Anwar Ibrahim interview in Off The Edge Feb 2005

:: Off The Edge Feb 2005 | Interview by Eddin Khoo & Jason Tan | Pictures by Danny Lim ::

Where to begin? Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim spent 16 years at the highest levels of government, and six more in its most base institution. The velocity and manner of his transition was surreal and revealing of what both national mindset and gumption could countenance.

Twenty-two years is ample space to get lost in the brambles and thickets of the country’s political landscape, its dominant personalities and the socio-economic policies that have led us up our current path.

We have just under two hours, and decide to bypass the mundanities of Malaysian sandiwara and set our course for ‘what’s next’ instead. The police booth (set up when Anwar was Deputy Prime Minister) at his Damansara Heights house is now unmanned, but a young man in the garden lets us in anyway, despite not being aware of our appointment.

Anwar, when he appears from behind the sliding wooden partition, has regained some weight since the tumult of his wilderness years, but caved-in cheekbones indicate the chequered fortunes of the former deputy prime minister.

He asks Nurul Izzah, the bright and unprepossessing Reformasi Princess for a cushion for his back, and settles into the couch. Anwar’s presence in his home still appears to be something of an occasion for his family, and he still has the natural bearing and speech of someone used to taking the lead. It is only when the first question is posed that his face visibly tires, and when the recent past shows up as quiet introspection.

Eddin Khoo: Best place to begin would be to ask a deeply personal question about the last six years. I don’t think any of us can actually contemplate the prospect of imprisonment - it is an almost surreal experience. In all that time, what would you say were your deepest realisations and convictions?
Anwar Ibrahim: Just a greater passion for freedom; you value freedom much more, not merely as an idea or philosophy, but realise that it is so critical to any sane person. But its not only a matter of what you experience in prison but what you see — the complete dehumanisation of man; people are degraded, the system degrades them.
Notwithstanding whether the individual is guilty or not, the entire system is meant to dehumanise; and what more when you are convinced of your innocence, placed in solitary confinement, of course you value your freedom so much more.
To my mind, I think I have learnt immensely from the experience and feel not only passion but the desire to do much more for its cause. Because I am also fortunate in many ways since the prison guards were very kind to me but you are also aware of thousands of others who are not treated in the same manner.
I am not suggesting that mine was a special treatment because I was placed in solitary confinement; but at least they were decent and respectful towards me. But what about the others, foreign workers, for example, I don’t think there was any regard for them, to a large extent, both by the police and the prison guards, as human beings.

EK: You have spoken a great deal about that in public recently. And it is an irony given that Malaysia is looked upon by many of these foreign workers as a model?
AI: The tragedy is that governments, be it Bangladesh or Indonesia, are so dependent on the Malaysian authorities that they find it very difficult to present their case, or even be critical publicly. This issue of interdependence we talk about vis-à-vis the West and the colonial powers of the past, here, it is essentially the economic strength of the neighbouring country.
But the system is very much more complex because it is tied to vested interest and corruption. The foreign legions are controlled by the cronies of the ministers and the political elite, and they amass hundreds of millions annually while people are virtually enslaved. Look at the system — 100,000 to 150,000 arrested, brought to the police lock-up, virtually none of them left with any belongings except old clothes. I am really disturbed and horrified that the Malaysian system tolerates this.
There was an interesting question raised in Sabah when I spoke of this matter in Indonesia. This was highlighted there [Sabah] and a journalist remarked, ‘Do you know when you defend these foreigners you are losing ground and no way will the Sabahans support you.’
My reply was spontaneous and angry. I said, ‘Look, don’t blackmail me about assurances of support if it means condoning the caning of innocent people and enslaving them.’ But of course I added that any government has the right to repatriate [illegal immigrants], following proper procedures and to take tough action against crime. But you have to differentiate — why must crime be associated purely with the foreign workers? You remember in the Umno General Assembly when there was so much criticism and even hatred of the Bangladeshi workers and the popular sentiment was they were all responsible for all the crime in the country. Then I came out with the figures that only 4% of crime was committed, or alleged to be committed, by Bangladeshis.

