Whose Responsibility - Politicians or People

8/3/2019 Whose Responsibility - Politicians or People

1/6

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY:THE POLITICIANS OR THE PEOPLE?A critical minor reflection on religious dialogue in Malaysia

Mahathir not personally responsible?Sven Schottmanns argument is simple and important: First, he offers a defense on Mahathirs

contribution to interreligious relations, and second, our attention is turned to the people the religious

people - with due attention to historical factors that impacts their disposition to people of other

religions. Both ideas are summarized succinctly in the following:

Mahathir himself, while in power, personally fostered such encounters and frequently spoke to

Christian and also to Buddhist and Hindu audiences, both locally and overseas. It thus seems

inaccurate to hold Mahathir personally responsible for the failure to bring Malaysians together in a

respectful debate about their individual faiths.

The biggest impediments to a more meaningful inter-religious dialogue, in particular a more

meaningful Muslim-Christian dialogue has been historically grown animosities and suspicions that

will take time to overcome.

In non-academic terms, one might read is simplistically as (1) Dont put all the blame on Mahathir,

because he haspersonally fostered and encouraged interfaith encounters, and (2) Its really about the

social psychological state of mindof religious people due to historic upbringing that is the main

problem. Therefore, (3)it follows that we should turn away from the blame game on Mahathir (or

perhaps by implication politicians in power?) and focus on addressing ingrained animosities and

suspicions in religious communities, and in due time we will have live happily ever after.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE THEN?

As a result of after reading Svens essay, a more general question emerged in my mind, whose

responsibility is it the politicians or the people? My main concern is not so much on the notion of

historically grown animosities and suspicions as one of the impediments to a more meaningful

inter-religious dialogue. The word biggest is what in my view warrants a minor intervention. Even if

we answer both the politicians and the people, in the case of Malaysia, where does the greater weight of

responsibility lean towards?

Admittedly, most of us are aware that assigning singular causes to the complex realities in which

religious people seek to negotiate their relation to ultimate mystery and the daily grind of earthly

matters is a dead end street. Making Mahathir the sole cause for the the overall failure of an inter-

religious dialogue culture to take root in Malaysia though might be therapeutic is not only contestable

as suggested by Sven but might actually distract us from some needed self-critical reflection is where

I read Sven leading us. In that sense, I appreciate Svens contribution. But, is it not equally simplistic

to unload the weight of responsibility from those in positions of power - I am speaking more

generally now to overburden religious communities with unnecessary guilt?


2/6

To begin, let me state that I believe both Sven and I are on the same page when it comes to the

significance of interreligious dialogue as part of the solution to prevent as well as overcome religion

used as a source, justification, and even scape-goat for conflict and at worse violence. To add value

to Svens original contribution, I would like to mention contributions of Christian and Muslim critical

reflection on interfaith dialogue that has already been done that addresses some of these animosities

and suspicions. For example, Malaysian theologian Albert Walters work on Christian-Muslim

relations1, Sociologist Syed-Farid Alattas reassertion on the Islamic commitment to dialogue2 and

Robert Hunts emphasis on identity and narrative are most illuminating3, just to name a few. A side

note to mention, the discussion here in New Mandela on Apostasy from at least twoperspectives

was a welcome breath of fresh air even though it might be uncomfortable to some, and

counterproductive for others, but the main value is that we are engaged in a form of dialogue that

others can build on.

However, as contributors to the challenge of inter-religious dialogue, so often, we recognize that our

work is necessary but not sufficient. Hence, I would like to raise a number of concerns from a civil

society perspective, hopefully in order to develop the way we are grappling to understand the

Malaysian situation, and subsequently find ways together in true dialogicalfashion towards some

solutions. The perspective I am hoping to bring aims to take into account the struggle of people especially religious people - on the ground in the current conditions of Malaysia Post-Mahathir.

Voices from the Ground

As a point of entry, in the case of Malaysia, religious communities have historically recognized the

need for a healthy environment for living together in Malaysia. For example, from a non-Muslim

perspective, since 1983, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism,

Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has been dedicated at least on the institutional level amongst

religious leaders towards aims that are articulated in the following:

(a) To promote understanding, mutual respect and co-operation between people of different religions.

