Open reply to Dr M’s ‘Why I criticise the PM’
Norman Fernandez
Malaysiakini,Oct 31, 06
Dear Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, I have read your letter addressed to the ‘citizens of Malaysia’. It is not often a commoner writes a letter addressed to all Malaysians. But then you are different, I suppose. Since I am a recipient of your letter, permit me to reply.
For a start, your letter seem to be cast a picture of a man who believes that he has been victimised and finds that all his avenues to seek justice have been closed. Believe me, many Malaysians have experienced this. At least you have the Internet as an avenue, all thanks to the Instrument Of Guarantee signed by your administration guaranteeing no censorship of the Internet. Malaysians can read about your plight. Many Malaysians never had this opportunity.
I note that you have signed off the letter as a ‘Malaysian citizen and a commoner’. But judging from your regular tirades and ripostes against the present administration, it gives the impression that you either have difficulty accepting the fact that you are no more the prime minister or you continue to believe that you are omnipotent.
You have had the luck and privilege of being chosen as prime minister. For 22 years you lead Malaysia. You have been credited for engineering Malaysia’s rapid modernisation. Malaysia’s physical transformation is obvious. After all, you presided over a period of phenomenal growth and at the end of your tenure, Malaysia bristled with concrete symbols from a gleaming airport to an impressive skyline.
Internationally, for 22 years you made your voice heard and the world was your stage. Your acerbic comments made you a spokesman for the Third World and your tirades against the West meant that Muslim countries could not have found a better friend than you. Now, it is for the people and history to judge your legacy and the present political climate does allow the people to judge and freely express their opinions.
There are many policies of your administration which have benefitted Malaysia and Malaysians. Similarly there have been many policies and actions of yours which Malaysians found to be despicable and reprehensible and pray may never happen again.
Reading your letter, it would seem that your main grouse and as clearly stated in your letter is that ‘the questions and issues raised have not been answered’. Having acknowledged that you are a ‘commoner’, it is then well worth remembering that the government of the day owes no duty to respond to your demands for explanation.
At least this was what your 22 years in office has taught the common citizens. You claim that a climate of fear has enveloped this country and, allegedly, that Malaysia has become a police state. All because supposedly, in your opinion, no one is allowed and dares to criticise the prime minister. You claim that the mainstream media are not allowed to admonish the prime minister and public functions that may involve criticising the prime-minister are harassed, threatened by police and government leaders. But wasn’t this the hallmark of your 22 years of administration?
Surely you have not forgotten the reason why Musa Hitam left office. Remember the pliant media which became your hatchet men? Which during the tussle for the Umno presidency highlighted a certain headgear worn by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (never mind you had worn a similar headgear in the past)? Remember how easily you got offended and roused a national anger simply because then Australian prime minister Paul Keating criticised and called you ‘recalcitrant’?
You allege that under the present administration people are being detained and interrogated repeatedly. Lest you forget, Oct 27 was the 19th anniversary of the infamous Operation Lalang? And remember the Anwar Ibrahim ‘black eye’ incident which you diagnosed as self-inflicted? Yet you have the temerity to call Pak Lah’s administration a ‘police state’!
You demand the right to speak and the space and forum to criticise and more importantly demand that the present administration answers your questions. This is strange coming from a person who used all available apparatus to silence dissent. The willful silence by the majority of the population to comment, criticise or oppose you was because of the climate of fear you had created. The heavy price paid by the brave who stood up to you made many to keep quiet and apolitical.
Now that you have retired as prime minister, no one is asking you to just fade away. Having acknowledged that you are a commoner, live and experience life as a commoner. Only then you will realise what life for the commoner was for 22 years when questions were aplenty but answers were never forthcoming.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Youth must be exposed to the challenges in life
30 October 2006
Provide challenges for youth
Deputy Education Minister Datuk Noh Omar’s says schools may expel students who take part in illegal motorcycle races or join Mat Rempit groups. This, I am afraid may not be the right move and in fact may be counterproductive.
It is the flaws in the education system over the last two decades or so that has given rise to a new culture among youths that has manifested in the form of Mat Rempit.This has to be recognized and accepted as a fact.
These misguided youths need education and rehabilitation and there is no better place to do that other than in schools. By expelling these wayward students would be alienating them from the means that could be used to provide these services to our young men and women.
What is needed is the revamping of our education system so that our schools become instruments of wholesome education not a place to collect A’s as it is now. More emphasis must be placed on extra-curricular activities, sports, moral and civic education. Religious and cultural activities are important but care must be taken not to over emphasize on them. Doing so may be counterproductive as it tends to be an obstacle to the curious and experimenting young minds.
Our youth from schooldays must be allowed to freely compete with one another without favouritism.They must be forced to strive among the best for excellence based purely on merit. Without this unbiased competition, there is no real challenge in the lives of our youngsters. They become confident that they will be given everything without any genuine effort on their part.
Outside schools more recreational activities should be made available. Sports and social activities which were the passionate among the youth in the sixties and seventies are not available freely to our youth today.Excellance in sports is no more glorified as it used to be. There are no real incentives and no great rewards for those who perform superbly in sports and social and literary activities.
As a consequence of this lack for the need to strive, they have a lot of free time which they idle away doing nothing. This is an important cause of resorting to undesirable activities like illegal racing and formation of Mat Rempit gangs.
There is a dire need to create a culture of work and healthy competition for our young men and women and reward those to succed.Unless we can provide that environment, engage them in healthy and fair competition, they will be devoid of the real challenges in life and ultimately succumb to undesirable activities to the detriment of the nation.
Dr.Chris Anthony
.
Provide challenges for youth
Deputy Education Minister Datuk Noh Omar’s says schools may expel students who take part in illegal motorcycle races or join Mat Rempit groups. This, I am afraid may not be the right move and in fact may be counterproductive.
It is the flaws in the education system over the last two decades or so that has given rise to a new culture among youths that has manifested in the form of Mat Rempit.This has to be recognized and accepted as a fact.
These misguided youths need education and rehabilitation and there is no better place to do that other than in schools. By expelling these wayward students would be alienating them from the means that could be used to provide these services to our young men and women.
What is needed is the revamping of our education system so that our schools become instruments of wholesome education not a place to collect A’s as it is now. More emphasis must be placed on extra-curricular activities, sports, moral and civic education. Religious and cultural activities are important but care must be taken not to over emphasize on them. Doing so may be counterproductive as it tends to be an obstacle to the curious and experimenting young minds.
Our youth from schooldays must be allowed to freely compete with one another without favouritism.They must be forced to strive among the best for excellence based purely on merit. Without this unbiased competition, there is no real challenge in the lives of our youngsters. They become confident that they will be given everything without any genuine effort on their part.
Outside schools more recreational activities should be made available. Sports and social activities which were the passionate among the youth in the sixties and seventies are not available freely to our youth today.Excellance in sports is no more glorified as it used to be. There are no real incentives and no great rewards for those who perform superbly in sports and social and literary activities.
As a consequence of this lack for the need to strive, they have a lot of free time which they idle away doing nothing. This is an important cause of resorting to undesirable activities like illegal racing and formation of Mat Rempit gangs.
There is a dire need to create a culture of work and healthy competition for our young men and women and reward those to succed.Unless we can provide that environment, engage them in healthy and fair competition, they will be devoid of the real challenges in life and ultimately succumb to undesirable activities to the detriment of the nation.
Dr.Chris Anthony
.
30 October 2006
Let's train ourselves to more tolerant
I refer to the report “PM: Be more tolerant to boost multi-racial ties” (Sunday Star Oct.29).
The call by the Prime Minister on Malaysians to learn to be more tolerant so that race and religion will no longer be sensitive issues in the future is very encouraging and must be taken seriously by citizens of all race and creed.
It is disturbing to note that after almost 50 years of attaining independence, racial and religious issues continue to be very sensitive and create a lot of anxiety among the people. In fact there is general acknowledgement that race relations over the years has become worse and is continuing to deteriorate further with time.
In fact our younger generation today seems to be less tolerant of racial and religious diversity as they are not exposed to communal living with others.They live cocooned within their own community and have grown up ignorant of the sensitivities of communities other than their own.
We must accept that this is a manifestation of the failure of our political system, especially the education system, which has failed to instill the comradeship among the various ethnic groups.In fact by segregating the races for whatever reason,we have only succeeded in instilling suspicion and even hatred among our people of various races,even as early primary school age.
This is very unhealthy and we must take immediate steps to rectify the unfavorable situation before it does irreparable damage.
Instead of confronting and solving the problems related to race and religion in a civil and unemotional manner through dialogue, they are shunned and pushed under the carpet, only to resurface later with greater magnitude.
Of late at least there is some acknowlegement by our leaders of the existence of serious inter-ethnic probems in the country which may be a good sign.Recognising the problem alone is not enough, it is more important to take steps to overcome them amicably by discussion and dialogue.
Our children from young must be taught the importance of living together in peace and harmony. They should be made aware of the sensitivities of other ethnic groups and must learn to tolerate them. As parents and teachers,we must drill into them the concept that all races are here to stay and have an equal stake in the good and bad of the nation. Poverty and ill-health in any one community would ultimately affect the peaces and stability of all.
Let us also share the Prime Minister’s hopes that the people will train themselves and their children to become more tolerant so that issues pertaining to race and religion will no longer be sensitive in years to come. This is not only a responsibility of every citizen but also the most important act of patriotism to the nation.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Let's train ourselves to more tolerant
I refer to the report “PM: Be more tolerant to boost multi-racial ties” (Sunday Star Oct.29).
The call by the Prime Minister on Malaysians to learn to be more tolerant so that race and religion will no longer be sensitive issues in the future is very encouraging and must be taken seriously by citizens of all race and creed.
It is disturbing to note that after almost 50 years of attaining independence, racial and religious issues continue to be very sensitive and create a lot of anxiety among the people. In fact there is general acknowledgement that race relations over the years has become worse and is continuing to deteriorate further with time.
In fact our younger generation today seems to be less tolerant of racial and religious diversity as they are not exposed to communal living with others.They live cocooned within their own community and have grown up ignorant of the sensitivities of communities other than their own.
We must accept that this is a manifestation of the failure of our political system, especially the education system, which has failed to instill the comradeship among the various ethnic groups.In fact by segregating the races for whatever reason,we have only succeeded in instilling suspicion and even hatred among our people of various races,even as early primary school age.
This is very unhealthy and we must take immediate steps to rectify the unfavorable situation before it does irreparable damage.
Instead of confronting and solving the problems related to race and religion in a civil and unemotional manner through dialogue, they are shunned and pushed under the carpet, only to resurface later with greater magnitude.
Of late at least there is some acknowlegement by our leaders of the existence of serious inter-ethnic probems in the country which may be a good sign.Recognising the problem alone is not enough, it is more important to take steps to overcome them amicably by discussion and dialogue.
Our children from young must be taught the importance of living together in peace and harmony. They should be made aware of the sensitivities of other ethnic groups and must learn to tolerate them. As parents and teachers,we must drill into them the concept that all races are here to stay and have an equal stake in the good and bad of the nation. Poverty and ill-health in any one community would ultimately affect the peaces and stability of all.
Let us also share the Prime Minister’s hopes that the people will train themselves and their children to become more tolerant so that issues pertaining to race and religion will no longer be sensitive in years to come. This is not only a responsibility of every citizen but also the most important act of patriotism to the nation.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Singapore’s success story a fact
I share with Dr Chris Anthony the sentiments expressed in his letter Universities: Boost national pride to reap success.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad rebutted Lee Kuan Yew’s apology letter on the marginalisation issue to our prime minister, blaming LKY for being ‘too proud’. After Anthony’s letter, I can’t help but to agree with Dr M that LKY is indeed proud of his country’s achievement and if our country could achieve the same results as Singapore, I certainly think Dr M would feel proud too. Don’t we wonder how can a small country of a population of 4.4 million peoples can achieve so much? Not to mention that it does not have our abundant resources of oil and gas and land mass.
A recent issue of The Economist said that Singapore reserves stands at US$130.7 billion while Malaysia only has US$79 b. This shows how well they manage their country’s financial affairs. In the same issue of the magazine, under the title ‘A survey of talent’, Singapore’s education policy was explored.
I quote: ‘One of the most successful schools at getting students into American Ivy League universities is Raffles Junior College in Singapore’. And this is just one of their 17 junior colleges in Singapore. I was told by a friend who studied in UK that for the past many years, Cambridge and Oxford received the most students from a single country, Singapore, and not from where we would think, China or India.
And given the fact that Singapore sends her best students to the best overseas universities, I would think that only their second best students study at National University of Singapore. Even so, the NUS can achieve an international ranking of 19, on par with Tokyo University and only behind Beijing University.
The NUS is one of the top three universities in Asia! Look at the position of Singapore Airlines and MAS. SIA doesn’t even have space for domestic routes yet it is flying high, competing internationally and recording profits year after year. How can they do it?
Dr M always looks down on our neighbour, talk downs to them about being a small country. Yet just look at the above few real life examples and results on who can actually stand taller, at least in the eye of international community. The facts stand out very clearly
Anonymous
Malaysiakini OCT.26 2006
I share with Dr Chris Anthony the sentiments expressed in his letter Universities: Boost national pride to reap success.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad rebutted Lee Kuan Yew’s apology letter on the marginalisation issue to our prime minister, blaming LKY for being ‘too proud’. After Anthony’s letter, I can’t help but to agree with Dr M that LKY is indeed proud of his country’s achievement and if our country could achieve the same results as Singapore, I certainly think Dr M would feel proud too. Don’t we wonder how can a small country of a population of 4.4 million peoples can achieve so much? Not to mention that it does not have our abundant resources of oil and gas and land mass.
A recent issue of The Economist said that Singapore reserves stands at US$130.7 billion while Malaysia only has US$79 b. This shows how well they manage their country’s financial affairs. In the same issue of the magazine, under the title ‘A survey of talent’, Singapore’s education policy was explored.
I quote: ‘One of the most successful schools at getting students into American Ivy League universities is Raffles Junior College in Singapore’. And this is just one of their 17 junior colleges in Singapore. I was told by a friend who studied in UK that for the past many years, Cambridge and Oxford received the most students from a single country, Singapore, and not from where we would think, China or India.
And given the fact that Singapore sends her best students to the best overseas universities, I would think that only their second best students study at National University of Singapore. Even so, the NUS can achieve an international ranking of 19, on par with Tokyo University and only behind Beijing University.
The NUS is one of the top three universities in Asia! Look at the position of Singapore Airlines and MAS. SIA doesn’t even have space for domestic routes yet it is flying high, competing internationally and recording profits year after year. How can they do it?
Dr M always looks down on our neighbour, talk downs to them about being a small country. Yet just look at the above few real life examples and results on who can actually stand taller, at least in the eye of international community. The facts stand out very clearly
Anonymous
Malaysiakini OCT.26 2006
Univesities: Boost national pride to reap success
Dropping standard of MU
In World University Rankings 2006 published by the Times Higher Education Supplement and conducted by
QS Quacquarelli Symonds, UKM rose by 105 places to break into the top 200-ranked universities for the first time, climbing from 289 last year to 185.
UM, however, continued its downward spiral, by dropping a further 23 places to 192. Its ranking fell from 89 in 2004 to 169 last year, causing a national debate on the status of the premier university and the validity of the criteria used for the rankings.
There has been all round applause on the improved ranking of UKM. We must give credit to all involved in the better performance of UKM but ranking 185 is not something to shout about. Instead of questioning the validity of the criteria used for the ranking it would be wise if we on then quiet work harder to achieve a much better ranking, probably among the top 10, in the years to come.
It is really disappointing but not surprising that UM is continuing to drop further from 89 to 192 within two years. As a former graduate of the premier and oldest university, I am indeed embarrassed of its standing.
In the seventies UM had many prominent academicians of international recognition but today we are not able to name any such personalities.UM at its inception was at par with NUS but the latter is now far ahead at number 19 spot. In fact if we compare more closely, at all levels we are no where near NUS. What has gone wrong with our once premier university?
Our leaders and the relevant authorities are genuinely not at all perturbed by the deteriorating standard of our institutions of higher learning. They question the ways of grading these institutions and always blame others, especially the West, for conspiring and being bias against us.
The failure to practice real meritocracy in staff affairs and intake of students is the main causes of the dismal performance of our universities. Brain drain is a regrettable accompaniment of this policy.
Many of our lecturers have left for the so-called greener pastures overseas due to very shoddy treatment they received at local universities. Their talents are not tapped and rightfully rewarded. Rightful and well deserving promotions are denied and given to more junior and less capable ones. It is a strange situation where our own intellectuals are better recognized in foreign countries than in their own motherland.
Intake of students too is far from ideal. The best of the matriculation students are given scholarships and sent overseas, a practice that is not only detrimental to the standard of our own universities but an insult to them as well. If we do not hold our institutions with high esteem, who else will?
Many students with maximum possible results in the STPM examination are not offered the courses they seek. In the end only mediocre students are admitted to pursue studies at our own local universities. How we compete with prominent foreign institutions with such a myopic practice?