EK: That’s an important realisation — that many of our problems are systemic — to do with the system, rather than purely political. Which leads me to ask: Since your release you have spoken consistently of the need to harness the opposition. Nevertheless, in the past six years there has been little evidence that such a force, comprising ideologically disparate forces, is viable. How do you think your presence would change that?
AI: First, let us transcend, go beyond, partisan politics. Let us pose a challenge, to the young, the liberals even, in the system, in Umno or the BN. Why aren’t these issues of concern to them? Why is the issue of rampant corruption, which is being talked about by virtually every citizen, or concerned citizen, not a major issue that they’re prepared to articulate. Why is the muzzled media, who know for a fact that this is being tolerated… why talk about independence and condemn the atrocities of the Americans in Abu Ghraib when you ignore or condone — or are oblivious, if not condone… atrocities in your own backyard. I think we should take a pro-active stance in just raising these questions. If they [authorities] challenge us to adduce evidence, we will do so. And I don’t think it would be very difficult introducing this evidence.
Then again, the system has succeeded in instilling so much fear so that even professors, who should profess, cannot do so independently… it’s shocking! And it’s apparent on every issue.
You talk about meritocracy. Sure, the debate is relevant, but it’s not being conducted seriously. Whether you agree or disagree with the meritocracy that is being espoused, you assume that they’re serious in their policies. So you have non-Malays supporting and the Malay worrying that the issue will affect their special rights; to my mind they are deluded into thinking it’s a serious proposition. It’s not. If it’s serious, look at the leadership. Are they serious in presenting credible people selected based on merit? Look at the leadership in our universities — not only are they mediocre, they behave like Umno branch leaders. And there is no concern for freedom or proper scholarship except for scholarship in terms of ringgit, not ideas.
This is the first issue we have to address. Then because of the utter disregard for basic rights, of concern to all of us, I now choose to work closely with the opposition and am committed to these ideals. Yes, it is a very challenging task. We are working in a very limited, contained environment that is essentially quite repressive; we have no access to the media.
People often ask me, ‘What do you intend to do?’ ‘Do you intend to join Umno?’ ‘Are you talking to PAS and DAP?’, but whatever announcement I make will not be carried, apart from Malaysiakini and Harakah, by the mainstream media.
But I still feel we have a task to reform and I have a lot of confidence in Malaysians because talking to them, and I’ve been doing a lot of that, having discussions with professionals and students and a variety of groups.
And I take a very open view [to] work for reform. And even for those within the system who desire reform, even if you decide to be in Umno, for now at least, you must be very clear and pronounced. You cannot be speaking quietly to the liberal media, suggesting you are for freedom when you actually work and perpetrate the crime against humanity within that system.

EK: You are increasingly performing a unique role, and the role of a ‘balancing factor’ is never easy. Engaging with various groups do you get the sense that there exists a tremendous alienation? Do you sense that people still believe in the political process ie. political parties?
AI: This is a question that has been frequently raised — that people are completely disillusioned with the system so they think they should just carry on with life, not upset the system because doing that presents a risk. This attitude has been described also as a form of fear. A student was telling me recently that they were asked to raise a few controversial topics for discussion but the moment the ISA [Internal Security Act] was brought up the lecturer refrained, adding ‘No, we don’t want to be dragged to jail.’ And we’re talking about a university. This kind of fear is worrying. Complacency and disillusionment are present but I also believe that people have the propensity to look at things differently if they are provoked to think. And I remain optimistic. It is an uphill battle but you must address the issues directly.

EK: So, are you suggesting that there is a kind of counter-culture emerging?
AI: Yes, in the sense that people still come [to see me]. Talking about the climate of fear, people are scared, but if you provide a ‘safe’ forum such as the [MCKK] Old Boys, they still come…there is an excuse. Sure, they’re still worried, circumspect whether there are police, SB [Special Branch] officers there or not; but you start having exchanges, and there are two, three people articulating, sometimes forcefully, and there is this tremendous response. And the amount of stories, anecdotes and evidence adduced is shocking.

