harakah report, Fadzil had raised the issue in relation to a police report lodged by the mufti of Perlis Datuk Mat Jahaya Hussin who denied an Internet report that he had urged Muslims to join hands and launch a jihad (crusade) against Barisan Nasional's alleged cruelty.
Following Mat Jahaya's denial, Fadzil questioned all muftis in the country on their stand over the alleged cruelty against Anwar.
However, Fadzil's questioning of muftis is actually not very surprising as PAS has stuck a label on ulamaks and religious scholars under government employment as having no credibility.
Therefore, his "attack" on muftis should not be perceived as an attempt to break the Malay psyche of being fearful of religious personalities, symbols or institutions.
It is rather aimed at transferring reverence so that Muslims in the country should only respect religious personalities who support PAS or are from the party and not those working for the Barisan government or from Umno.
In this context, it will be a long time before the Malays can break away from reverence for symbols or anything that have Islamic labels on them.
On that score, building mosques is still going to be a "safe" venture for aspiring bumiputra contractors.