The great national pride and patriotism we had are slowly but surely being eroded and replaced with patriotism and pride for ones own race and religion. We prefer the prosperity of our own community than that of the nation.
The talents of all Malaysians must be tapped fairly without prejudice. Only this will reverse the present trend to place national pride above all other interests. Unless we actively do that the future may not look encouraging.
Dr.Chris Anthony
In World University Rankings 2006 published by the Times Higher Education Supplement and conducted by
QS Quacquarelli Symonds, UKM rose by 105 places to break into the top 200-ranked universities for the first time, climbing from 289 last year to 185.
UM, however, continued its downward spiral, by dropping a further 23 places to 192. Its ranking fell from 89 in 2004 to 169 last year, causing a national debate on the status of the premier university and the validity of the criteria used for the rankings.
There has been all round applause on the improved ranking of UKM. We must give credit to all involved in the better performance of UKM but ranking 185 is not something to shout about. Instead of questioning the validity of the criteria used for the ranking it would be wise if we on then quiet work harder to achieve a much better ranking, probably among the top 10, in the years to come.
It is really disappointing but not surprising that UM is continuing to drop further from 89 to 192 within two years. As a former graduate of the premier and oldest university, I am indeed embarrassed of its standing.
In the seventies UM had many prominent academicians of international recognition but today we are not able to name any such personalities.UM at its inception was at par with NUS but the latter is now far ahead at number 19 spot. In fact if we compare more closely, at all levels we are no where near NUS. What has gone wrong with our once premier university?
Our leaders and the relevant authorities are genuinely not at all perturbed by the deteriorating standard of our institutions of higher learning. They question the ways of grading these institutions and always blame others, especially the West, for conspiring and being bias against us.
The failure to practice real meritocracy in staff affairs and intake of students is the main causes of the dismal performance of our universities. Brain drain is a regrettable accompaniment of this policy.
Many of our lecturers have left for the so-called greener pastures overseas due to very shoddy treatment they received at local universities. Their talents are not tapped and rightfully rewarded. Rightful and well deserving promotions are denied and given to more junior and less capable ones. It is a strange situation where our own intellectuals are better recognized in foreign countries than in their own motherland.
Intake of students too is far from ideal. The best of the matriculation students are given scholarships and sent overseas, a practice that is not only detrimental to the standard of our own universities but an insult to them as well. If we do not hold our institutions with high esteem, who else will?
Many students with maximum possible results in the STPM examination are not offered the courses they seek. In the end only mediocre students are admitted to pursue studies at our own local universities. How we compete with prominent foreign institutions with such a myopic practice?
The great national pride and patriotism we had are slowly but surely being eroded and replaced with patriotism and pride for ones own race and religion. We prefer the prosperity of our own community than that of the nation.
The talents of all Malaysians must be tapped fairly without prejudice. Only this will reverse the present trend to place national pride above all other interests. Unless we actively do that the future may not look encouraging.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Slamming the brakes on interreligious dialogue
Aneel David Kannabhiran
Malaysiakini,Sep 22, 2006
“Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus - with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.”
Excerpt of Pope Benedict XVI’s Sept 12 speech at the University of Regensburg.
The first reaction by most Catholics in Malaysia on reading about the fallout over the Pope’s speech was most likely: “Why did he have to say such a thing?” Many would also ask that, if he wanted to drive home the point that religion and violence are incompatible, could he not have used Catholic examples - the Crusades for instance?
The Pope’s statements regarding Muhammad and Islam are ill-conceived, insensitive and ill-timed only because Muslims, from present and past evidence, believe that their religion must never be criticised or questioned - even by their fellow Muslims, more so by those of other religions.
Therefore it would not take any stretch of the imagination what their reaction to the Pope’s comments on their Prophet and religion would be. Churches in Palestine have been fire bombed and a nun in has been murdered in Mogadishu (possibly in relation to the controversy). Protests in India and Pakistan have turned violent.
The Muslim reaction, ironically, bore testament to the Pope’s reference: Muslims will not stop at violence to defend their religion. The sabre rattling by Malaysian parliament insisting that the Pope retract his statements and apologise is also typical of this ‘attack mentality’.
The only surprising response came from Indonesian clerics who urged non-violence and forgiveness. Calculated risk One could speculate that Benedict’s speech was a calculated risk to test if they would react in typical fashion or practice the peaceful, tolerant approach of ‘true Islam’.
This would lead one to conclude that the Pope is either very shrewd or very foolish. The pontiff’s limited apology is probably as far as the Vatican will compromise. In their minds, presumably, any further bowing to the Islamic world’s pressure will only show that Christianity can easily be cowed by another religion.
The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) has hopefully put the matter to rest by accepting the pontiff’s amends. If, as Benedict later explained, the true meaning of his address “was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect”, is it any wonder that any efforts at dialogue or interfaith understanding is met by reluctance, suspicion and summary rejection? The pontiff should re-think a more appropriate approach if ‘dialogue’ is indeed his objective.
One gets the impression that Benedict is far out of touch with realities on the ground. He spends most of his life amongst his own kind and probably never in his life had to live in a Muslim majority community. However, if one were to read and comprehend the full text of the pontiff’s lengthy and somewhat complicated speech, one would discover that it was essentially about the weaknesses of the Western world, its irreligion and disdain for religion and that both Christianity and Islam share a commonality in rejecting the linking of religion and violence.
The reason for the references to the 14th century emperor’s contentions, although not directly expressed by the pontiff, could have been to demonstrate that the current (mis)perception of Islam by Western Christians has existed since then. Non-Muslim perception is based on what is reported - most of what one reads about Islam in newspapers are terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims in the name of their religion. The only jihad that is reported is of the ‘holy war’ variety.
Thus, can one blame non-Muslims, especially those in the West for perceiving Islam as a violent religion? Lip service Religious leaders from every faith repeat that terrorism in the name of religion is a violation and betrayal of any religion, but stop short at naming Muslims as the most prevalent perpetrators of such violence. Pope Benedict XVI is probably the first non-Muslim leader to dare say this publicly.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who is also Chairman of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) in his speech, ‘Dialogue, the Key to Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies’ at the 2004 World Council of Churches, spoke of those “who practise their faith in absolutist terms” and “misinterpret the very religion that they profess”. Badawi went on to admit that “Muslims are responsible for a number of terrorist acts committed today”, and further reiterated that, “the Palestinian issue or the conflict in Iraq are not just Muslim grievances. These are problems of universal concern”.
Therefore, the contention by some ‘analysts’ that America and its involvement in the Israel-Palestine-Middle East crises is the ‘root cause’ of each and every terrorist attack worldwide is beginning to sound pathetic. Every time a terrorist attack occurs, the Muslim moderates will repeat yet again that “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”.
If this is the belief of the majority of Muslims, how is it the extremists in minority seem to be having the upper hand? Isn’t it time for Muslims to engage in intra-religious dialogue with the extremist elements within their faith? This question was put to Indonesian professor of Islam and Comparative Religion Syafa’atun Almirzanah in the September 2004 issue of CANews, who agreed, but pointed out that because Islam is a poly-interpretable religion it was difficult to arrive at commonality. “It is much easier to initiate dialogue between Christians and Muslims, than to initiate dialogue between progressive, liberal Muslims and our hard-line fundamentalists.
We invite the most extreme fundamentalist leaders for dialogue, but they often either decline outright, or become argumentative during the dialogue,” she said. OIC’s role Thus it would take an Islamic organisation with more clout to bring all Islamic denominations to the dialogue table. The OIC could very well be such an organisation. The OIC has to use all its power to compel all Muslim nations to participate in a hard intra-faith dialogue.
The objective of this dialogue must be: i) to compel all Muslim nations to rein in and control the extremist factions within their faith, urging them to relinquish their single-minded focus on the ‘holy war’ aspect of jihad, and subsequently arrive at an unwavering and demonstrative consensus that Islam is indeed “a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”, and, ii) to conscientise Muslims toward being more open-minded, rational and less sensitive when faced with questions and constructive criticisms from non-Muslims.
Until such a time, all attempts at dialogue between the major religions and Islam will have to be put on hold.
ANEEL DAVID KANNABHIRAN is a Malaysian, committed to the reform agenda of various human rights and social justice issues including that within the various religious institutions.
Aneel David Kannabhiran
Malaysiakini,Sep 22, 2006
“Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus - with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.”
Excerpt of Pope Benedict XVI’s Sept 12 speech at the University of Regensburg.
The first reaction by most Catholics in Malaysia on reading about the fallout over the Pope’s speech was most likely: “Why did he have to say such a thing?” Many would also ask that, if he wanted to drive home the point that religion and violence are incompatible, could he not have used Catholic examples - the Crusades for instance?
