Agreeing to disagree

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Selangor and Johor muftis are both of the opinion that the recent burning of dead bodies in Aceh is wrong from the Islamic point of view. The Perak mufti and head of the Fatwah Council however share the opposite view.

Who are right and who are wrong? This has been the subject of ‘hot’ debates in the media over the last couple of days.


Today, I am not going to upset my critics by taking sides in this ‘conflict’ of religious opinions. Suffice that I have already raised enough controversy to warrant my burning at the stake. What I wish to point out is there are certainly differing views in both politics and religion, the only two topics that Malays in particular and Malaysians in general would argue till the cows come home and still not come to a consensus.

And what is wrong with this? Must we always agree on everything? The fact that the 6 billion or so inhabitants of this earth profess different religions (or have no religion) means man can never agree. If not, then we would all be of one religion (or all have no religion). And the same goes for politics, and there are more political parties than religions.

Being able to differ and respect the other person’s opposing point of view is a sign of maturity. Malaysians, however, never mind whether they be Malays or otherwise, cannot tolerate the other person’s opinion. “I am right and you are wrong,” is the normal pigheaded stance that Malaysians would normally take.

If the other person disagrees with my view, then he must be ignorant is the attitude the majority of Malaysians have. Why do we assume we are always right and the other person is wrong and that his ‘error’ is an indication of his lack of knowledge? Could it not possibly be the other way around?

Malaysia Today is an issue-driven ‘news’ website as opposed to the traditional or mainstream events-driven websites that mainly report conventional news and happenings. Further to that, Malaysia Today also allows readers to post their views and comments and debate the issues. But the majority of readers still do not grasp the meaning of debate as postings by readers in Malaysia Today these last couple of months have shown.

One example is Kirdatun Borhan’s column, Batu Giling. This 27-year old still single lady (according to what she tells me) is certainly controversial. She asked me whether this is a Reformasi website and I said ‘no’. She asked me whether this is really a ‘no holds barred’ website and I said ‘yes’. She asked me whether I will practice full freedom of expression with absolutely no censorship and I said ‘yes’. So she is using this space to express her views openly, with no holds barred, and absolutely no censorship.

Of course, she has her views and others have theirs. Have you heard the joke, ‘opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one’? So, we all have opinions and sometimes these opinions are in line with others’ and sometimes they are not. But what do we do if they aren’t?

Malaysia Today’s readers have a ‘classic’ way to deal with those who express opposite views to our own; we are rude and we insult them. That only demonstrates our immaturity, our inability to engage, our lack of debating skills, and our intolerance to views other than our own. It is also a very pompous attitude we hold where we think we are always right and others are wrong.

In the 1960s, some in the Chinese business community felt that the Malays were being left too far behind in the economic arena and unless something was done this would create a social problem whereby it could spread to racial problems. These Chinese approached their community leader then, Tun Tan Siew Sin, and proposed that a sort of plan be adopted whereby the Malays could be elevated to the economic level of the Chinese, or at least higher than what it was then.

Siew Sin rejected the idea. This was the view of a small group of Chinese businessmen, not the view of the majority. According to one of those who came out with the idea, the economic advisor to Lim Goh Thong of Genting fame, Siew Sin would not listen. He probably thought since he was the Finance Minister and leader of the Malaysian Chinese Association surely no one could be cleverer than him.

On 13 May 1969, race riots broke out which saw the loss of many lives. The following year, a New Economic Policy (NEP) was adopted whereby the Chinese were then relegated to second class citizens.

“If Siew Sin has just listened,” lamented this Chinese friend of mine, “We could have avoided May 13 and there would be no need for a NEP which has now put the Chinese at a disadvantage.”

Later, Dr Mahathir Mohamad became Prime Minister and he embarked on an ambitious plan to industrialise this nation. The Chief Secretary (KSU) of the Finance Minister together with the Governor of the Federal Bank (Bank Negara), who happened to be Dr Mahathir’s brother-in-law, came out with a paper that showed many of the Prime Minister’s ideas would not work. The steel project, the car plant, the shipbuilding yard, etc, would all fail. And they supported their view with strong arguments.

“Dr Mahathir just took the report and chucked it aside without even reading it,” said the KSU. “He was very angry but could not openly show it since he was scared of his brother-in-law. He just said he was going ahead with his plans and that was the end of the discussion.”

Today, we all know where Dr Mahathir’s grand plans have led this country to. If only he had listened and not thought that since he was the Prime Minister then he must be smarter than the rest. (If not, then these others would be the Prime Minister instead).

One day, Dr Mahathir decided he wanted to franchise satay and take the world by storm just like McDonalds and Kentucky. An emergency meeting was called — he wanted the study done within a week — and we all burnt the midnight oil coming out with the study. Our findings showed it would not work. Dr Mahathir rejected our study and he went ahead with Satay Ria.

Where is Satay Ria today? In London, New York, Paris, and all the major cities of the world like how Dr Mahathir wanted?

Bakun is another fiasco that need not have happened. We brought French consultants to meet Dr Mahathir in his office to explain to him that the hydro dam is not viable and that if he still insisted on pressing on with the project then make it gas turbines instead.

Dr Mahathir gave me one mother of a dirty look and I was never invited back to ‘advise’ him on anything again. If he just knew I was also involved in the Satay Ria study as well. A friend of mine who was about to be made the MARA Chairman also made this same mistake of disagreeing with one of Dr Mahathir’s ideas in the ‘interview’ with the Prime Minister. He never got the job.

In early 2004, one of Parti Keadilan Nasional’s Supreme Council Members (Ahli MPT) arranged for a foreign expert to conduct a two-day seminar in Malacca on what would be required of the party for it to improve its performance in the 11th General Election. In the 10th General Election in 1999, it won five parliament and five state seats. For this general election it should aim to double this to ten each. Then, the next election, say in 2008/2009, it should double it again to 20 each. In time, it would be able to form the next government; but in time, not now.

I am not going into an “I told you so” routine, but we all know what happened in March last year. Parti Keadilan almost got wiped out and the solitary seat it won it did so by the skin of its nose. Suffice to say the party did not listen — maybe because those who are leading it or who contested in the election are all veterans and experts who know better than this foreigner who never even heard of Malacca until now.

Now, everyone, on hindsight, is able to analyse why Parti Keadilan in particular and the opposition in general did not perform well. But hindsight is easy. Foresight is difficult. But there were many who did have foresight but could not do anything about it because majority rules and minority follows. And, if we are part of the majority, then we must be right and the minority wrong.

The loss of Terengganu was another prediction came true. A group of young professionals actually predicted that Terengganu would fall back into Umno’s hands and Kelantan would be touch and go. This same group of young professionals also predicted Parti Keadilan’s massacre and that even the President faced the risk of losing her seat unless she adopted certain measures. Luckily, the President did listen and she adopted everything the professionals suggested. Even then it was an uphill battle. But notice how the other candidates in her constituency did not make it?

Yes, we may not always be right. And probably neither is the majority. So respect the other person’s point of view even if it is opposite to your own. And this respect must be demonstrated in the manner you engage them in debate.