(b) To study and resolve problems affecting all inter religious relationships.

(c) To make representations regarding religious matters when necessary.

(d) To advance and promote the religious, cultural, educational and social rights and interests of the

religious bodies.

Besides the presence and the work of the MCCBCHST, in the recent years, while statements are not

everything, I would like to suggest that in civil society there are indicators that perhaps Malaysians of

all faiths and persuasions do not have such strong animosities andsuspicions that might be assumed

prior to further empirical investigation. And especially in times of controversy and tension, it is the

religious communities together with other civil society groups that have taken the lead in public to

confront what potentially could have been disastrous outcomes if unattended to. Below are some

significant excerpts from non-Muslims, Muslims and other civil society groups:

1 A.S. Walters, Knowing Our Neighbour: A Study of Islam for Christians in Malaysia (Council of Churches of

Malaysia, 2007).2 F. Alatas and International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies Malaysia,An Islamic Perspective on the

Commitment to Inter-Religious Dialogue (International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, 2008).3 Robert Hunt, "Can Muslims Engage in Interreligious Dialogue? A Study of Malay Muslim Identity in

Contemporary Malaysia," The Muslim World99, no. 4 (2009).


3/6

We, the undersigned civil society organizations are shocked, angered and saddened by the Cow-Head

protest in Shah Alam last Friday, 28 August 09, against a proposed Hindu temple in Section 23 of the

city. The carrying of the head of a freshly slaughtered cow, a sacred animal to the Hindus and the

unveiled threat of bloodshed on the eve of Merdeka celebration suggests that all Malaysians need to

reflect deeply about our 52 years of nationhood, and the clarion call of 1Malaysia.

From the outset, these heinous acts of crime perpetrated by the irresponsible few must NEVER be seen

as a conflict between the two faiths or the two faith communities. All major spiritual traditions, Islam

and Hinduism included, uphold peace and human dignity as their common and core values. Our

spirituality and love for humanity mandates us for the perpetual quest for peace and abhorrence of all

forms of hatred and civil disorder. - The Cow-Head Lesson for Merdeka: Delegitimize Violence and

Hatred

This act of arson, committed presumably in the name of Islam desecrates the very religion it purports

to protect. The Holy Quran unequivocally prohibits destroying the houses of worship of all religions, as

warned in Surah Al-Hajj, Verse 40.

Had not Allah checked the excesses and aggression of one set of people by means of another,

surely would be destroyed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of

Allah is commemorated - MPF Statement On Church Torchings

As in the past, Malaysians of other faiths see the attack on Islam as an attack on their own faiths. In an

immediate response, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism,

Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) have condemned any such violence on any house of worship as a

sin of the highest order.

The inter-faith solidarity of Malaysians is a clear and loud testimony that Malaysian society has passed

another test on communal relations and emerged only ever stronger than before. No cow head, pig head

or fire can set the fraternity and goodwill amongst Malaysians on fire. The agent provocateurs are only

burning themselves in stark desperation devoid of any modicum of civic consciousness or religiosity.

The indomitable spirit of mutual respect and muhibbah of the Malaysian society in the face of

challenging inter-faith issues is however tarnished by the continuous failures of the Malaysian state oflaw and order. The police must stop dismissing such attacks as purely acts of vandalism or juvenile

delinquency. - Police Investigation on Mosque Attacks must pursue the political operators

In a multi-religious country such as Malaysia, adopting views that disallow non-Muslims to enter

mosques, which are established in some school of thoughts, is inappropriate. Nobody from other faiths

should be barred from entering mosques or any places of worship for Muslims, as long as their purpose

is good, respects the sacredness of the place of worship and is modestly dressed. They should also be

allowed to deliver speeches, provided that the speech is in line with the spirit of enjoining what is good

and forbidding what is evil.

It is in the interest of maslahah or common good of Islam that non-Muslims should feel welcomed and

not intimidated from visiting mosques. Calls to ban non-Muslims from entering mosques or any knee-

jerk reaction by the Islamic authorities to bow to certain political pressure in preventing thecommendable attitude of cooperation and mutual respect are regrettable and uncalled for. - IRF Stand

on the Issue of Non-Muslims Entering Mosques

The above suggests strongly that religious communities can draw not only from within their own

spiritual tradition, but also from the shared understanding of living together as part of a mosaic

Malaysian society. This does not mean there different sections of religious communities might not

still have prejudices and a lack of understanding of not only each others traditions but even their

own. But perhaps on the ground level hostility is not the point of departure in the interfaith relations


4/6

between ordinary Malaysians, rather the capacity forsolidarity seems to the greater force at work

here.

The challenge of approaching Dialogue

Next, I would like to raise the three concerns on the way we approach the question of interfaith

relations with the aim to clarify how we may understand the challenge of interreligious dialogue, and

specifically Christian-Muslim dialogue in the case of Malaysia. These concerns are pertinent becauseoften we may not be talking about the same thing even if we use same terminology.

First, in the discussion on religious dialogue, perhaps we need to clarify what are we describing by the

word dialogue? Which levelof dialogue are we discussing? Is it the most ground level personal

neighborly dialogue between Uncle Ali and Grandfather Surin? Is it the academic dialogue between

Professor Bakar and Professor Ng? Is it the dialogue between the church institution and the Home

Ministry of the Malaysian government? Is it a dialogue between an NGO like Angkatan Belia Islam

Malaysia (ABIM) with the young wing of the council of churches of Malaysia, CCM youth? We can

add to the list and have different ways to narrow down which level we are focusing on. One may

assume the rules of engagement would be different at different levels depending on who are the

participants and the shared goals implicitly or explicitly one has.

Second, we may ask are there the different types of Dialogue? The contribution from the Federation

of Asian Bishop (FABC) is helpful place to start as there has been substantial reflection on this. Is it a

dialogue of life where the focus is on the ordinary day to day contact? Is it a dialogue of action

where the point of contact is first when different religious communities work together and also reflect

together on a shared project? Is it a Dialogue of discourse focused on theology and beliefs? So,

besides clarifying the levels of dialogue we are addressing, we also consider the types of dialogue

in operation. One could even ask whether it is a directdialogue where we are comparing religious

understandings of respective teachings, or more indirectdialogue where we focus on shared concerns

and common issues but drawing from the reservoir of the best our faith traditions and the lessons

where we have not met up even to our own standards.

Third, and I see this as the biggest critical concern because, for each leveland types of dialogue,

directorindirectthere are different conditions that might facilitate or hinder the progress for either

subjects or structures. These conditions have an important impact on pre-existing animosities or

suspicions, and also corrective and creativepossibilities. Put in concrete terms, even if we imagine

that the Christians and Muslims in ABIM and CCM youth for example, have to at least some extent

disciplined their psychological state of minds, the socio-political context that was generated from

incidents such as the recent JAIS-DUMC controversy, cannot simply be ignored. In short, the

personal or in this case between two NGOs while can be distinguished analytically from the political,

one might even try hard to bracket the political out for a moment, but the complex relation between

the two still needs to be attended to sooner or later. Therefore, the political returns. Or more

specifically, the politicians return to the picture again.

The Political Strikes back

Therefore, while one must not get toopersonalwith regards to Mahathir, and after some critical

distance, we may entertain a qualified critical agreementthat Mahathir probably cannot be heldsolely

responsible for the failure to bring Malaysians together in a respectful debate about their individual

faiths. Perhaps we hear the overtone that, We were all in this together past, present and future.

The implication of Svens argument suggests a challenge to the people i.e., religious communities is

a welcome one but not at the expense of neglecting of the political conditions that the people


5/6

religious or non-religious live in and need to contend with. We still need to look at thepolicies or

structures during Mahathirs premiership, and more importantly, for today, what are thepolicies and

structures post-Mahathir during Abdullah Badawi and now Najib Razak, that are pertinent for our

current situation. This is clearly political in both the broad and narrow sense of the term.

What I mean by the political thus far at least is the policies, the existing structures and also one must

add the public articulation of the vision of Malaysia especially through the various media networks.Following the Centre of Dialogue, we could consider that at least Dialogue implies a relationship

between self (in-group) and other (out-group) which is characterised by a degree of empathy, the

result of which is to curb the severity of intercultural, interreligious and international conflicts. Now

applied to the Malaysian politicians across the political divide, how have they fared in fulfilling their

responsibility to facilitate the conditions where at least the kind of dialogue described in the

definition of the centre can be successful?

So, from the perspective balancing the weight of responsibility on the people or the politician, the

weight should lean more on politicians, especially current and future politicians who desire to be

remembered as Statesmen defined even in its simplest, a wise, skillful, and respected political

leader. I would like to stress the whether one is wise and respected, it will depend on how the

politician concerned carries out their responsibilities mentioned briefly above as the elected

representatives of the people. The final verdict is rightly up to the jury of the Malaysian public to

decide, and perhaps with the hindsight of history a more complete picture in due time. It appears at

the mean time that religious communities are engaged in meaningful inter-religious dialogue in spite

of unfavorable conditions.

Moving Forward

After all is said and done, we still need to keep the conditions that enable or disable religious dialogue on

the table for critical discussion. In that way, the people of Malaysia are then included in two ways, first, to

have the potential and capacity to change thepersonalconditions, i.e., addressing possible uncritical

inheritance ofanimosities andsuspicions (as recommended in Svens argument). And at the same time,

the people yes, even religious people can then be empowered to address the politicalconditions inwaysthat willhold our elected representatives responsible on how they are helpingorhinderingthe shared

project of religious people with the wider civil society that is to build consensus for action on the truly

great issues facing humanity, including pervasive greed, the increasingly unjust and inequitable

distribution of wealth and power, racism and hatred committed in the name of God, nuclear proliferation,

violence and exploitation of earths finite resources.

I must confess it is hard to keep the political out considering the grand vision for a better humanity

implied in an earlier paragraph! It is almost a common mantra to hear that we should not politicize

religion. If that means religion must not be abused for political mileage, who is to disagree?

However, with a cautious note, we are reminded that Everything is political, even though politics is

not everything! Perhaps, in our reflections, we are tempted to simply ignore or separate the

religious from the political since it might be too sensitive, or maybe what we really need is actuallyto critically reclaim the religious, and at the same time, we might as well reclaim the political in

the process. Hopefully, through confronting the issues head on respectfully we will then live happily

ever after yes, maybe in Malaysia that is still possible.

In closing, I offer a counter hypothesis:


6/6

The biggest impediments to a more meaningful inter-religious dialogue in the case of Malaysia

is nothistorically grown animosities and suspicions assumed to be in religious leaders or

religious people.

On the contrary, the biggest impediments are the social-political conditions generated by the

concrete actions of the politicians directly or indirectly through the government institutions,

agencies and media networks.

Over to you now the ones who have the ability to respond - the people!

P.S. perhaps the politicians too?

Sivin Kit is a founding member ofFriends in Conversation (friendsinconversation.wordpress.com) and one

of the initiators ofthe Micah Mandate (www.themicahmandate.org). He served as the pastor ofBangsar

Lutheran Church from 2000 to 2010 and has been actively engaged in civil society in Malaysia since 2007.

Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D in Religion, Ethics and Society at the University of Agder, Kristiansand,

Norway. Sivin is addicted to potato chips and thinks the new Battlestar Galactica"is educational.

Bibliography

Alatas, F., and International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies Malaysia.An Islamic Perspectiveon the Commitment to Inter-Religious Dialogue: International Institute of Advanced IslamicStudies, 2008.

Hunt, Robert. "Can Muslims Engage in Interreligious Dialogue? A Study of Malay Muslim Identity inContemporary Malaysia." The Muslim World99, no. 4 (2009): 581-607.

Walters, A.S.Knowing Our Neighbour: A Study of Islam for Christians in Malaysia: Council ofChurches of Malaysia, 2007.

Whose Responsibility - Politicians or People

Documents

Transcript of Whose Responsibility - Politicians or People