A picture before we embark on our MASUM adventure...
Warming-up before training at MSN Sports Complex Keramat...
Introducing our Captain:
Mohd Faiz Abu Samah
22
Psychology
Our Assistant Coach, Kak Aisah... She's currently a state player... And country player as well, I think...
Fooling around during the Masum Launching Night...
IIUM humble archers, and their troublesome assistant manager...
Our proud bows... Mine's the one with YAMAHA written on it...
Group photo together with our Coach, Encik Ismail, and his assistant, Kak Aisah...
Warming up before the last battle...
Discussing battle plans...
Aftermath picture... FYI, yours truly got a high fever right after the match...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's something I snatched from The Sun Online... It's an interview with one of our venerable filmmaker that we all should be proud of, Yasmin Ahmad...
____________________________________________
All about feelings
Bissme S.
theSun: What is the message you try to impart in your films?
A film doesn't have to have a message. How I decide whether I like a film or not, is whether the film has feelings.
Feelings don't just mean tears and great melodramas - which my films are filled with. Feelings are also about laughter, compassion, joy, sadness, disappointment, fear and relief.
So you put more emphasis on feelings than messages?
Yes. Nothing intellectual, nothing rational. Just feelings. In my movies, I want people to feel love and compassion. I want people to choose them to the opposite - no love and no compassion.
What is the biggest limitation you face as a filmmaker in Malaysia?
My own limitation. I often feel I am not good enough.
Why do you think you are not good enough?
When I watch old films by Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Billy Wilder, Satyajit Ray, and early films of Stanley Kubrick, I realise their films are so much better and they were made so long ago. They made me feel a kind of nothing. My biggest limitation in this country and anywhere else is myself. I feel I have a long way to go.
What do you think of the censorship board?
It has begun to improve greatly. The passing of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir (LKT) and Gubra led me to think the censorship board is now headed by someone much more level-headed and much more understanding of films.
But LKT was banned.
It wasn't the censorship (board) that clamped down on LKT. It was the home ministry. In one clean sweep, some ministry has declared Lembaga Penapis Filem (LPF) is nothing. Why have LPF when you are not going to respect its decision?
You appointed the people and you pay their salary and you completely disregard their decision. As a filmmaker I feel this ban is the biggest joke in the film industry.
Have you watched LKT and what do you think of it?
LKT is a lovely film that doesn't glorify Chin Peng in any way. It is a film where in the end, it shows that ideology has nothing to do with it and people are the product of their environment.
Chin Peng was born in a very violent environment - with a lot of fighting between freedom fighters and British colonialists and then the Japanese.
He came out from this violent environment and became violent himself. The film doesn't forgive him for what he did. In the end, the communists collaborated with the British to oust the Japanese.
People they are against, they collaborated with. It is not about ideology at all. It is about power and it is about economics more than anything else. It puts things in perspective.
What do you think of all the negative comments that have been said of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir?
There is a reason why Special Branch didn't have a problem with the film. There is a reason why LPF didn't have a problem with the film. I hope it will be shown. It puts things in perspective. It is funny and it has musical breaks which are hilarious.
Are you afraid that your next film will suffer the same fate as LKT?
I am only afraid of God. Even then, it is not enough. I should fear God even more. My parents had taught me only to fear God. Like Chin Peng, I am a product of my environment. Though I fear for my next film, I just continue making films. The fate of my film is really in God's hands.
Recently there was a forum on TV which hinted your movies Sepet and Gubra mencemarkan budaya (polluted the culture). What is your comment on the show?
I am surprised nobody came down on a forum which everybody watched and which was bluntly racist and clearly unsettling for society. I was shocked by the racial slur. I was sure the authorities were coming down on them but they didn't.
Do you think your films mencemarkan budaya?
If they can define what budaya means, I might state an opinion. Do they mean Budaya Melayu?
I think they did mean Budaya Melayu.
The forum was conducted by people who were dressed like Western people. I wear Melayu bajus more often than they do. I don't understand what this Budaya Melayu really means. I have heard some people say Budaya Melayu is budaya lemah lembut (gentle).
But I find the Japanese are more lemah lembut than the Melayu. We don't hold the candle for lemah lembut. In fact, the forum itself proved, given the things people said, the champions of Budaya Melayu are not so lemah lembut, so what budaya are they championing?
Has the forum discouraged you from making films?
I am making another film. Perhaps it has not discouraged me.
Some say in your films, you like to put down the Malay race?
Actually, in my films I put down and I put up everybody. If you think about it, in Sepet the Chinese family is quite loveless and the Malay family is full of love. If I were Chinese I could say Yasmin was putting down the Chinese.
We see what we want to see. If you draw four dots on a piece of paper, some people can draw a square, some people will draw a cross.
I really don't think I was putting down the Malays. I am Malay, why should I put down my people? There are a lot of Malays who have said in my website as well as in Kakiseni that it is ridiculous to describe my films as pencemar budaya. I think there are only a few Malays who have a problem with it. I am not like them, therefore I don't really understand them. Maybe, I am stupid, that is (the) reason I don't see why they feel that way.
Tell me more about your new movie.
It always fascinates me why something as beautiful as friendship can be destroyed by something as beautiful as love. You would think two beautiful things put together and you will get even more beautiful things. But sometimes, you don't.
Have you experienced such feelings?
Of course. I think everybody has been through this. You are good friends with somebody and suddenly you develop romantic feelings for them. Or they develop romantic feelings for you and things go horribly wrong.
With my husband though, it worked very well. We started as friends and we fell in love.
Give theSun a sneak preview - what can we expect from your (new) movie?
There is a scene in the film where somebody mentions the phrase Pencemar Budaya (Both of us laugh loudly.)
One film personality said Yasmin should be stopped from making films. Why do you think there is so much hostility against you? Are you afraid of your harsh critics?
I really don't understand about this hostility. My films are not big box-offices and they didn't steal business from other people's films. For some reason, some people feel threatened by my films. I just think they are being silly. Like I said earlier, I am not afraid of anyone, except Allah. I remembered being told If everybody joins hands to do good for you they cannot do any more good than Allah will allow them to. If everybody joins hands to do bad to you, they cannot do any more bad than Allah will allow them to.
It is said Gubra will not participate in this year's Malaysian Film Festival. Is that true?
But when I meet with such hostility, many people from the mainstream (movie industry) called me to (say) go ahead and carry on your work.
How long will you stay away from the local award ceremony?
For this time. Next year, God knows.