EK: What about your engagement with the young. What is it you think they desire? And how do you think they seek to articulate this since they are generally alienated from political parties?
AI: I was told, while I was in prison and soon after my release, that following the 1999 election debacle for the ruling party, they conceived of this enormous strategy of trying to win back the young, not by education or freedom but by promoting narrow cultural pesta-like activities… clearly, this is a design by some smart young strategists within the party which essentially means, ‘corrupting the youth’.
I mean, it is all right for you to promote popular culture, but why not, at the same time promote scholarship and free exchange of ideas and healthy discussion on a number of issues. They provide alternative forums for youth but then limit the scope of discussion. And because they are led by young, ambitious elites who want to have a proper share of the cake, these things are tolerated. This is part of the design, the scheme of the ruling party.
But when I came out… of course there are so many restrictions, but we did meet students at the Keadilan Party Congress in Ipoh — again in a Chinese temple, which explains how democratic our society is that no hall, school or hotel would have us — but I was impressed at the number of young, enthusiastic participants, delegates but mostly observers and I am talking about the thousands here, students, young graduates, all very careful, getting registered but appealing to the organisers not to release their names, so there is this fear but also this awareness…

Jason Tan: The problem is seems to be that students in private colleges and their partents seem to have a stake in ensuring that the system carries on. How can we imagine a different way of life?
AI: Yes, it is difficult. The system operates and it survives in a certain way. But I do believe that they will not be able to sustain this for far too long — economic realities demand something different; secondly, unemployment among recent graduates will result in them feeling increasingly bitter. Once they fail to get jobs, they will question why the system is being tolerated, why it is not defending them. It is not difficult, in my experience, when they are exposed to differing views, they are smart enough to think differently.
The belief in the need for security is fair enough as long as they understand the consequences. To my mind, that is the beginning. What is happening now is that the students are not even allowed to think. Once we are able to expose them to these views, it will be the start of a major shift.

EK: One of the real shocks to the system was the events of 1998. And the system didn’t seem to be able to comprehend that the issues of that time had transcended their own politics. You seemed to encapsulate the dissent but what you sought to advance in the Permatang Pauh Declaration failed to be disseminated and propagated by the political parties responsible for doing that. That resulted in the setback of the last elections. Yet, even now, there seems to be no serious, introspective analysis for what went wrong. Why do you think the opposition alliance is unable to do that?
AI: Well the system has certainly become more repressive and it has introduced methods for closer control — not that it was open in the past, but… student activities, for example, the fact that you may be expelled simply for attending a single meeting… it has become that extreme.
Having said that, I do believe you’re right. I don’t believe the opposition should use this as an excuse for their failures in the recent elections. Of course the election process was flawed, even the list of voters could not be verified, and this is something the people need to understand.
But I think the strategy of the opposition was also flawed. Unnecessary bickering over seat allocations and issues like Negara Islam [Islamic State], so on and so forth, resulted in the general perception that we don’t have a credible, viable alternative.
So, my immediate task is, of course, to talk to them, urge the parties to work together, seek a solution to this problem. Because, to my mind, the opposition parties must put their house in order and be able to work together. And some of the individuals have an impressive record and are seen as among the few who are willing to stand up, take the risk and formulate policies that will benefit the rakyat. And this should be the focus. That will help us overcome contentious issues.

EK: Some of the pledges contained in the Permatang Pauh Declaration were very idealistic and to certain parties represented in the opposition coalition, almost antithetical to their ideologies. How are you engaging with them on these matters and how receptive are they?
AI: I have had a series of meetings with Keadilan, DAP and even PAS, and my view is that many of these issues were agreed upon by them in my absence. I was in prison during the 1999 elections and the coalition issued a manifesto on the issue of a constitutional framework, the democratic process, rule of law, accepting Malaysia as a multi-cultural society, freedom of religion although having a clear position on Islam as the official religion, which is a fact no longer contested by anybody; or the issue of language, with a clear policy on Bahasa [Malaysia] as the principal medium and to allow for, even promote, the use of other languages, English in particular. These are the issues we should concentrate on.
The contentious issue is, of course, Negara Islam. And I have said this to the PAS leaders — that individual parties can espouse their individual views. But it is also wrong for us to take a position that this is heretic in relation to constitutional freedom because PAS has espoused this for the last 50 years, even when they were in the BN, where they were tolerated not just by Umno but also the MCA, MIC and Gerakan. They were part and parcel of it; so don’t tell us we can’t work with PAS because of what they espouse.
What we need to be very clear about is that in our reform agenda — the common agenda — we accept the constitutional framework, democracy, the Rule of Law, which means that other issues, including that of Negara Islam, is not on the agenda. But the right of people to espouse their views should be there… I mean, you talk about freedom but…
I am of course very pleased because PAS accepts these very fundamental issues and policies in the reform agenda which means they will not insist that Negara Islam be a part of that agenda; which also means that the alternative party and the alternative government will not promote policies or issues other than what is agreed upon. That, to me, is quite clear.

JT: Can you actually foresee the opposition alliance in government?
AI: Firstly, I believe that Keadilan, PAS and DAP could agree on this framework, which means essentially to work on the 1999 agenda and expand on it; not to include those aspects that are deemed contentious, like Negara Islam. I do believe we can reach a consensus and I am saying it because I have had meetings with the leadership over this issue.
Now, if we can begin on that premise and follow this strategy, then I believe we can be seen to be a more credible alternative. But we will then have to make demands on the present leadership led by Prime Minister Abdullah, about fulfilling his policies and rhetoric on reform, including that of the judiciary and the electoral process, and of the broader system; and I have made it quite clear, not withstanding my position in the opposition, that I am prepared to support Prime Minister Abdullah in his endeavour to reform the decadent aspects of some of our laws and the corrupt establishment.

EK: Some of the more reasonable criticism of the opposition arises from the facet that any party entering the coalition can concur on details and a framework but it is only a matter of time before individual interests and ideologies will begin to emerge.
Since your release, you have spoken on the need for reform in Malaysia, for transparency, the need to fight corruption. I am most interested, however, in your stance on freedom and civil liberties.
Freedom is regarded in very gestural ways here.
PAS, for example, has no problems agreeing to abolishing the ISA and protecting civil liberties in principle; at the very same time, they support the use of the ISA on Shias and other perceived ‘deviant’ religious groups.
They do not seem to see a contradiction in that at all.
The issue of freedom, then, is related less to politics and more to the civic, social and cultural attitudes of a society. Often, parties agreeing to protect freedom and liberty don’t actually know what that entails. How are we going to bring about a shift in these kinds of attitudes?
AI: We have to pursue a more determined form of public education that raises issues of cultural literacy in the broader sense. That’s why I think some of the measures like the anti-ISA campaigns are very useful and pertinent in this regard because you’re actually challenging the ISA and the entire philosophy against freedom and the issue of the denigration of man; of detention without trial, of the issue of prisoners of conscience. And while accepting — even in the past, I remember most progressives lent support when the then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, then Tun Razak tabled the legislation for the ISA with the assurance that it would only — only! — be used against militant communists. There was a general consensus then, even among liberal Malaysians, that this was needed.But then there emerges maturity of thinking and after witnessing so many excesses to the rule, people realise that a political commitment is certainly not something to be taken seriously, you actually have to look at the law. So, the law must be very clear... there must be due process.

EK: But I am still not convinced on the issue of freedom. PAS certainly remains a problem. I won’t refer to other members of the coalition since they don’t actually administer states. But the PAS administration in Kelantan and formerly in Terengganu advanced little that was positive. Much of the legislation was negative, even punitive. There is a real contradiction then in what is actually signed up to and what is practised and understood.
AI: Well, I’m not in a position to defend their actions. I think some of the pronouncements are unnecessary but you must also appreciate that they have actually done a lot too — distributing land to the landless, allocating land for the Chinese schools and temples, which was quite radical in the Malaysian context and which was most certainly not done in other Malay states. This is not highlighted and they certainly have a problem with the media and the more general perception of them. But to my mind, knowing that the media is hostile, don’t provide ammunition for them to attack you. I think they have learnt this bitter lesson.
When I was Minister of Education, there were many demands by students — female students — concerning the use of swimming pools. They were uncomfortable sharing the pool with males; so I said why not just allocate a certain time for them to use the pool. You don’t need to introduce it as a syariah or religious issue. It’s just an issue of discomfort. At other times, they are free to choose [whether to swim or not]. Otherwise you will get into this endless debate...
I don’t think, to my mind, this is what Islamic justice is all about.
But we must also understand that there is sensitivity — special swimming pool hours may be odd in New York, but I think here we can accept some of these eccentricities. But I think what was most resented was the manner in which the pronouncement by PAS was made and the sense that they were actually imposing something upon people over such a trivial issue.

JT: This need to couch things in the language of the syariah or Islam, why do you think they feel the need to do that? I know that in some primary schools, there are Malay parents who want their children to attend moral rather than agama classes so they can mix with other children, but are not allowed to do so...
AI: In this instance, I draw the line. When there is so much intolerance to cultural activities — which is not just intolerance towards liberal lifestyles but liberal ideas... there are groups that are calling for a far more tolerant cultural lifestyle, but I ask why aren’t there also demands for a more tolerant system in terms of thinking.
But on this issue, I draw the line. When it is generally accepted that Islam is the official religion, Muslims have to understand the nature of their religion, so religious education, for Muslims, is also very critical.
My personal view is that the curriculum needs to be revised. People study Islam from Standard 1 through to Form 6 and then in university but they come out so intolerant, their understanding so superficial.
And they can get carried away by the clamouring of such issues as the Islamic State of Umno and the Islamic State of PAS, and very often their arguments are flawed.
There are people who assert that Malaysia is an Islamic state, but I ask, ‘How is it an Islamic state? You deny people basic rights, detain them without trial, muzzle the media, there is rampant corruption... what is so Islamic about it?’
And their reply is, ‘At least we’re doing something for Islam.’ So the understanding is very superficial.
But whether we should say people have a choice about religious classes, I think that would be highly contentious and I would choose a route where parents can demand that the curriculum be something appropriate or useful rather than to suggest that they should opt out.
I don’t think we could defend such a decision among Muslims.
They would say, ‘Why make Islam the official religion because everything is equal now.’ I would say equal because we accept the fact that religion is the choice of each individual.
We talk about freedom of religion but I think this must be observed; and does it compromise us if we say, ‘Look, if you accept yourself as a Muslim, at least possess some basic understanding.’ I would choose the option of greater understanding but I would also urge for the freedom of parents to demand that the curriculum fits the thinking and understanding of what we deem as ‘moderate’ or ‘progressive’ Islam.

EK: Much of the conversation has been about systems. Since your release, your tone towards Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has been conciliatory. Yet, you have also stated that any change has so far been tentative. Meanwhile, there appears to be a growing realisation that the problems affecting Malaysia may be more systemic than political. Do you believe that to be true?
AI: I agree that the system needs to be corrected. It is certainly getting worse although I am not suggesting that I operated in a system that was ideal. I thought at a particular time that there was, within the system, avenues for change and reform and I thought I could arrest this problem of endemic corruption. Now it is so rampant and pervasive that we should really make it an issue of conscious concern.
Why I choose to be more conciliatory towards Prime Minister Abdullah is because I feel that he genuinely believes there is something wrong with the system, that corruption is endemic, that you have to make the necessary changes. Even on the issue of the separation of powers, which he did address because he probably understands the growing frustration among Malaysians with regard this issue.
But what is worrying now is that nothing is actually being done. He portrays himself as a family man, wanting to make serious change. [But] I do believe that within the present leadership, in Umno, given the constraints of the present system, he is still the best bet if anything is to be done. But it has to be done now!
Many of my friends in the opposition don’t quite like me saying that but I choose to be very honest and candid about it. Yes, we disagree because nothing is being done; but if anything at all can be done within the constraints of the present system, Abdullah can and has to do it.
Nothing is being done yet... not only not being done, but they are not addressing the issues — economic issues such as the deficit, unemployment, they have to make up their mind on the currency peg which is very critical now, they have to address the issue of cultural malaise and the media, the judiciary, corruption... all issues of serious concern.
So, if the problem is that worrying, what is the option? The option is to evolve a credible opposition. You cannot simply say the system is so rotten that nothing can be done. This is not what freedom is all about. Because you have to work and ensure that a credible alternative emerges. Some may say, ‘Well, not within the existing opposition.’
All right then, push and promote some other alternative. Why did I choose to support Keadilan... because it is more difficult. In all my experience in university politics, Abim and Umno, I had believed that the easier option is to go through racial based politics. But now I am talking about the right option for the present and the future, for Malaysia sekarang [now] and the new Malaysia which has to be a multi-racial entity.
This is so much more difficult because you have to grapple with every issue, argue every case, but that’s how life is. Unless, of course, you choose to have an authoritarian system. Then everyone keeps quiet and carries on with whatever they do.

JT: The problems you have spoken about... for example, the judiciary. Are these problems insurmountable under the present system? And can it ever be anything but, under institutional race-based politics?
AI: First, on the philosophical front... whether we should accept the excesses and the failures as they are or do you want to address them? I believe we have an option — the option is to challenge it, and it is difficult, but that is the right option. We cannot go on playing this racial card – [but] we must appreciate that it is appealing...it is appealing!
Even in my dialogues, among those who support me and what I stand for, particularly among the Malays, they tell me, ‘Anwar, be more assertive on Malay issues — language, education, the economy, