DECEMBER 21 — Two days ago I had a wonderful session with some Indonesian writers and intellectuals. We held informal discussions about Islamisation in a democracy, courtesy of Pak Haidar and Mizan Publications. The gentleman politician Pak Abdillah Toha was also present.
We were unanimous in our view that Indonesia has made great democratic strides. Although some are still critical of the level of corruption in the country and how some minorities lack basic human rights, everyone is generally confident that Indonesia is moving forward. The victory of Joko Widodo was a victory for the common men; a victory for the people of Indonesia.
On religious extremism the consensus was that Indonesia is safe because religious education in the “pasenteran” and in schools are unlike what we have here. Islam is taught as part of the cultural life of the people and not something imposed on them by the bureaucrats and the regime in power. Piety and obedience to religion in Indonesia comes from understanding; and religious action comes voluntarily from the heart. The state sees no value in forcing religion down people’s throat.
Factors that contribute to this revitalised democracy include Javanese cultural values that accept the relativity of human experiences and which are therefore averse to ideological hegemony; the leadership and political elite’s strong and consistent message that democratic space is essential to the empowerment of its people; and the obvious strength of the Indonesian people’s belief in the idea of a united nation.
One of the participants at our discussion was very critical of Malaysia’s future. He asked me if Malaysia is suited to a democracy, and we could possibly achieve it in the medium term, considering the ruling party’s strong racial bias. He argued further that our leaders have primed Islam as a tool of political control to exaggerate further the differences among the people of the country.
With some difficulty, I tried to assure him that the majority of Malaysians, including the Malays, are for a united country and are fully aware of the dangers that polarisation poses for the country’s long-term stability. I was, however, unable to say with conviction that the majority of the Malays are moderate, simply because they have elected to remain silent for so long. But I am hopeful that they will not allow the present divisiveness to persist, as there are signs that this faction of the Malays is finally willing to speak up and reject archaic ideas of racial and religious hegemony in the country.
Pak Abdillah Toha suggested that our leaders have adopted the strategy of defending Malay/Muslim control for fear of being overwhelmed by the economically strong Chinese community. I responded by saying that the whole idea that Malays can be stronger by detaching themselves from non-Malays is the idea of Umno. There is no evidence to suggest that people of the same group or ethnicity can ever be united and strong just by being on their own. They will just end up being insular and paranoid. In fact, there are many examples of communities growing stronger when they are united by diversity and a common purpose.
A nation’s progress is predicated on unity of purpose and optimising its people’s collective strength. This means that excluding non-Malays from the national agenda — as is practised today — actually weakens the Malays more than the non-Malays. Superficially, the Malays may be seen as the ones in control, but the reality is far different. The decision-makers who frame national policies may be Malays, but they do not have the financial and economic tools to empower other Malays to succeed on their own. Consequently, future economic conditions will have to depend on Chinese money and human capital for it to be sustainable. If this analysis is proven correct, the only way the Malays can succeed is to collaborate and remain united with the rest of the Malaysian community.
The other observation on how the situation in Malaysia can be changed is for the moderates to be more assertive. They should not let Isma and Perkasa have the microphone all the time. This is easier said than done. The number of Malays in the service of the government is large and they are naturally reluctant to voice their disaffection on matters of politics and administration. It’s normal that they become more vocal and assertive only after their retirement. Those who are in business are naturally unwilling to be critical of the government because it might affect their rice bowl, understandably so as the reach of the ruling party is long and wide.
Malaysians, especially Malays unfortunately must be willing to speak up for the cause of moderation and for religious tolerance. They must not expect authoritarian rule to just disappear without sacrifice and courage. Freedom, like breakfast, has a price. Indonesians have paid that price for democracy with their lives; the least we can do is to be prepared to be hauled up to police lock-ups once in a while.
The political choice Malays must make is also critical to the future development of democracy. If they can make that quantum leap and embrace a political party that will make the government better , instead of choosing the defender of race and religion, that will further their cause. They must be willing to abandon the comfort of their own race or religious-based political party. That will mark a new beginning for us all.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
