Navigating diversity and conflict in Malaysian civil society

Malaysia has long struggled with questions of diversity.

We are home to many different races, religions, languages, and ideologies.

The dynamics between West and East Malaysia, and within East Malaysia always don't get enough attention, and I wish I were more of an expert on the topic.

Today though, I thought to re-examine what is arguably the biggest divide within Peninsular Malaysia - the divide between Malay Muslims and non-Malay Muslims.

In particular, I wanted to examine the way this divide plays out in the space of civil society - a space I have always cared deeply about, and within which I believe contain the seeds of a better Malaysia.

Malaysian civil society is not free from the problems and social divisions that plague the rest of Malaysia.

There are many ways to categorise the sub-divisions of Malaysian civil society. For today, I think the most useful would be to focus on two language-based sub-divisions: the Malay speaking and English speaking peninsular based groups.

There are of course Chinese speaking and Tamil speaking groups, and again, Sabah and Sarawak are entire segments on to themselves.

I would argue that English speaking civil society, like English speaking Malaysians in general, are quite plugged in to the Western world.

I personally believe that it would be good for many mainstream Western ideas to become mainstream in the East. I also believe that it would be good for many mainstream Eastern ideas to become mainstream in the West.

As we compete in the marketplace of ideas however, I also believe that there are more effective ways of popularising the best possible ideas, and there are less effective ways.

Exploring and refining these effective ways in Malaysia has in some ways been my life’s work.

After spending years thinking about this and working on it, I think I might summarise my conclusion to be: the most important foundation required to succeed is good relationships.

It’s only natural that many would assume that would we need are better arguments, greater numbers, stronger ‘influence’, and so on.

Sometimes, I think of these as vanities. Or strategies that lead to another major phenomenon of our time: the echo chamber.

If we wish to truly break out of these echo chambers, and genuinely move the needle in terms of evolving attitudes and introducing progressive ideas, I feel that the first and most vital step is to establish mutual trust.

If English speaking activists want to influence how Malay speaking activists think, I would posit at least two prerequisities.

First, we have to reach a point where we trust each other, and each other’s intentions.

Secondly, we have to be open to being influenced ourselves.

If I could convince Malaysians of only one thing, it may be that there is more that unites us than divides us.

This is a simple truth, but one that is perhaps more obscured than any other in Malaysia. As I have repeated ad nasueum, this is primarily because politicians are incentivised to divide us.

I suppose it is not a particularly Malaysian thing that we tend to end up fighting over the 10% of things we disagree on, rather than working together on the 90% of things we agree on. People do this all over the world.

Asking ‘why?’ is interesting, but not as interesting as asking ‘how can we change this pattern?’

I believe the first step is relationship building. We need a very conscious, concerted effort to focus on discerning exactly what is the common ground that we share, and very consciously seek to build relationships from that common ground up.

This may sound somewhat boring, and it sometimes is. In the context of Malaysian civil society, one might jump to issues of common interest like fighting corruption, protecting the environment, and so on.

Those things are well and good. In attempting to deepen this train of thought however, I suggest that sticking to subjects like those may not be enough.

People have a strong tendency to separate the professional from the personal, and there are many good reasons for doing so.

In trying to break out of old molds however, perhaps we should lower the wall between these two sectors of our lives - at least a very little bit.

Perhaps as activists, working towards a better Malaysia, there is value in getting to know each other on a more personal level - understanding our hopes and dreams, who we are as individuals, our aspirations for ourselves and our families, and so on.

Maybe these types of connections are in some ways almost pre-requisites for more meaningful conversations about contentious issues like LGBTs, the role of syariah courts, and so on.

I am sure this sounds counter intuitive to some, but in my experience having worked in this area for a long time, conversations between people with widely diverging views on controversial issues like this tend to have very little value - unless there is a genuine underlying relationship built on trust between the people having that conversation.

A personal relationship is often a good way to start building that trust.

The second prerequisite I mentioned involved being open to being influenced.

Neither party should ever ask the other to compromise their core principles.

That said, if we are sincere about creating a more inclusive and accepting Malaysia, we must always remember that inclusivity and acceptance works both ways.

As with most negotiations, if one party approaches the table dead set on no compromise at all, then to paraphrase the great Qui-Gon Jinn, the negotiations will be short.

To go from Star Wars to Star Trek, there is a school of thought that the only successful negotiation or arbitration is when neither party gets exactly what they wanted ().

I recommend these types of approaches to advocacy, rather than to always go in with guns blazing.

Diverse as we are, we will never be able to avoid conflict and blunders. The measure of success is not the absence of such conflict, but the manner in which we respond to them.

Having platforms for people to come together in a positive environment are rare enough in Malaysia. If we respond to conflicts in such platforms by doubling down, focusing on things like rules and regulations that may make people feel like they are children being reprimanded by a teacher, we may be widening the gap, rather than narrowing it.

Perhaps we could make a more conscious effort to leave behind siege mentalities, and focus on connecting with people on a more human level, guided by emotional intelligence and trying to get to the real heart of whatever conflicts that emerge.

I think in the longer term, this is one of the only ways we will get a truly inclusive Malaysia. No one will get exactly the Malaysia they want, but hopefully everyone will get a Malaysia they feel they can survive and thrive in.

NATHANIEL TAN works with Projek #BangsaMalaysia. Twitter: @NatAsasi, Email: [email protected]. #BangsaMalaysia #NextGenDemocracy.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Sinar Daily.