Is national reconciliation possible?

Sim Kwang Yang

SIM KWANG YANG was DAP MP for Bandar Kuching in Sarawak 1982-1995. Since retiring in 1995, he has become a freelance writer in the Chinese-language press, and taught philosophy in a local college for three years. He is now working with an NGO in Kuala Lumpur, the Omnicron Learning Circle, which is aimed at continuing learning for working adults and college students. Suggestions and feedback can reach him at: kenyalang578@hotmail.com.

Reflection in the River of Flux Dissecting the Protean Monster Is an alternative government ever possible? What to expect from PM Pak Lah? Who, or what, is an intellectual? Are we worthy of freedom of expression?

There is no doubt that the absolutist stand of PAS on their ideal of an Islamic state has remained the single most thorny issue that stands in the way of forming a broad based opposition alliance that could present itself as an alternative government. At the moment, all discussions on the subject seem to have reached an impasse.

To demand that PAS give up their ideal of implementing Islamic laws is impossible, because the idea of an Islamic state is the raison deter for their very existence. Ergo, the ideological rift between the opposition parties seem insoluble, and the much weakened BN looks set to storm into power for yet another term.

In this continuing debate however, it is a little unreasonable for non-Muslim citizens to demand that Malay leaders within the other opposition parties also denounce the idea of an Islamic state propounded by PAS. Given the communal nature of our electoral politics, and the tendency of our media to distort and demonise the opposition, it would be near anathema to their political survival if they openly declare their denunciation of a complete Islamic way of life for all Muslims. It would make them look less Malay and un-Islamic!

For non-Muslims to accuse Malay opposition leaders of opportunism and complicity in promoting the perceived horrors of an Islamic state when they fail to break with PAS outright is also a little less than prudent. They would be committing the very evil of which Umno is often accused, i.e. that of alienating what appears to be different, and marginalising it to the realm of a homogenised stereotyped menacing Other.

Regarded with suspicion

In the logic of racial language, the Malay people tend to be identified with their Islamic faith. Certainly, Umno has for decades deliberately defined Malay-ness with their religious belief, well knowing the centripetal power of religiosity for the purpose of political mobilisation. For many Umno supporters, all Malays are Muslims, and all Muslims are Malays. Muslim converts from other races would often be regarded with some suspicion.

This total identification between race and religion has come in handy in erecting imaginary boundaries that serve to mark out exclusive ethnic enclaves among a polyglot and multiethnic population. For instance, discussions on all matters Islamic are to be the preserve of the Malay community, under the jurisdiction of the various religious, political and legal institutions established for this purpose by the State. Presiding over this Islamic system is the Conference of Rulers comprising the various sultans who also serve as the living symbol of Malay ethnic nationalism.

Thus, it has come to be widely accepted that members of other races and other religions must not touch on anything Islamic in their words and deeds, on pains of incurring the wrath of the dreaded ISA and the Sedition Act.

What the early Malay nationalists and their detractors often fail to realise, is that there is tremendous tension between ethnic nationalism and religion. In fact, the famed historian Eric Hobsbaum seems to think that religion may or may not be conducive to the rise and growth of nationalism. There is a great deal of antinomy and incongruity in the idea of a Malay dominated nation-state, as a territorially-bound and historically-situated phenomenon, in contrast to Islam as a universal revealed and transcendental faith.

This inherent contradiction must have led some of our educated young Malay friends to wonder whether they are Malay first, or Muslim first. Likewise, it has allowed PAS to announce publicly that anybody from any race can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia, as long as he is a Muslim.

As to why there should be a religious requirement for the highest political office of the land, PAS will find it hard to persuade a large portion of the nation's electorate, including many Malays, who may have aspirations for the ideals of a modern liberal egalitarian Malaysia.

Pluralist amoeba

In short, it may be a mistake to imagine the Malay community as a uniform, ossified, and immediately-given entity frozen in time. The Malay consciousness, like the self-consciousness of other ethnic groups in the country, is a pluralist amoeba, evolving into greater diversity and stratification over time.

Likewise, as Edward Said has pointed out, there is no one single Islam, but there are many Islams.

Like other monotheistic religions, the Islamic faith is built upon authority of the Holy Book, which is supposed to contain the absolute truths revealed by God through his various prophets. But the understanding of that revelation would necessarily entail the interpretation of the written word.

Anybody remotely acquainted with the debate on the nature of language among 20^th century philosophers will tell you that we still do not have a definitive theory of meaning of words. We probably never will. Simply put, we do not understand everything there is to know about the language we use every day.

From these different interpretations of the Holy Book, different dogmas can be derived, and in the case of Christianity, it has given rise to fantastic schisms, that led to cruel torture and murder of fellow believers, as well as protracted religious warfare. The little I know of Islam seems to indicate that Muslims down the ages too, has been beset with sectarian strife.

