In conjunction with her 40th anniversary, the Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies organised a forum entitled the Regional Outlook Forum 2008.
Among the invited speakers were Dr. Norbert Lammert (President of the
Bundestag; the parliament of Germany), and former deputy Prime Minister
Anwar Ibrahim. Panellists in the forum included noted individuals like
Prof. Wang Gungwu, Dr Surin Pitsuwan (ASEAN Sec Gen), our own Lim Teck
Ghee and Rajah Rasiah, and more.Anwar's speech was given some coverage by
Malaysiakini and I also quoted excerpts of it in a previous post. I have
just been sent the full text of the speech which I reproduce here. It is
definitely worth a read and might be one reason why he is viewed as a
"traitor" and a "threat to the nation (read Umno)" by the Prime Minister
:
Reconciling Islamization with a Democratic Society in Malaysia
Special luncheon address by Anwar Ibrahim at the Regional Outlook Forum
2008, 8th January 2008, Singapore
They say that the great divide between Islam and democracy may be summed
up in a few phrases: it is a zero sum game because democracy's gain is
Islam's loss while Islamization and democratization are contradiction in
terms. Simplistic as it is, you really cannot fault the logic here
though. For instance, the very topic given to me would logically lead to
the inference that this is a battle to be fought on an uneven playing
field. In fact, the word "Islamization" would conjure a kind of negative
imposition on society, even if the process may be confined to Muslims. We
know that recent events in Malaysia have given rise to the concern that
the process has led to state sanctioned intrusion into the religious
practices of citizens who profess other faiths. I shall talk about that
later but for now, let us go back to this question of names and labeling.
Now, unlike the phrase "Islamization", "democratization" immediately
suggests positive associations. There is generally no confusion as to
what constitutes the essence of democracy itself. Just for the record,
let us say we agree that democracy is not just about elections or the
popularity of leaders. Democracy is about human rights, rule of law, and
freedom and by that, I mean fundamental liberties in its widest sense.
Democracy is also about maintaining and protecting the sanctity of
constitutional principles, which are the crowning glory of the compact of
the people. I must pause to add that these are moral imperatives of Islam
too. And just as immediately, I must lodge a caveat against the
assumption of the truth of the expression "democratic society in
Malaysia." I am not being cynical here but I believe we may legitimately
ask the question: "Do we really have such a society in Malaysia?"
I believe that the 40,000 Malaysians who gathered two months ago in
Kuala Lumpur to demand for free and fair elections will say 'no.' The
thousands who were drenched in chemical-laced water fired from police
water cannons will say 'no.' And the hundreds of peaceful citizens who
were violently dispersed just last Saturday night for holding a
candlelight vigil to protest the use of the ISA will say 'no.' And
neither Islam nor Islamization has anything to do with it.
This brings me to the point that if we were to look at the issue of
Islam and democracy from the empirical angle, I daresay that the threat
to democracy is not Islam at all. On the contrary, we see Indonesia and
Turkey decisively choosing the democratic system rather than the
traditional Shari'ah system. In addition, as for Pakistan, what we are
seeing is in fact a classic scenario of secular autocrats and dictators
raising the bogey of Islamic radicalism in order to subvert democracy and
maintain their hold on power. The fact therefore remains that many Muslim
nations ruled by secular regimes are dictatorships of varying degrees on
the one hand and autocratic regimes or sham democracies on the other.
Before I come to the central issue about Malaysia, let me just try to
put things in perspective about Islam in Southeast Asia. Historically,
particularly for the Malay-Indonesian archipelago, we should remember
that radical Islam never stood a chance. In the 1950s, Indonesia
experimented with principles of democracy and constitutionalism - they
were therefore familiar with the concepts of freedom, universal
citizenship, human rights, and enlightenment.
It is this feature of Islam that has enabled Indonesia to take that
giant step from dictatorship to democracy. Malaysia too, during the
formative period of independence and nation building, placed great
emphasis on constitutionalism with Islam being given its pride of place
in the private realm. Recognizing its multicultural and multi-religious
society, Malaysia's Muslim leaders were generally more inclusive. If I am
using the past tense, it is because today, this sense of inclusiveness is
under serious threat. With a combination of chauvinism and religious
bigotry, irresponsible politicians exploit public sentiments in order to
garner support. One may say that radicalism may actually be on the wane
and I will not argue with that but the problem, at least in Malaysia, is
not radicalism. The real issue is what I would describe as
state-sponsored Muslim Puritanism borne more by racist sentiments than
religious principles. It is the kind of theology that leads to the
rejection of the constitutional freedom of other faiths to espouse and
practice their religion in the manner they so wish.
It preaches the exclusivist doctrine that Muslims must constantly
prevail over non-Muslims. It is this theology that prohibits Muslims from
using the Islamic greeting of "Assalamualaikum" to non-Muslims or even
more audaciously, that forbids non-Muslims from using the Islamic
greeting for Muslims. Puritans also forbid Muslims from eating at the
homes of non-Muslims, teach young children that they will go to Heaven
while others will suffer eternal damnation and that generally Muslims are
superior to non-Muslims in the sight of God. The self-proclaimed guardians
of this theology will have no compunction in breaking up families
separating mothers from their children or incarcerating them for purposes
of religious 'rehabilitation'. Goaded by chauvinistic sentiments and
emboldened by this theology, the authorities will not bat on an eye in
tearing down places of worship. Moreover, it is this theology that has
orchestrated a whispering campaign to label me a Hindu just because
I addressed a rally of thousands of mainly ethnic Indians recently and
told them I supported their demands that their temples should not be
wantonly destroyed.
About two weeks ago, the Malaysian government proclaimed that Muslims
only may use the word 'Allah' and that non-Muslims must find some other
word to refer to God. Quite predictably, the mainstream media has
downplayed the controversy giving prominence instead to the usual warning
of the government against 'irresponsible elements of society' exploiting
religious sentiments. However, the people are not so easily fooled. Nor
would the alternative media remain silent.
Some thirteen years ago, I had the honor of addressing a gathering of
Catholic priests and scholars at the Atheneo de Manila University in the
Philippines on my being conferred an honorary doctorate. Among other
things, I had quoted the following passage from the Qur'an:
O mankind, We have created you male and female and have made you made
you nations and tribes so that ye may know one another. Lo, the noblest
of you in the sight of God, is the one who is the most righteous.
Al-Hujarat 49:13
This verse is addressed to all humanity, so had the religious authorities
bothered to check the Qur'an they would have known better than to advise
the Home Ministry that only Muslims have the birthright to be ennobled in
the sight of God. Are the guardians of the religion laboring under some
form of proselytizing zeal that drives them to believe that this
puritanical stance would induce non-Muslims to "see the light and embrace
the truth"? If this were their idea of an Islamic worldview, then I would
say that they have completely missed the heart of the Islamic message,
which is primarily a message of love and understanding, of compassion and
tolerance and of peace. It tells us to strive for justice, fight
oppression and oppose tyranny. There are many tribes and communities,
cultures and languages and all these will impinge directly on our
worldview. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that humankind is
only one.
And as for the ridiculous nonsense of appropriating the word "Allah"
only for the use of Muslims, and that other religious faiths are not
allowed to use it, a quick check with the Qur'an will tell them that
God's command in this regard is unequivocal:
Say that we believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and
revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender
Al-Ankabut 29:46
To my mind, this verse clearly underscores an inclusivist approach to
religion, and not one that attempts to build walls of exclusivity. It
demonstrates undoubtedly that Islamization is not the issue. Respecting
the constitutional rights of all citizens of all faiths is an Islamic
imperative. Honoring the social compact which places such rights as
sacrosanct which should not be trampled upon for whatever reason is also
an imperative. What, therefore, is the rationale for this overzealous
display of intolerance?
In attempting to answer this question, I hope it will also help to
dispel the notion of the incompatibility between Islam and democracy. The
answer I believe lies in the politics of Islam hadhari as espoused by the
current government, which has clearly demonstrated that it is not averse
to exploiting religious sentiments in order to get political mileage. For
some reason, it is the belief of this administration that playing the
puritanical card would be the best bet for the Umno dominated ruling
coalition to secure electoral success in the coming elections. It is no
secret that a significant shift has already taken place among the
non-Malay electorate leaving the ruling party to refocus their strategy
on the Malay Muslim heartland. By holding themselves out to be the
staunchest defenders of Islam, they hope to garner greater support from
conservative Muslims. This is to be executed in tandem with a superbly
orchestrated media campaign as well as incessant character
assaults on Muslim leaders who preach the message of moderation and
inclusiveness.
It is therefore clear that it is not a problem arising from Islamization
in a democratic society, which as I have indicated earlier, does not exist
in the first place. Nevertheless, I am convinced that there are no
foundational reasons as to why democracy should be opposed to Islam or
vice versa. Islam is universal but if the notion of this universalism is
to mean anything, it would require that its values of justice, compassion
and tolerance be practiced everywhere. Islam regards freedom as one of the
higher objectives of the divine law in as much as the very same elements
in a constitutional democracy become moral imperatives in Islam - freedom
to speak out against tyranny, a call for reform and the freedom of
conscience. These aberrations are indeed cause for alarm for all those
who cherish freedom and democracy and I am convinced that Muslims too are
equally appalled by this reckless display of narrow mindedness and
intolerance. Righteousness is no impediment to the
establishment of an enlightened government, but when the policies of the
state are determined by the self-serving motives of unscrupulous
politicians bent on clinging to power, they, and they alone must
reconcile with the demands of a democratic society.
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment