My Saifuddin dilemma: moderation, Mahathir, 1Malaysia, and Najib
Syed Farid Alatas, who teaches sociology at the National University of Singapore, called upon attendees to consider the plight of Shiites in Malaysia. The treatment of this large Muslim minority gives us a good measure of how successful the institutions and preachers of moderation have been.
write2rest
How much energy should Malaysia expend on Foreign Policy? Is Malaysia uniquely positioned to be a force for good in the world? How can Malaysia contribute to peace and progress in the world? What has Malaysia already done and what initiatives should Malaysia continue, expand or begin?
First, a little review of the history of moderation in Malaysia.
In the 1980’s, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir – a visionary and opportunist – saw that he could attract foreign investment by projecting Malaysia as a stable ‘Islamic’ nation.
Malaysia had advantages other ASEAN countries did not have. We had cheap labour and a stable government. We had invisible military leaders, constrained Ustaz (Mullahs) and disconnected activists.
Conversely our ‘cheap labour’ ASEAN neighbours had many failings. They didn’t have political stability. Their public spaces included communists, militarists, organized Ustaz and effective activists.
Dr M – understanding that investors care more about cheap labour and infrastructure than they do about human rights – established himself as a ‘democratic’ dictator. Investors could trust him.
Dr M saw that he could use investment to win support within and for Umno, while bringing material progress to the nation. He needed to neutralize PAS, the Islamic opposition party. So, he brought ‘Islamic’ Anwar into Umno. They legislated a slew of ‘Islamic enactments’ in state assemblies.
Dr M purported to curb proselytization of Muslims. The real intent was to give ‘progressive’ Umno Islamic credentials and dampen criticism by ‘regressive’ PAS.
Dr M saw Islamic Fundamentalism on the rise worldwide. He decided to raise an alternative view. To this end he created Malaysian “International Islamic” institutions. These enabled local and foreign scholars to speak about and for Islam in controlled, scholarly ways, unlike the ways of PAS Ulamas’ who were essentially fiery, rousing preachers.
Dr M made the world aware of the Malaysian brand of Islam. He made speeches. He sent Malaysians as peace-keepers and peace-makers. Muslims the world over yearned for their own nations to have a Malaysian version of Islam: Dr M was not much liked by Middle Eastern tyrants!
Dr M created and funded organizations such as ISTAC (1987) and IKIM (1992). He enabled and sanctioned the work of scholars such as the late Naquib al-Attas, Hashim Kamali and others whom they spawned. These institutions and scholars were/are perceived as moderates.
The mere cosmetic effectiveness of the preachers of moderation surfaced when it became known that those who attacked the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001 had used Malaysia as one of their plotting centres. President Bush famously included Malaysia as one of the countries in ‘The Axis of Evil.’ (Why is anyone surprised that U.S. embassies are spying and eavesdropping centres?)
But world leaders were desperate to find and promote a “Muslim state” which they could present as the moderate face of Islam. It is no surprise that a December 2002 Opinion piece by Michael Backman in the New York Times titled “Malaysia’s Mahathir: A moderate voice for Islam” began:
“Where in these troubled times should we go to find an accurate picture of contemporary Islam? The Middle East, where the religion was born? Certainly not. Nearby North Africa? Wrong again. Try Malaysia.”
World leaders chose to merely note, and not shame and challenge sham moderation in Malaysia (as Backman does later on in his piece).
Read more at: http://write2rest.blogspot.com/2013/11/my-saifuddin-dilemma-moderation.html