In short, God - conceived as the omniscient omnipotent omnipresent Supreme Being - has to be perfect conceptually, but human beings are very imperfect creatures. Our understanding of a perfect God must be tinged with our human imperfections. Christian churches have been grappling with the elements of Hermeneutics for centuries. It looks unlikely that the Islamic community can be exempt from this problem.

No absolute authority

As the Christian saying goes, even the Devil can quote the Bible. Who then, can claim the absolute authority to have interpreted correctly the eternal immutable Truth encompassed by the Deity? How then are believers of different sects going to resolve their theological and dogmatic differences?

Short of more holy wars, where all belligerents would claim exclusive divine mandate via an e-mail from upstairs, the only decent thing to do is for the parties to engage in a real meaningful dialogue, either within the same faith, or between the believers of different religions. Inevitably, such a dialogue will also encroach upon the sensitive subject of the relation between politics and religion.

There are many pitfalls and landmines on the way towards a comprehensive dialogue on religion. We are still far from the point where Malaysians can discuss the issues of race and religion openly and rationally, especially in racially and religiously mixed company.

We consider these subjects too "sensitive' for public discussion, as if Malaysians are so immature and primitive, that every time we discuss religious issues, we would necessarily come to blows and start a bloodbath.

In a sense we ought to be sensitive to other people's religious beliefs. But there are good sensitivities, and there are bad sensitivities.

Bad sensitivities are pure subjective feelings, beyond mediation through reason and language, and bred from the insecurity of an immature Ego. Like adolescents struggling through the difficult period of puberty, the sensitive souls are always ready to feel hurt, and are always looking out for hurt. These are the exclusivist stuff of which religious fanaticism is made.

Good sensitivities are those born from one's humility, that in matters of religion, we do not have exclusive possession of the absolute ultimate Truth. Therefore, we are prepared to respect other people's religious beliefs, to listen to them patiently, and to learn about the nature of their faith, no matter how different and strange their beliefs seem to us.

In dialectical terms, good sensitivities must open us to a new perception of the Other. We must begin to see the Other as existing in our heart, as an integral part of our world, constituting our very self in fact. Whatever the Other suffers will also diminish us as human individuals.

In reciprocity, we must also rest secure in the knowledge that our Ego is an integral part of the Other in an immanent universe. Our humility and learning would have by then open up channels of communication, to say things in agreement or in disagreement, in the knowledge that our words will not be taken as an affront.

Hidden hatred

For many years, I have watched with great pain the invective and hatred hidden in inter-religious discourse among Malaysians. Apart from human frailty, the linguistic violence propagated by the sophistry of our political elite probably fermented and cemented this undercurrent of religious strife, driving it to the underground in the form of a nihilistic sterile silence.

However, the Anwar Ibrahim Affair in 1988 seemed to have released social forces never seen before in Malaysia. Many repressed pluralist voices have suddenly surfaced all over the place, opening up cracks in the walls of fossilised institutional taboos, and letting free the light of fresh aspirations that begin to shake loose the mental and emotional fetters of the past.

I will simply give one classic example. The call by Hishamuddin Rais for a secular democratic Malaysia is nothing short of revolutionary. It has opened up a whole range of new possibilities of interpreting political Islam, between the two poles as posited by Umno and PAS.

In this respect, malaysiakini has provided an invaluable oasis for this alternative discourse that has too long been oppressed by the mainstream media. Here, the bifurcated "either-or" world of the old political order seems to have crumbled a little.

Here, fellow Muslims are actively engaged in polite but critical debates that are breathtaking at times to witness, and Farish Noor is sorely missed. Surprisingly, Malaysians who are not Muslims may also feel secure enough to jump into the discussions on race and religion, without blood spilling all over cyberspace.

Here, under onslaught from many quarters, and away from the comfort zone of their devout constituency, PAS apologists are struggling to explain away the glaring contradiction of their intention to implement Islamic laws - to people who do not share their particular religious faith.

Malaysiakini has proven that, given the right conditions for freedom of expression, mature Malaysians can engage themselves in responsible though provocative discussions on such extremely contentious matters as politics and religion. Despite the occasional hiccups, and the odd outbursts of near hysterical views, the free-flowing and open-ended discussions here can become the prototype of a national dialogue.

Perhaps, we still need to work out the ground rules for the language game of an intra-faith and inter-faith dialogue. But such an open-ended and civilised national dialogue on politics and religion is the way to our process of national reconciliation and mutual healing.

As a pre-condition to that national dialogue, freedom of the press - with all the ethical responsibilities entailed in the act of speaking and writing must be the top demand for the idea of a New Malaysia.