The Pope’s statements regarding Muhammad and Islam are ill-conceived, insensitive and ill-timed only because Muslims, from present and past evidence, believe that their religion must never be criticised or questioned - even by their fellow Muslims, more so by those of other religions.
Therefore it would not take any stretch of the imagination what their reaction to the Pope’s comments on their Prophet and religion would be. Churches in Palestine have been fire bombed and a nun in has been murdered in Mogadishu (possibly in relation to the controversy). Protests in India and Pakistan have turned violent.
The Muslim reaction, ironically, bore testament to the Pope’s reference: Muslims will not stop at violence to defend their religion. The sabre rattling by Malaysian parliament insisting that the Pope retract his statements and apologise is also typical of this ‘attack mentality’.
The only surprising response came from Indonesian clerics who urged non-violence and forgiveness. Calculated risk One could speculate that Benedict’s speech was a calculated risk to test if they would react in typical fashion or practice the peaceful, tolerant approach of ‘true Islam’.
This would lead one to conclude that the Pope is either very shrewd or very foolish. The pontiff’s limited apology is probably as far as the Vatican will compromise. In their minds, presumably, any further bowing to the Islamic world’s pressure will only show that Christianity can easily be cowed by another religion.
The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) has hopefully put the matter to rest by accepting the pontiff’s amends. If, as Benedict later explained, the true meaning of his address “was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect”, is it any wonder that any efforts at dialogue or interfaith understanding is met by reluctance, suspicion and summary rejection? The pontiff should re-think a more appropriate approach if ‘dialogue’ is indeed his objective.
One gets the impression that Benedict is far out of touch with realities on the ground. He spends most of his life amongst his own kind and probably never in his life had to live in a Muslim majority community. However, if one were to read and comprehend the full text of the pontiff’s lengthy and somewhat complicated speech, one would discover that it was essentially about the weaknesses of the Western world, its irreligion and disdain for religion and that both Christianity and Islam share a commonality in rejecting the linking of religion and violence.
The reason for the references to the 14th century emperor’s contentions, although not directly expressed by the pontiff, could have been to demonstrate that the current (mis)perception of Islam by Western Christians has existed since then. Non-Muslim perception is based on what is reported - most of what one reads about Islam in newspapers are terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims in the name of their religion. The only jihad that is reported is of the ‘holy war’ variety.
Thus, can one blame non-Muslims, especially those in the West for perceiving Islam as a violent religion? Lip service Religious leaders from every faith repeat that terrorism in the name of religion is a violation and betrayal of any religion, but stop short at naming Muslims as the most prevalent perpetrators of such violence. Pope Benedict XVI is probably the first non-Muslim leader to dare say this publicly.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who is also Chairman of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) in his speech, ‘Dialogue, the Key to Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies’ at the 2004 World Council of Churches, spoke of those “who practise their faith in absolutist terms” and “misinterpret the very religion that they profess”. Badawi went on to admit that “Muslims are responsible for a number of terrorist acts committed today”, and further reiterated that, “the Palestinian issue or the conflict in Iraq are not just Muslim grievances. These are problems of universal concern”.
Therefore, the contention by some ‘analysts’ that America and its involvement in the Israel-Palestine-Middle East crises is the ‘root cause’ of each and every terrorist attack worldwide is beginning to sound pathetic. Every time a terrorist attack occurs, the Muslim moderates will repeat yet again that “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”.
If this is the belief of the majority of Muslims, how is it the extremists in minority seem to be having the upper hand? Isn’t it time for Muslims to engage in intra-religious dialogue with the extremist elements within their faith? This question was put to Indonesian professor of Islam and Comparative Religion Syafa’atun Almirzanah in the September 2004 issue of CANews, who agreed, but pointed out that because Islam is a poly-interpretable religion it was difficult to arrive at commonality. “It is much easier to initiate dialogue between Christians and Muslims, than to initiate dialogue between progressive, liberal Muslims and our hard-line fundamentalists.
We invite the most extreme fundamentalist leaders for dialogue, but they often either decline outright, or become argumentative during the dialogue,” she said. OIC’s role Thus it would take an Islamic organisation with more clout to bring all Islamic denominations to the dialogue table. The OIC could very well be such an organisation. The OIC has to use all its power to compel all Muslim nations to participate in a hard intra-faith dialogue.
The objective of this dialogue must be: i) to compel all Muslim nations to rein in and control the extremist factions within their faith, urging them to relinquish their single-minded focus on the ‘holy war’ aspect of jihad, and subsequently arrive at an unwavering and demonstrative consensus that Islam is indeed “a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”, and, ii) to conscientise Muslims toward being more open-minded, rational and less sensitive when faced with questions and constructive criticisms from non-Muslims.
Until such a time, all attempts at dialogue between the major religions and Islam will have to be put on hold.
ANEEL DAVID KANNABHIRAN is a Malaysian, committed to the reform agenda of various human rights and social justice issues including that within the various religious institutions.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Another blow for inter-racial harmony
It is another sad day in the history of our nation.Malaysians Hindus were given another blow. Takaful Malaysia has called on Muslims not to greet Hindus Happy Deepavalli.Is it a surprise? No, definitely not. We know it is coming but did not expect it to be so fast and not from an top official from the Muslim business community.
Such statements would normally come from over enthusiastic upcoming young politicians.
What is more frightening is that none of the top leaders dare come with strong condemnation of this official who has gone overboard in issuing such directive to his staff. It is a very serious matter but being treated in such a trivial manner.
The trend towards Islamisation started in the seventies when Muslim girls have to wear the “tudung” in the name of religion. Since then there was no turning back and slowly but surely rules were introduced in the name of religion. The Muslims were segregated from non-Muslims by their strict dress code. Even for sporting activities they were not allowed to adorn the standard sports attire.
Then came the issue of “halal”.Muslims would not consume the food prepared by non-Muslim friends however close they may be. Today they refuse to visit their non-Muslim friends at their homes.
Common celebrations like “kongsi-raya” and “deepa-raya” are now forbidden as they are considered “ haram”.
Non-Muslim places of worship are not allowed near the vicinity of mosques and suraus.Some of these temples and churches which were there for more than a century were demolished or re-sited to less prominent places to “hide” them from the sight of Muslims.
What is in store for the future of the inter-ethnic relations in our multi-racial and multi-religious country which we claim is a model nation for the world? Definitely it is not going to stop here and we all are only too familiar that anything is possible in our bolehland.
Where are our leaders? Why aren’t they saying nor doing anything to stop the progression of religious fanatism and deviationism?
We are already been classified as infidels and should not be taken by surprise, if in the near future, we are told that talking to infidels is haram. Following that a time will come that the sight of infidels will also be haram.
It may be a polite way of asking us to leave. But where are we to go?
Dr.Chris Anthony
It is another sad day in the history of our nation.Malaysians Hindus were given another blow. Takaful Malaysia has called on Muslims not to greet Hindus Happy Deepavalli.Is it a surprise? No, definitely not. We know it is coming but did not expect it to be so fast and not from an top official from the Muslim business community.
Such statements would normally come from over enthusiastic upcoming young politicians.
What is more frightening is that none of the top leaders dare come with strong condemnation of this official who has gone overboard in issuing such directive to his staff. It is a very serious matter but being treated in such a trivial manner.
The trend towards Islamisation started in the seventies when Muslim girls have to wear the “tudung” in the name of religion. Since then there was no turning back and slowly but surely rules were introduced in the name of religion. The Muslims were segregated from non-Muslims by their strict dress code. Even for sporting activities they were not allowed to adorn the standard sports attire.
Then came the issue of “halal”.Muslims would not consume the food prepared by non-Muslim friends however close they may be. Today they refuse to visit their non-Muslim friends at their homes.
Common celebrations like “kongsi-raya” and “deepa-raya” are now forbidden as they are considered “ haram”.
Non-Muslim places of worship are not allowed near the vicinity of mosques and suraus.Some of these temples and churches which were there for more than a century were demolished or re-sited to less prominent places to “hide” them from the sight of Muslims.
What is in store for the future of the inter-ethnic relations in our multi-racial and multi-religious country which we claim is a model nation for the world? Definitely it is not going to stop here and we all are only too familiar that anything is possible in our bolehland.
Where are our leaders? Why aren’t they saying nor doing anything to stop the progression of religious fanatism and deviationism?
We are already been classified as infidels and should not be taken by surprise, if in the near future, we are told that talking to infidels is haram. Following that a time will come that the sight of infidels will also be haram.
It may be a polite way of asking us to leave. But where are we to go?
Dr.Chris Anthony
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)