The Malaysian government must be transparent in its dealings with the various Muslim separatist groups in the region, says Anwar Ibrahim in the final of a three-part exclusive interview with malaysiakini.


While many are unanimous against the excessive force used by Thai security forces in southern Thailand, there is an observation that Muslims themselves have failed to condemn terrorism against non-Muslims, including the killings of Buddhist monks.

Anwar: This is, of course, a problem that we have to resolve and the Muslims must be as forceful in condemning injustices perpetrated against Muslims by Muslims or non-Muslims, and also to other non-Muslims.

I think the way the issue was dealt with by Thai Prime Minister Thaksin (Shinawatra) is indefensible. He was totally arrogant, and if nothing is done fast, southern Thailand would be a bastion for terrorist cells.

I know the history of southern Thailand quite well. All these years of (Thai separatist organisations) Pulo (Pattani United Liberation Organisation) and BRN (Barisan Revolusi Nasional), there have never been a popular front in southern Thailand, including among the religious scholars.

But now the sentiment (against Thai authorities) is so strong even without a separatist movement. It took only the security forces, which harass and kill them (to raise such sentiments).

Malaysia's former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad recently proposed that the Muslims in southern Thailand be granted autonomy. Do you agree with that?

I think these are the issues the Muslims in Thailand and the Thais have to decide. Is there a serious proposal on autonomy by the Muslims? I have not heard of it before. So who are we to give them this sort of prescription? Unless, you are a dictator and you think you can dictate.

I think it is the wrong prescription. You asked me if I agree or not, well, I have to say I am open (to the idea). But it's really up to them, the Thai people. In some instance, it is a workable formula. But some believe that it affects integration. Let them decide.

What do you know about the ties between the Malaysian government and Muslim separatists in southern Thailand, southern Philippines and Indonesia's Aceh?

In the past, there has been some sort of tacit understanding between the Malaysian authorities and some separatist movements. But the little that I know, the Malaysian advice has always been consistent - that they have to consider themselves and accept the fact that they have to operate within the system.
If they want us to bring up the issue of oppression and their feelings of being marginalised, then we would do it. In small ways, I have done so in my exchanges with (former Thai) prime minister Chuan Leekpai to express concern on the problems in southern Thailand.

In fact, I think it would a disservice if you encourage this sort of separatist movement because you allow them to get killed. So I don't believe that the Malaysian government's position officially is to entertain this sentiment. But there may be operators on the ground who feels otherwise, and they have to be disciplined.

Malaysia is perceived to be a source of separatist problems in the region. We have tacitly supported the separatist struggles in Southeast Asia over the past few decades and many of the JI (Jemaah Islamiah) members were also once based in Malaysia.

I think we have to be more transparent in our dealings with them. Aceh have a separate history because the Alliance government had actually supported Hassan di Tiro at the time of Konfrontasi. They provided them a base here.

Di Tiro's book "Demokrasi untuk Indonesia" (Democracy for Indonesia) was distributed to Umno branches - and my father was a member of Parliament then - and I got the chance to read his book. I was impressed by his views on democracy for Indonesia, of course realising later that he was talking about the Aceh separatist movement.

And similarly on the issue of Mindanao, where it was during the time of the late Tun Abdul Razak when we were very actively involved. So I think we have to continue to play a part.

I remember my experience when Mahathir assigned me to do one or two of these things, including establishing a rapport with the Indonesian authorities on the issue of Aceh. But of course, we had some views of the killings and the massacre because we have ample evidence to that effect. So we have to continue, but at the same time be transparent.

The situation in southern Thailand then was not serious as that in Aceh and Mindanao. In Mindanao, we were very firm. I remember going to meet (Nur) Misuari (of Moro National Liberation Front) and (Fidel V) Ramos (former Phillippines president) at that time, strongly encouraging them to settle with the authorities.

You mentioned that the situation in southern Thailand was not as serious in the past. Why?

It's due to the complete distrust towards the security personnel and the police who are corrupt and ruthless. We can only imagine the conditions of the jails and the (abusive) treatment meted out to the Muslims there.

They (Thai authorities) should have handled it politically. They should provide a political solution, not a security solution, which is against the civilians. The security solution should be used against those who perpetuated violence and crime, but this is not happening.

I remember in 1973 when a group of 13 went there after the fall of Thanom Kittikachorn (ousted Thai dictator). I was there and met Sulak Sivaraksa (prominent Thai human rights intellect), William Lim and all these critics, and I was part of the group.

And I remember talking to the people involved in drafting the constitution for the Muslims in the south. I was told that although they are Muslims of Malay descent, they are very much Thai. It can be seen by their affection for the King, which is so profound that I find it very difficult to understand. That means that they are very Thai. You cross the border and you talk to a (person whom you think is a) Kelantanese but he is full of praise of the King.

The issue was dealt with thoroughly by those who drafted the new constitution to understand the sentiment of the Thais in the south. And at one time - this was some 30 years ago - people were already mindful of the fact that it would a disaster to allow the security establishment to deal with the problems in southern Thailand.

The separatist cell then was very small, Pulo and the BRN ... they were very small. They have 20, 30 weapons, shooting (incidents) here and there but they failed... But this time Thaksin has failed miserably.

Thais outside the southern provinces have little knowledge of Islam and blamed the Muslims (for the violence). This has emboldened Thaksin to be even more aggressive. How can Muslim countries in Southeast Asia help promote better understanding in non-Muslim countries in the region?

I had a private chat with (ex-Thai deputy foreign minister) Prince Sukhumbhand (Paribatra) here and what is worrying is that the action by Thaksin is quite popular partly because of the rhetoric against violence and terrorism, and the strong American backing.
Thailand is a bit more complex because the vast majority are Buddhists while Muslim Thais are confined in pockets of Bangkok, some areas in the north like in Chiang Mai, while many are in the south. Probably there is a role for Malaysia and Indonesia to try and promote the religion because the prejudice against Islam is quite strong. This is partly because there is very little understanding.

In the recent violence in southern Thai, a group of monks were killed and people were confused if they were committed by separatist or terrorist groups. How much is international terrorism present in the area?

I am not privy to a lot of information but I can tell you that a lot of them came and gave messages, appealing for me to help them in this matter. They (the people who sought help) are not terrorists but some are associated with crime and some due to bitterness... some of them were family members who were killed and tortured (by authorities) so they seek revenge.

They are a lot of cases like that. I don't believe at this point that it is that (terrorism involving international organisations). At least not yet.

So you think a link between southern Thailand to international terrorism is not there yet?

Yes, but they will (get involved in international terrorist groups) if things get worse, and I think we should immediately blamed Thaksin for it. I would say that Thaksin promotes this by the way he acts and deals with it.

I think he should be firm on (the killings of ) Buddhist monks ...I mean... how do you explain that? You can't defend that. I am sure there was so much anger. And the Muslims who did that, did it at the expense of other Muslims because you are getting people angry against Muslims in general.

Recently Thai-born Wan Kader Che Man (now a Malaysian permanent resident) openly admitted that he is the leader of Bersatu (one of the separatist movements in southern Thailand) and this led to some distrust among the Thais towards Malaysia for protecting him.

We should be transparent in making any decision. I believe Thai Muslims should operate within Thailand and we cannot be seen to support any of the groups that stipulate the policy of some kind of separatist entity. And I think these are some issues that our intelligence have to deal with.

But the problem with our intelligence is that they are too occupied with the local opposition members and monitoring their houses. They should be monitoring the terrorists cells and the JI, and those who are clearly or strongly believed to be involved in terrorism. I mean we have a super-efficient special branch but it's unable to detect the alleged terrorist network here.

You were in Sungai Buloh prison when the Sept 11 attack happened. When did you first hear about it?

The following morning when the guards change the first shift at 7am. But the way they related the news was a bit different. They told me about an attack, a bomb or something like that, somewhere in New York. But the tone was very happy.

But in the afternoon, they (the prison guards) gave me more details, and only then I realised that a lot of people have been killed. But the general tone was happy because the hatred against the Americans is very strong. But this was not right. It was unethical.

What do you think is the root cause of terrorism?

I have read a lot on this including those from French scholar Elliot Cohen and (academic) Fuad Ajmi. However, we must state clearly that terrorism is indefensible. If you argue that those oppressed committed terrorism because the international system itself is an oppressive system, it would be endless. (By giving justification to terrorism), you suddenly give it credence.

You claim that terrorism is due to oppressive systems but then Indonesia is now a democratic state. So I think we have to confine the terrorist activities by itself and take concerted effort in the war against them.

But it (the fight against terrorism) cannot be credible unless the international community, and in particular the United States, seem to be split over (what) actions (should be taken). Our problem is also the lack of credibility of governments including the United States in dealing with the situation.

You mentioned that the reaction to the Sept 11 attack was jubilant. Whether we like it or not, there appears to be certain measure of 'popular support' for such terrorist action.

That's why I think that we have to make it clear what terrorism is. Whether it is popular or not, we have to stop it. It is not a matter of public opinion per se, but you have to deal with the issue of perception and this popular sentiment.

The reason is because they want to see United States to be - maybe not totally, maybe some semblance of - just and even-handed in its dealings in the Middle East crisis and in Iraq. If not, I don't see how we can win the hearts and mind of the people, which is a major issue.

I think what we need to do is to clearly define terrorism and confine our strategy and attack on these (terrorist) groups. But of course, there has to be a multilateral arrangement and this is the other contentious issue.

Then, in the politic-ethical dimension, you must do what is right! Countries should be functional democracies, and hopefully people have avenues for free expressions. It would reduce substantially the terrorist problem but it does not stop it completely. Alone, it is not a full-proof step against terrorism

There is a school of thought which argues that those who committed indiscriminate violence have their origins in the earliest formulation of the Islamic theology and tradition. What is your opinion?

They (those who have committed terrorism throughout the Islamic history) are deviationists. The second, third and fourth popular learned caliphs, they were all killed ... so there was a history of violence but it was never condoned.

In the teachings on theology and even throughout history, it (terrorist acts) is always seen to be deviationists and corrupt. Even the creation of the Shiite tradition is actually a reaction to the oppression by the Abbasids rulers. And then, of course, they brought in the assassins of Islamic origin. But they were never in the mainstream. They were at the fringes as a result of a very oppressive order.

A lot of the initial (violent acts) in Islamic history were because of oppressive governments including the last Ottoman empire. The problems of many Islamists is that if it is an Islamic regime and they follow the syariah and have the hudud, they are automatically defended.

That allows liberal secularists to then promote (people like) Mustapha Kamal Attaturk, who is another ruthless tyrant. So you are dealing with an option of a 'Islamic' tyrant and a 'secular' tyrant. But I think this need to be corrected.

Why are Muslims appear to be so obsessed with seeing external threats and hostile challenges to their beliefs, identity and interests everywhere?

Authoritarian regimes promotes this kind of perception. They allow this to rationalise their power. I feel confident that if you promote moderate and credible elements within the Muslim community, they can be very effective and pronounced in their views.

I am critical of the Americans but I always qualify my remarks. I always make a point in my speeches to address both Muslims and non-Muslims equally. The key term is always brotherhood. One (type of brotherhood) is (that within the) religion - as what the fourth caliph (Ali bin Abi Talib) had said - and another is humanity.

The term brotherhood applies to both. Why don't we take this position, rather than take the position of (categorising people into) Islam or kafir (infidels). So it is a matter of approach and how you articulate the issues of religion.

Part 1: Q&A: Pak Lah too indecisive, says Anwar
Part 2: Q&A: 'Quran is an article of faith, but not Islamic state'