OVER the last couple of years, Malaysia seems to have encountered one racial or religious issue after the other. Some of these issues are new, others old. Some stem from a newfound discovery on the part of someone, while others from a misunderstanding of a situation, and yet others, willful manipulation of a long-time benign practise into what looks like an intrusion or attack on another person’s faith or race. 

Sometimes, it’s a combination of all these things – like how the syncretic “Datuk Kong” worship practised by some members of the Malaysian Taoist community came under fire a couple of years ago.

Much of these problems could potentially be resolved by proper communication and explanation by the ‘offending’ party to the ‘offended’ party. The tricky part is, in most cases, both parties see themselves as aggrieved. For instance, in the recent beer fest fiasco, proponents saw their rights to be irreligious as being trampled upon, while opponents saw it as an insult to the status of Malaysia as a Muslim country.

This causes both parties to take on a defensive position, and as nearly everything that has to do with, or is perceived as having to do with, religion, it becomes an emotionally charged discussion that leads to either a rash and high handed decision that leaves one party triumphant and the other unhappy, or a poorly thought out, badly put together, barely explained compromise that threatens to unravel at the slightest baby sneeze.

This led to some quarters to call for national harmony laws. Perhaps they have a point. After all, not all of us are lucky enough to get a state government like Sarawak that appears to understand what true moderation is all about, nor should we have to wait for the Sultan of Johor or his family members, the Mufti of Perlis, the Raja Permaisuri of Perak or others to step in and say what most can’t, and because more often than not, government ministers and leaders fail to play their role as moderators in running the country.

Perhaps that is expecting too much of our politicians. National harmony is too important and fragile a thing to rely on them to manage for us.

Maybe it is time for our community and religious leaders to fill up these badly needed roles. A closely knit grassroots community would be harder to radicalise into any extreme, by any religion.

As difficult it is to resist jumping into the bandwagon in criticising the other party and thumping the table with our own case and justifications, a deep breath and a step back could help us understand where the other party is coming from, how they got there and why they feel so strongly about it.

It would also give us time to calm down and in the process, not aggravate the other party further which would only further agitate the issue and shut down any meaningful form of dialogue.

Humour, respect, humility and swallowing some of the saliva that we would have loved to dispense, with the support of well-meaning and sincere leaders, would also offer a much-needed chance to rebuild cracked bridges and mend broken ties.

The concern then automatically shifts from who is right and wrong, stupid or smart, and centres around the actual issue, if any, without personalities or egos getting in the way.

Of course, not all problems can be solved by conversation, especially when it involves one party demanding a change to the status quo or an amendment to set laws or constitutional rights.

But at least, removing issues that can be solved would help separate the issues that be solved, and significantly lessen the noise so that real conversation about genuine concerns on sensitive racial and religious issues can be sorted out on a timely basis. – October 4, 2017.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.