Some people say you can't take criticism and that is why you pulled out from the Malaysian Film Festival. Your comment?
It is not the criticism that hurts. It is the weight in which the criticism was dished out. It is so constant, unending, relentless and unclamped by the authorities. It is clear victimisation. I am not going to sit here and play the game. It is not my game. As my make-up artist on the set of Gubra said, they are beating the drums, let them dance. I do not want to dance. I just want to make films.
Do you think you can handle criticism?
I don't mind people saying my film Sepet was not good enough. But who said it, annoys me. It is not criticism but where it comes from (that) annoys me. By God's blessing, the film went (on) to win the Best Asian Award at the Tokyo Film Festival and the chairman of the jury was Zhang Yimou.
It matters to me (that) he likes it. Nobody can handle criticism. It is bound to affect you. But I am still making films. Whenever I get extreme criticism, I go to Rotten Tomatoes websites. Even brilliant films like All About My Mother and Talk To Her get good and bad reviews. What is Sepet.
Where do you get inspiration?
From real life. From people. Only people interest me. How people handle love and hate and how people choose between the two.
What is the best compliment and worst criticism you have received about your films?
The best compliment is when people say my movies touched them and when they say they see people of different races in the cinema watching my movies. The worst, of course, have been so many and the worst insult to me is that my movies are pencemar budaya.
Some people say you love to push boundaries. For example, in Gubra you have a scene where a bilal touches a dog.
I don't think a bilal touching a dog was pushing the boundaries. I think casting stones at dogs for no apparent reason is pushing boundaries. So my film was in protest of people who pushed the boundaries. I don't do films just to push the boundaries, I just want to tell stories.
What is the greatest misconception people have of Yasmin Ahmad?
That I pushed boundaries. (laughs) ... That I am a rebel. But I am not.
One newspaper has been writing a series of unflattering articles about you. Are you sceptical about the media and journalists now?
Journalism is like other professions. There are good and bad ones (journalists). You would think every doctor is a good person because they are supposed to save lives. But there are doctors who prescribe medicine that is not needed. They tend to gain by this.
Who are the filmmakers you admire and why?
Charlie Chaplin. Because he managed to mix great humour with great human drama. Satyajit Ray for humanity in his films and how he achieved this with small budgets. Pedro Almodovar. Because he always features people who are outcasts and unforgivable and found redeeming qualities in them. I am impressed how forgiving he is of those whom society has not forgiven. Takishi Kitano. Because of the ease he hides the emotions and violence with minimum cuts and minimum scripting.
Any local directors you admire?
Ho Yuhang. Because he portrays the section of Chinese society that does not drive Mercedes-Benz or have a lot of money. He focuses on the poorer Chinese and believe me, they exist! He focuses on them in a very controlled and dispassionate way. He shows me a world I have not seen before.
Osman Ali, because he is not afraid to be sentimental. In the commercial world I admire Kamal Mustapha. He, of course, taught me practically everything I know about films. Contrary to popular belief, he directed most of the Petronas commercials and not me. I just wrote most of the scripts and he encouraged me to direct some of them. I admire him greatly.
Why do you think your movies are so controversial and make people uncomfortable?
I really don't know.
You must must have some idea.
Which is to me anyway, completely unfaithful to real life. In real life, good people have (some) bad in them and bad people have some good in them.
My film Sepet features someone like Orked who reads the Quran and prays and wears baju kurung. She holds the hand of a Chinese boy. Some people wonder how she can read the Quran and pray, and yet fall in love with a Chinese boy.
People don't understand I didn't make Orked out to be an angel. People want my films to feature good people as always good and bad people as always bad.
The person who said in the forum she (Orked) can't be a good Muslim if she goes out with a Chinese boy and holds his hands, I find it very silly.
Gubra shows prostitutes are not all villains. She may be bad for selling her body, but she is a good mother and takes care of her son. The grey area makes people uncomfortable.
We have been showing films and dramas where people are exemplary citizens. Society has not improved. Handbag-snatching is at an all-time high, child rape is at an all-time high and drug addiction has not abated.
Perhaps, featuring people as exemplary citizens has not worked. Perhaps understanding their contradiction might work better.
Some say you only explore human emotions in your movies and you are not a versatile director. What do you say to that?
To be told I have a particular trend in my films is not an insult to me. All the directors I admired have consistent themes in their movies.
People have asked me, why don't I make a war or sci-fi film and prove that I am a versatile filmmaker. I never went into films to be a versatile director. I went into it to examine emotions. If you want versatility, go for somebody else.
Do you get offended when people say you can never get away from Petronas commercials and that your films are long extensions of these commercials?
Not all. Petronas commercials are the most popular commercials in the history of the advertising industry in Malaysia. I would rather my films are long Petronas ads than long detergent ads.
I want to make a film on Dr M. But I am not wise and knowledgeable enough to make this film. It has to be in the hands of Kamal Mustapha.
What is the best moment in your life?
When Sepet won the top award at the 27th Creteil International Women Director Festival in France last year. My parents came on stage with me to get the award. They were so happy. Every time I make my parents happy, I feel God's pleasure.
How would you like to be remembered?
It is not so important to me to be remembered. Ego and arrogance are things that God doesn't approve of. I like people to remember the love and compassion that is so prevalent in my films. Some people choose not to see it. They see other things.
Some directors love it when their movies are controversial. What about you?
It surprises me that my movies are controversial. It surprises me that people are shocked by a Malay girl in a baju kurung going to a party. Going to a party is the not worst thing that a Malay girl in baju kurung has done. My films are so tame compared to real life.
It surprises me when I show a scene of an elderly couple very much in love; people call it obscene.
But, almost on a weekly basis, they watch Malay dramas where husbands betray their wives, marry more than one, shout at their wives and beat them. And this is not shocking?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This one is an older interview, featuring the International Managing Director of Al-Jazeera...
___________________________________
A balancing point of view
Cindy Tham
Qatar-based Al Jazeera International promises to revolutionise television news in the English-speaking world, offering a balancing perspective on news and issues. The 24-hour news and current affairs channel also promises to live up to the tradition set by its Arabic sister channel Al Jazeera, which has gained its fair share of fame as well as notoriety for refusing to 'sanitise' the gory images of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for broadcasting video footage allegedly from Osama bin Laden. Al Jazeera International's managing director Nigel Parsons recently looked in on the Kuala Lumpur centre, one of the four high-definition broadcast centres besides Doha, London and Washington DC. The initial plan to begin broadcasting last month, aiming to reach 40 million homes worldwide from day one, has run into some delay. Parsons talks to CINDY THAM about the challenges at hand as the channel gears up to go on air.
It's a mixture of the building and technological installation. We originally hoped to go on air in late spring. We'd never put an exact date but then, that was always dependent on the building work and the technological installation. I think it is the single most complicated project ever attempted in television in the world.
You mean the high-definition broadcast centres?
It was high-definition, with four centres and all linked by fibre. So it's new software. First, the building work was late. Not a big surprise. If you have ever had a new kitchen fixed, you'd know something's always late. And then, we're waiting for the technological hand-over. So, yeah, there's been some delay. We actually don't think it's particularly important. I think people will judge us by what we produce, and not when we produce it. It's not a huge delay.
And I think to have achieved what we have achieved in a year and a half - to build these four centres and to get them ready for launch, it's phenomenal, it's a huge undertaking - I'm not overly disappointed or overly concerned. I don't think it's a huge issue.
Is the delay in all the four hubs or in specific centres?
The buildings have been a little bit late in all four places. I'm here because the staff are just moving into the new building. Obviously, we have a lot more staff. When I last saw you, we had maybe 10 people and now we've got 60 or 70 and by the time we launch, we'll be nearly 100 here, which is also slightly bigger than we first expected.
It's a few more programming staff, more on the technical and operations side. But we are almost staffed upÉ There's a lot of training under way. Lots of people have been going from here to Doha. We have about 10 people from the office at the moment in Doha doing training on news browse, desktop editing systems, newsroom systems. We're making a lot of paper pilots, we're doing a lot of pre-filming, making documentaries.
Just over the weekend, Al Jazeera International announced the appointment of two weekend presenters at the Kuala Lumpur centre, Divya Gopalan and Hamish MacDonald. They join a team of very seasoned journalists like Sir David Frost, Veronica Pedrosa, Riz Khan. These are all very familiar faces in international news networks. Now, you've said many times before that Al Jazeera International is going to be very different from what we have so far, the CNN, BBC, Sky News. Yet you are relying on a lot of these familiar faces who were trained in or are very accustomed to the conventional TV news that we have been used to. So, how is Al Jazeera International going to be different?
Well, they're joining us for a reason. And, actually, the two people you mentioned as weekend presenters are not internationally known figures. Yes, Veronica is, Teymoor (Nabili) is, but they've joined us for a reason. They've said that they were frustrated previously and the kind of journalism we offer is what they want to do. Veronica, in particular, is very keen on an Asian agenda and an Asian perspective, which is what we offer, which is why we built these four broadcast centres.
I think we are a mix of experiences, and a big part of our philosophy once we get on air is actually to be training local people in the regions where we are, which should offer lots of opportunities for the people here. Just for the launch, we can't go with all inexperienced people. It's too complicated. And the pool of talent just in Malaysia, for example, of people whose written and spoken English and whose television experience is good enough to go on the international stage, it's a big step up. Once we're on air, we will have training programmes, we will be bringing people up to speed.
So we've gone for that mixture. And in the office here, we have employees from China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Korea. So we have a big spread.
And the thing about David Frost is, he's not a member of (the) staff. He's been contracted to make a certain number of programmes over a certain period. It's a once-a-week show. So, yes, he's a big name but that's one show a week. There are lots more besides.
Well, you've said before that Al Jazeera International will be different from the BBC, CNN, otherwise there will be no point in setting it up. So does this mean that with a different outfit, the same journalists could actually present news in a different way?
Well, I would argue strongly that we're not the same journalistsÉ We are based in the Middle East looking out. The Middle East is the world's hot spot. We work very closely with the Arabic channel. We share video, we share planning, we share offices across the world, and we'll have access to all of each other's content...
The example I'll give you this morning - if you look at all the main organisations now - take the Iran nuclear story. Actually no one in the Middle East wants anyone to have any nuclear weapon, at all, ideally. However, when you see that story reported at the moment, it is always, you know, "Iran nuclear threat". That is the angle of the story. If you are sitting in Teheran, in Iran, they're thinking, "Oh, how come Israel can have it, how come India can have it, and we can't?" There's no balance to that story. Pakistan isn't allowed it, India is. Israel is allowed it, Iran isn't.
And actually, if you're sitting in Iran, you know, they are surrounded by potential enemies. They've been invaded more than once over the last 100 years. I don't think they've actually ever invaded anybody else. So, from their perspective, there's a lot of double standards at play. I think we would offer that alternative view. We would turn that around.
And similarly, when we are here in Kuala Lumpur, we are offering viewers an Asian perspective on world events. So I don't think it's fair to say that we are entirely staffed up by people from those organisations. We have across the Middle East, by and large, Arabic staff. You're also forgetting that half the channel is programming and programming is, we are a commissioning house.
That's a very interesting (approach). I mean, if there's one theme and you take one subject, you get contributions from all the different offices, you get to understand that there are four different perspectives or more on these stories. We run a unique commissioning website so that any producer anywhere in the world can pitch an idea to us and if we like it, we'll commission it off the website. So, you know, I strongly disagree with you about just copying the others.
I guess it's because, you know, when you look at the line-up of anchors you have appointed, the first impression one would get is these are people who used to be at the BBC or CNN...
...or Abu Dhabi TV, or Dubai TV, or ...
Right, fair enough.
We have a huge mix but the thing is that we are taking on the heritage of Al Jazeera. We are a sister channel of an existing channel. We have the same code of ethics. We share the same editorial guidelines. We are not a completely different beast. We have a wider world audience that we are aiming at, with a different language, but we are sister channels and we share the same ethos. That's why we will be the authority on the Middle East, helping you understand what's going on there because that's where we are. Even though I'm living there, yes I'm not an Arab, however I'm working with my Arab counterpart. He helps me understand some of what's going on under the surface. And that will be respected.
Are there certain expectations that Al Jazeera the Arabic channel has of Al Jazeera International, because you are a spin-off of that channel? Are there certain standards that are expected of Al Jazeera International and also concerns that because it is staffed by a team of - for lack of a better term - Western journalists and managers, it may be quite different from Al Jazeera?
I think they are legitimate concerns and we are addressing them, those who are already now working on a daily basis with the Arabic channel. There are various team-building, relationship-building initiatives under way... Of course, we are acutely aware that we could damage the brand, if you like. And that's what people are concerned about, I think, on the Arabic side; some, not all. Concerns have been expressed but I can assure you, and we have assured these people who have expressed the concerns, that we are not there to dilute the brand. We are there to take their spirit of journalism to a wider world audience.
There were concerns also that certain words that are loaded with moral or political meaning like jihad have been used by the Arabic channel. I understand that, well you have been reported to have said, that there's a stylebook that Al Jazeera International wants to set up...
Yeah, we are working together, both channels. We will share. There are some words that when you translate from Arabic to English, they have a completely different meaning or they carry a moral judgment. I mean, it's very difficult to use the word "suicide bomber" in Arabic.
There isn't an equivalent or a direct translation?
If you translate it directly, it carries a moral judgment, and as a news organisation, that's not our job... One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Am I going to call him a "terrorist" or am I going to call him a "freedom fighter"? I'm going to find something that does not judge him.
So this is a stylebook that is going to shared by Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera International?
Well, we're working together because if we're going to be in two different languages, we need to understand precisely those kinds of issues. In English, a "suicide bomber" is a suicide bomber. In Arabic, it carries a different meaning altogether. We need to understand that ... maybe we won't use that word in English. We haven't made that call yet. We wouldn't use the word "martyr" either... What do you call the people in Iraq? Do you call them "resistance fighters", do you call them "armed groups", do you call them "insurgents" ... ?
Other than diction, are there other issues that Al Jazeera International would want to put emphasis on, considering how you have critics watching your every move, every word, every footage?
Yeah, we are under close scrutiny, there's no doubt about it. We are aware of it but we're quite confident our journalists will be free, impartial and accurate. What we're after is to connect with the street, if you like, which is what the Arabic channel has so successfully done. They've managed to address the concerns of ordinary people. They are not just following the agenda that's set by the politicians. They are not afraid to ask difficult questions. They don't go out looking deliberately for controversy but they're not frightened of it either.
But the geographic location (of the news organisation) isn't necessarily what would determine one's understanding of the problem. I'm curious, I mean, you don't have to be in Qatar to see that (what's happening in Israel and Palestine).
So you think Al Jazeera International will be able to fill that gap or vacuum?
Absolutely! That's what we'll do. That's exactly the gap we're going into and we think it's a very good environment for us. We do think this vacuum has been created and it was particularly apparent during the invasion of Iraq. I don't think the major organisations have really recovered from that.
Today is World Press Freedom Day (May 3). You've been in this profession and industry for, oh, more than 30 years... From where you're coming from, how do you think the state of press freedom and the standard of journalism have evolved, or have been affected by international events or influenced by development?
I actually think, from a broadcast perspective, we're not talking about the print media here, I think we're in a fairly difficult time. I think the main broadcasters in the United States have been cowed by this administration. It's almost like the Russian media in the 70s. They're frightened of the administration. The Russian media is still the Russian media in the 70s. They came forward a little bit in the 80s and 90s and now they've gone right back to state control.
That is why it is a good environment for us. I think this word "globalisation" has tended to impact not just trade but also the media. There's this tendency to think we should all have the same standards, you know, one size fits all, the smaller world, et cetera, et cetera. Personally I disagree with that very strongly. I think we should be celebrating our differences and respecting our differences.
And, if you like, Al Jazeera would like to make the world a bigger place again, not a smaller place. We would go against that trend and I think journalists have kind of fallen into that trap, broadcasters in particular, all following each other...
I think it's a very dangerous time for journalists. The casualty rate is just phenomenal. That's an absolute tragedy. People taking huge risks. If you look at the number that has been killed in Iraq, it's just unbelievable. When I was in the field, particularly in conflict zones, journalists did die or get wounded but it tended to be by accident. These days, journalists are targets.
The target groups - decision-makers, professionals, people aged 20 to 35 - these have, according to you (in a past interview) shown particular interest in a channel like Al Jazeera International. What are the concerns that they have and what is it that Al Jazeera International will be able to give them?
I'd probably go back to my earlier answer that there's this disconnect, if you like, that's happening between the political leaders and the people on the street. It's reflected across the world and voting figures really, particularly in the Western world. I think people will watch us because we will be revolutionising viewer choice and offering up a different menu. There's a strong feeling at the moment that they're not getting the whole story. I think we'll have a big curiosity turn-on because of that and hopefully they will stay with us when they see the product.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And this is what really sparks my courage to speak up...
________________________________________
Dialogue of civilisations
INTERNATIONALLY known intellectual and social activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar, who celebrated his 59th birthday recently, believes that people, especially the more erudite among the middle class, should speak up on issues currently confronting the nation. They should not leave completely to the politicians the course this nation should take. Kedah-born Chandra is still as committed to the cause of social justice as he was when as a young academician three decades ago he founded Aliran. He remained its guiding light until 1992 when left to form JUST, the International Movement for a Just World. He left the academic world when his contract as professor-cum-director at the Centre for Civilizational Dialogue, University of Malaya, was not renewed. There was a politically vocal middle class once but now it is by and large tame and timid, the former academician told ZAINON AHMAD and MARIA J. DASS.
theSun: You have been a social activist for a long time, first in Aliran for one and a half decades and since 1992 as Just president. You were an academician as well but now you are a full-time social activist. Why?
The other reason why I've always had the urge to commit myself is because of certain instances in my own past. It may have something to do with the fact that my own father was a very public-spirited person. He established the first English school in Bidong, Kedah, set up a home for the destitute and at the same time he ran the local council there. And that made an impact on me.
Now the other elements from my own background was the fact that I was stricken with polio at the age of four and it made me very sensitive to human suffering wanting to do what one could to eliminate human suffering.
Politicians did not like you very much when you were in Aliran. You openly criticised government policies. Former PM Tun Mahathir Mohamad was one of those who took exception to your criticism of him that during the 1986 general elections he said if you wanted to criticise the government then you must enter politics. But you were not intimidated and continued to speak up. Do you think that was one reason why you were arrested in Operation Lallang?
I see Operasi Lallang introspectively as a move by the government - the Mahathir leadership - to ensure that the expanding middle class would not become too independent in its thinking. Of the 180 people who were arrested under Operasi Lallang, quite a lot of them were from professional and academic backgrounds. And I would interpret Operasi Lallang, apart from its other aims, it may have been prompted by the internal politics in Umno, the Umno election of 1987 where there was team A and team B and things that were very much in the public arena then like the Chinese schools issue and so on. But you also have an increasingly vocal middle class, they are the ones who attend Aliran functions and the functions of other NGOs and the middle class was just beginning to assert their independence, think for themselves - the power to be part of politics. This is what I call citizens politics. It is different from party politics - you don't have to be a member of a political party to stand for elections. As citizens they have a right to be concerned with what's happening to the country and this is what we were doing.
So citizens politics was beginning to grow and develop and people were becoming more and more concerned about issues and speaking up, and at that moment in time Operasi Lallang was a way of stopping the growth of an independent, autonomous, thinking society.
But this autonomous middle class - does it exist now?
A: I don't think so. I think our middle class intelligensia here is still weak. In terms of numbers, we have a big middle class but a lot of people don't speak up. And the sort of activism we see in other countries and even our neighbours with middle class communities which in proportional terms are smaller than our middle class in Malaysia, but we find that they have is much greater activism in some of these societies compared to Malaysia.
Why do you think this is so? Why don't people speak up for instance or indulge in public debate on government policies.
Operasi Lallang is one of the reasons. There are other reasons which I think are more important. We are ethnically divided. It's one of the reasons why we haven't been able to crystalise that sort of middle class which has that sort of commitment to democratic values, egalitarian values and so on. It's partly because we are ethnically divided.
Maybe also because we are fairly properous?
Yes, that too. We are fairly prosperous and when you have a prosperous middle class which at the same time does not have a certain intellectual history behind it, they don't have a certain tradition of dissent, of speaking up, they don't have such values and you have all this prosperity around you ... I suppose you are lulled into complacency and that's what happened to our middle class. Our prosperity has played a role, our ethnic situation has played a role and the absence of a certain history has actually created a situation which confronts us today - a middle class which is by and large tame and timid.
Many people were quite surprised when you entered politics. Would you rather forget those years when you were in it?
So what happened to myself and a number of others was not unusual. We were just responding to that situation.
I was there for two and a half years - in party politics - and I learnt things about politics which I didn't learn in political science course in the universities (laughs). When you join a party, you learn a few things about politics while you are there in the arena - you learn a lot of things -things that you may not be aware of if you didn't join politics.
And you didn't like that?
No, I didn't like that. We've always known that in politics you are more concerned with power than anything else, but I think you have to get into the ring to see what it really means - this obsession with power. It's actually the major preoccupation of politicians, it's not the ideals which they spout from time to time ... their real obsession is power, and I thinks it is very difficult to hold down certain principals in party politics. You have to compromise all the while, you have to adjust to various situations and you have to be very, very partisan in your outlook...but sometimes by becoming overly partisan you become unjust to the realities, the truth as you see it.
You want to articulate the truth but you can't, because you got a partisan position to take. And you have to adhere to that partisan position, this I think is part of the problem where you have to be very, very partisan to a point where you sacrifice truth.
At the same time you have to compromise on your principals, you can't run away from that. All the while you have to make compromises in party politics.
If you want to survive you have to be like the others. You've have to make power your central goal.you can't be talking about idealistic principals and so on it's power.
But don't you think you need to get power first before you could implement your ideas and goals?
That's true. Unless one gets into party politics, unless you are part of that game where you acquire power, you will not be able to bring about certain changes. I suppose that is sort of a dilemma you would like someone else to grapple with.
If you were asked to write a book on Dr Mahathir maybe ten years from now, how would your evaluation of him be like?
Any evaluation of Dr Mahathir like an evaluation of any leader who has made a very big impact on society should be balanced and not for or against him. You have to take into account his strengths, his weaknesses you have to be balanced to convince people that it is a sort of evaluation which is not motivated by bias, because the reality is that there are good things he has done for the country which one cannot ignore and there are also things which have happened that one could define as negative. So it will be a balanced evaluation if I would have to do an evaluation in ten years' time.
He was big on infrastructure, wasn't he?
Yes. I would certainly acknowledge what he has done for infrastructure development of the country which has been an important contribution to people's well being. The roads, the ports the infrastructure development was remarkable.
He's also helped to bring about certain transformations to society like the expansion and the strengthening of the middle class under his tutelage. At the same time you see the growth of the Malay middle class. If you look at the situation in the 60's and 70's, it's a tremendous achievement and it has helped assimilation in the country. Because if a very big segment of the Malay community had remained poor, I don't think there would have been inter-ethnic peace or harmony in our country. That sort of transformation, I think is very important and Dr Mahathir pushed very hard for it. His foreign policy was also studious and staid in a sense that he was always very conscious of our independence and sovereignty at a time when the global situation had become less hospitable to that sort of attempt to maintain our independence and sovereignty.
Almost 10 - 12 years into his stewardship the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War had come to an end and we had a unipolar world and politics. Most countries have succumbed to unipolar politics, but Malaysia had succeeded in keeping its independence and voicing out its opinions on what is happening in the world - whether on Bosnia, Palestine, Iraq and that has been remarkable.
He has also the man who was partly responsible for the expansion of Asean ---- as an entity that covered the entire region. It was also quite an achievement, because despite certain weaknesses in governments like Myanmar you cannot run away from the fact that a regional entity that encompasses the whole of South East Asia, is an achievement and it has given strength and identity to the region.
What were those things he did you would define as negative?
On the negative side, we should be concerned with the growth of corruption. During his tenure - corruption had become more serious. He may have been concerned of corruption but I don't think there were any sort of concrete measures he took to fight corruption. We should be concerned also with the emasculation of the judiciary and obliterating of the media the and other institutions which are important for any democratic country. Parliament was also very much under the thumb of the executive. We had overwhelming executive dominance during his stewardship, and while we were able to operate society, groups and so on these were under the sufferance of the powers that be. So I think that this was something we are not very happy about.
If you look at the economic side, yes infrastructure development was good but don't forget that the income inequities in this country is also quite serious.
Malaysia has one of the worst income inequities in the Asia Pacific region between people right at the top and those of the bottom.
Of course we have reduced absolute poverty which is good --- official figure is about 5%, maybe more --- but whatever it is, the real challenge is not absolute poverty, it's relative poverty and that's the real challenge. In other words people who can make ends meet and so on but given the situation today, you have what I like to describe as a growing gap between the have-a-lots and the have-a-little. It's not have and have-nots. This gap has grown over the last 10 to 15 years and that's serious and that's something that was not attended to.
What about ethic relations under him?
Because of a certain degree of economic success we had managed to blunt some of the sharper edges in relations between communities, but at the same time we cannot deny that we are still a very divided nation. People still operate very much within their own little ethnic cocoons whether it is politics, economics, education --- you see this everywhere.
You talked about the overwhelming executive power. Do you think there are signs that the present government is gradually dismantling this?
Having said that I think the Malaysian public has every right to be disappointed. The pace of change has been slow, elite corruption is still a challenge and though there is a certain degree of freedom where the media is concerned, I don't think they dare to investigate certain cases --- it's something which will not happen.
I supposed there are problems even now and ethnic relations I don't have become any worse but I don't think it has improved either, there are more challenges -- polarisations, people adopting a very communal position and seeing challenges from within their own sectarian ethnic perspective. And justice is seen through the prism of a particular community and interpreted of course by the opinionated.
You are involved in civilisational dialogue than when you were at the Centre for Civilisational Dialouge --- with more passion in fact. Do you think you can make the difference?
One has to continue to dialogue, one has to continue to engage the other. One has to continue to continue to get rid of prejudices, stereotypes which colour and condition relations between civilizations, cultures and so on.
You have to continue to find common ground, you have to continue to articulate shared values. It is important because you have to realize that this is one human family, you can't run away from that. I'm talking of a human family in a global sense. A common humanity, it's a challenge which is going to last for a long, long while.
It's going to take generations to arrive at this point. To instil that this common human identity of ours is far more important than individual, or community, or militant or nationality, but this common human identity is what really counts.
That is what civilisational dialogue is all about --- an attempt to reach that point.
In view of all this talk about clashes of civilizations and what the religious zealots and extremists are doing, don't you think that is tough going?
It is. No way one is going to see it in one's lifetime, and all that what we can do is to make a small, modest contribution towards this process of building bridges.
It's going to be very, very difficult and what is made difficult and this challenge has been there for a while. You cannot have meaningful interaction between cultures, communities, civilisations if there's no respect, if you don't recognise the other as your equal. The whole concept of the other it can be cultural, can be religious, can be linguistics, can be civilisation, but you must be prepared to respect the other you must be prepared to see the other as your equal.
That is not possible in a situation where there is asymmetric power, that is so overwhelming at this point.
Please explain.
If you look at the global situation you will find that there is a small elite not confined to any particular country, that dominates and rules the world. These are the rulers of the world. So how can you have a dialogue in a situation where you have this coterie, this elite right at the helm and the rest of us (the whole of humanity) is at their mercy. You can't really have a dialogue.
It reminds me of what Tolstoy, the Russian philosopher, said: "I sit on a person's back and I want all that is good for him. I'll do everything to help him except get off his back". You can't possibly have a dialogue in that sort of situation --- when you're sitting on someone's back. You have to have a dialogue of equals.
But that doesn't mean that one should not continue to dialogue just because you have an unequal situation. You have to go on talking, persuading and showing what the situation is like. You just have to continue.
Coping with a troubled world
theSun: After the Sept 11 incident, Muslims seem to be under siege. It seems Muslims everywhere are reeling from the onslaught of this war on terror. Why do you think they are not rallying and fighting back? Is it for lack of leadership?
I think there are two questions here, one is Muslims under siege. I think it's true. It's something that's real. We're not talking of a situation where Muslims are perceived to be under siege. It is real in a sense that we are part of this global system that we talked about a while ago - which is very unequal and they see certain things happening that convince them that the whole system is against them.
You look at Palestine for instance. Palestinians had their own land taken over by someone else, they've been expelled from their land, killed and persecuted. They are under siege in that sense.
Look at Iraq - invaded, occupied so they feel under siege. Look at Afghanistan and look at the way Muslim minorities are harmed and harassed in different parts of the world and how they become the target as it were of hegemonic power that dominates the globe. Muslims feel that they are not treated well and they are marginalised.
But why don't they respond?
Now if you say that Muslims are not responding to this challenge that is not altogether true. There is a response, except it is the sort of response that we are not comfortable with.
Al Qaeda is responding, Osama is responding to this challenge. If you look at the birth of Al Qaeda, when did Al Qaeda come into being?
It came into being after the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia, this is when Al Qaeda announced to the world that it was going to fight the United States of America. This was after the US bases in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - and you know that one of the first strikes was the Dhahran air base.
So the Al Qaeda responded, Osama's response is also through violence, because as far as they are concerned there is no other way.
It was hopeless. So if you want to liberate your land, if you want to push out the invader you just have to fight, you have to resort to violence. But we know violence is not the solution, because violence begets violence. ClichĹ˝ maybe, but its true. It's something that should not be ignored.
Even from a strategic perspective the sort of violence that Al Qaeda is engaged in offers them hope in the short term or the long run. If you look at Sept 11, if it is Al Qaeda which is responsible for Sept 11. They decide to destroy a symbol of American global power, economic power and the symbol of global military power (the Pentagon), they killed almost 3,000 people but what have they accomplished?
They got their short thrill but it is the US which benefitted the most.
Yes. As a result of Sept 11, the US managed to topple the Taliban regime, but even more significant after toppling the Taliban regime they extended their tentacles over the entire Central Asian region - the five Central Asian republics. They've got bases in two of them today and they have agreements with all countries in that region. The US wanted an oil and gas pipe line from a Central Asian republic to a white water port. They couldn't do this when the Taliban was there but now they have succeeded in getting this done.
That's as far as Afghanistan is concerned. They accomplished this after Sept 11 and in other words expanded their military growth.
If you look at Iraq, again using the war on terror and weapons of mass destruction which is linked to terror and all that, they go to Iraq and invade and occupy Iraq - the world's second biggest oil exporter and as a result of controlling Iraq they also control another vital resource in the middle east that becomes more important in the future- water.
Iraq, one country which has the richest water resource in the entire region, they control that. It is expected that future wars will be over water. If you look at the strategic location of Iraq in Central and West Asia, it's a very strategic country.
The conservative government in Washington argue that water is very important as far as their attempt to re-do the map of the Middle East is concerned, which is what they are trying to do, which has given them an excuse to move into Iraq, re-do the map of the Middle East as a result of what you had done.
Sept 11 gave them the perfect excuse - that the US is under threat of being attacked, so we have protect ourselves from terrorists, from people who want to destroy our way of life - this is the rhetoric, this is the political propaganda they use.
They are able to use this rhetoric because of the foolish actions of people like Osama who have given them an excuse to expand their empire.
There's no doubt at all that the war on terror has become a very convenient excuse to expand their empire.
Even nearer home. Straits of Malacca, for instance. The Philippines, which once chased them out, have welcomed them back.
Yes, their war on terror has been expanded to the Straits of Malacca, except that the littoral states - two of them at least - Malaysia and Indonesia have been resistant, but they want control over the Straits of Malacca.
They returned to the Southern Philippines after Sept 11. They were forced out of Clark airbase after the fall of Marcos, but now they have returned. Again post Sept 11.
So if you look back at all the moves in various places, the war on terror has become a very, very convenient excuse for expanding the tentacles of the empire. That's why I think that in some respects Al Qaeda and the others have been very, very foolish.
What about the inability of other Muslims to respond?
I think this is very important, in a situation where you have one type of response - a response presented by Osama; other Muslims who are not happy with this should turn to their governments and say what is your response. Are you standing up? Are you speaking up? Are you getting together? Mobilising your resources and strengths? Are you saying that we won't allow certain things? That's not happening.
That's because I think a number of Muslim governments are very close to the empire builders and they are a part of the empire. This is what a lot of Muslims don' t realise - that they also helped to facilitate the expansion of the empire.
Let's ask ourselves very simple questions, would the invasion of Iraq have taken place without the support of some of Iraq's neighbours. They allow their airbases and territories to be used.
You know that they have these elites in the Gulf region and elsewhere - they have colluded with the empire builders.
So for a lot of Muslims this is something which has caused a great amount of disillusionment with their leaders, that their leaders don't stand out, in fact they help to oppress the masses of this world, through their collusion with the empire builders. This is why some of the militant groups are not only targeting Washington, London or Tel Aviv, they are also targeting their own governments and they make no bones about it.
So this is part of the problem. If you are looking for leadership from other segments of the ummah - I don't see any leadership. The absence of the leadership I think has contributed to the situation that we are in. It has exacerbated the crisis. The absence of leadership that can use democratic channels, to be able to negotiate and use diplomacy to bring about some changes.
Now I'm not saying that if there were these approaches, changes would take place. In fact there will be people that argue that if you look at what the international institutions have become, even if you use these channels there is no hope of change taking place.
If you look at the United Nations (UN) after 60 years, attempts to reform the UN didn't work.
We have talked about reforms when the UN was 50 years old, 60 years old we talked about reforms - nothing had happened.
Basic power structure remains the same - security council, veto, dominance of the powerful, the 10% veto being ineffective.
Look at other institutions related to the UN - the World Bank. Since the 1998 financial crisis in the region people have been talking about financial architecture - not a single reform has taken place after 1998.
World Bank's fundamental role is to eradicate global poverty but the World bank has not been successful in this. In fact it has contributed to poverty in some instances.
Nothing has happened. Look at the WTO (World Trade Organisation), look at the difficulties of negotiating a global trade agreement, the Doha rounds - it's still going on. You look at all the international institutions, look at attempts to curb nuclear weapons - total failure, no progress, nothing.
Every institution that we look at the situation is not hopeful. Which is what makes one very, very pessimistic about the future because if these institutions don't work, then you are just strengthening the militants because they assume nothing works at the global level.
We should not allow this sort of situation to develop, because what is going to happen is that you have these militants on one hand and you have others that also use violence and terror - meaning the global hegemonic powers will also use violence and terror as in the case of Iraq. So you have two forces pitted against each other. Both believe that violence is the only way. You conquer and then you respond to that conquest also with violence. This will only lead the world to its destruction.
The situation in Iran, which is standing up to the Americans. Could it also end up like Iraq?
The situation in Iraq is very, very bad. The situation is very, very difficult in Iraq. This I think will dissuade the US from trying anything in Iran. Don't forget that 60% of the Muslims in Iran are Shi'ite. Now if you move against Iran, it will inflame passions in Iraq and the Shi'ite population - because of their supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Sistani. He has been able to hold them back up to this point. In fact they have cooperated with the US. As far as the occupation is concerned it is the Sunnis that have been resisting the occupation. But if the US invades Iran then I think the Shi'ite population in Iraq will respond.
There are many other factors, because Iran is different from Iraq - in terms of nuclear facilities and camouflage, I think they are much better than Iraq. In 1981 Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in a unilateral strike.
Nonetheless if you believe in world domination, if you are the type that has been miscalculating all the while, you can miscalculate again and go to war in Iran - it can happen.
This is also where the Iranian leadership can be more strategic in its response, meaning they should look at the situation carefully and see what is possible, what it can do, what its long-term gains would be.
Iran in some ways has done fairly well in strengthening its position in the region and if you look at what has happened in Iraq, what has happened in Lebanon, what has happened in Afghanistan, in all these countries you will find that the Shi'ite segment of society which was oppressed and suppressed in one way or the other, they have re-emerged. Iraq is one example as a result of the fall of Saddam. In the case of Lebanon you will find that the Shi'ites have become a very, very important factor now, because it was the Shi'ites under the Hezbollah that succeeded in defeating the Israeli army in certain parts of Lebanon and they have become politically very important.
In Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban - the Taliban oppressed the Shi'ites - you find the Shi'ites have a role in Afghan politics. So the Shi'ite factor has re-emerged and this favours Iran. So Iran has to think about all of this rather than gauge the situation where there is a war and Iran is pulverised, even if you are no pulverised you pay the price in one way or another if there is a war. So I think Iran should avoid a military confrontation.
That's where I think wisdom and strategy become more important than just sort of a reactive approach.
In the case of the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish newspapers. Do you think Muslims over-reacted?
One should not be surprised that Muslims reacted because of their love for the Prophet which is deep and profound as far as Muslims are concerned. This is something Muslims - doesn't matter what their school of thought or community is - their love is profound.
But the reaction in some parts of the Muslim world to my mind merely helped to reinforce the stereotypes about Muslims. Why do I say this? Because they reacted in a violent manner. If the purpose of the cartoons was to depict Islam as a violent religion - because way the Prophet was depicted - but by reacting in a violent manner, you are just reinforcing the stereotypes. I think it was very foolish to react in that manner. I remember telling people at a meeting in Doha, right in the midst of this cartoon crisis a few weeks ago that maybe when the Danish imams first responded to the cartoons at the end of 2005. What they should have done is to say, hey look these cartoons ... you talk of freedom of expression ... we demand media space to respond to what you have done.
Write to this newspaper, other Danish newspapers and maybe other papers in Europe, explaining why Muslims feel this way about the Prophet and why this depiction of the Prophet as the head of a violent religion is a travesty of justice. We should explain why this is a travesty of justice. It's so easy to explain. Look at the whole history of Islam. Look at the history and life of the Prophet himself - how he responded to taunts, insults and attacks - physical attacks upon his person.
Outside Mecca once he was taunted and assaulted, but he refused to react. This was the mark of a human being and this is something people should understand. You want to defend the honour of the Prophet but you are not prepared to emulate the Prophet. This is so wrong. The way some of them reacted was wrong. There are other ways to respond to insults of this sort. Why does one have to be so violent, at least some of them. I want to emphasise that a lot of Muslims also reacted in a very rational way but there were also Muslims who reacted in a very irrational manner.
There seems to be a lot of signs of ethnic tensions in our country. Why do you think this is happening?
Tensions I suppose one could classify into two categories, one is tensions which are the product of specific instances, like what we see now, tensions of that sort. Number two is what we should be more concerned about - tensions which are manifestations of deep-seated problems between communities.
Now some of the incidents, episodes over the last few weeks and months related to the way in which Islam is perceived by certain circles, Muslims and non-Muslims looking at Islam in a certain way. I think this has contributed to it. Which I think really underscores the importance of developing a better understanding of each other's religion and culture. Indepth understanding of one another - this has not happened at all in our country. We have remained - this is a cliche that I have used for a very long time - a nation of strangers.
We know a few things about each other's culture, religion but in-depth understanding is not there and this I think has to be developed. For instance Syariah law, because this has been at the centre of some of the incidents of late. Let's look at the non-Muslim reaction to Syariah. We're not talking about masses. We're talking about lawyers, professionals, academics and others - there is a knee jerk reaction against the Syariah among non-Muslims in this country. When you mention Syariah - oh! it's wrong! it's bad! cannot have the Syariah! and so on. I think one needs to be a little more balanced in one's approach. One needs to say let's find out what this is all about. A lot of non-Muslim lawyers in this country for instance know nothing about the Syariah and yet they tend to react all the while to the Syariah without understanding.
This is to my mind a good example of legal illiteracy as far as a system of law is concerned. The Syariah has got a very long history behind it and it is something that has evolved over time. There are some wonderful principles in the Syariah if you look at it in-depth - almost every area of life.
So among the educated we don't have such a balanced view. With civil law there may be some differences or similarities - let's try to understand. Now that's one side.
On the Muslim side, you find a lot of Muslim professionals and their response to Syariah is that it is divine law. You must not forget that 90% of Syariah is a product of historic evolution. It is made by human beings over a period of time, by great jurists who in their historical context looked at certain principles and tried to understand. Because I find that the laws they made and edicts they came out with, the rules that they produced was their attempt to apply their minds to their setting - over a long period of time.
What we call Fiqh (jurisprudence) in Islam is a product of evolution. It is the roots of the Syariah that are in the Quran which one would regard as divine. Certain underlying principles and values in the Quran pertaining to human conduct which one would regard as divine, but not all the rules and regulations that were developed over a long period of time.
So I think Muslims must also approach the Syariah in a more evaluative manner and look at it in terms of its strengths. Syariah as it applies to the 21st century - what is it that you can apply today, what is it that you can't apply today - there should be that sort of attitude that one doesn't see amongst the Muslims in this country. You have sort of a blind, unthinking approach on one side, and you have a knee jerk reaction on the other and this doesn't help ethnic relations.
It's not the episodes from time to time that concerns me - these are merely part of the symptoms. I think what really concerns me is that as religion impacts more and more upon daily life - and it's going to happen. Way back in the early 80's when I wrote a book about the signs of Islamic resurgence in Malaysia, I said in that book that religion was going to become a major new divider in our society in the future. This is why it is going to happen. As religion becomes more and more important people are going to coalesce on religion. If you don't have an enlightened approach towards religion then imagine what the consequences will be in a society like ours and I think this is what is happening. That religion is becoming more and more important not just in this country but also all around the world.
In Malaysia we know why it has become a more important identity marker because if you look at the Malay community, in 60's it was language but as the 70's and 80's unfolded religion had become a more important identity marker. Why? Because the Malay language had become more of a common language.
So religion has become an identity marker and this is why you find more and more issues related to religion. When we talk to ethnic polarisation - people not mixing with one another, Muslim kids not going to non-Muslim homes, non-Muslim kids not going to Muslim homes, ethic relations and so on.
Many of these issues are related to what I regard as a superficial understanding of religion. The problem is not with religion as such but the way you understand religion. That Islam does not prohibit people from interacting with one another. It does not prohibit people from establishing close bonds with people who are from a different religion.
All the more reason why we should have interfaith dialogues. Doesn't Islam encourage this?
Of course it does. In fact if you look at the history, this is the first religion in history to have encouraged interfaith dialogue.
The first major work on interfaith dialogue was was written by a Muslim by the name of Al-Biruni who died in 1051. Very famous thinker who wrote this classic work called kitab Al-Hindh which was on Hinduism. One of the things he said in that book was that you must put yourself in the shoes of the other person to understand about his religion É, which is a profound statement and he made out various principles of interfaith interaction. If you look at the first encyclopaedia of religions, it is also an encyclopaedia produced by a Muslim known as As-Shahrastani who lived in the 12th century. He was one of the first persons to write an encyclopaedia on religions. It also discussed the Buddha and Buddhism with a great deal of understanding and objectivity. He probed the five precepts - the Panchasila and the 10 precepts the Dashasila.
Look at the openness, but today you find that Muslims are afraid of dialogue, they are afraid of interactions, which is the Islamic heritage. In terms of dialogue, interaction, understanding and so on things have changed greatly, which is a pity. In our society it's because we are a stature and identity based society - a society that is so preoccupied with ethnic identity. It is something that permeates our entire society. This is the problem. You can only transcend that if you begin to see the other as also a human being like you and if you begin to understand this common bond which is the sort of understanding they had at that time.
What of our efforts at interfaith dialogue?
I think that the people who pushed for the idea also bungled. I think that it is an idea which is important. This country of all countries should be at the forefront of interfaith dialogue and interaction. In fact, if I may mention - Muslims that really know Islam are not afraid of interfaith dialogue. The former president of Iran Mohammed Khatami had set up an international institute for the dialogue of cultures and civilisations after he finished his term as president. It had a centre in Tehran before and now he decided to set up an international centre for the dialogue of culture and civilisations and he has asked me to be member of the governing council. This will be based in Tehran.
I feel that our society, multiracial and multireligious, should take the lead in these kinds of things, but we have failed. And others like Iran which is 98% Muslim, you have a president who is actually a distinguished scholar and philosopher, who sees the importance of this sort of dialogue and understanding. It is not just getting to know one another, it is understanding humanity and feeling that there is a common human bond and that is what dialogue is all about.
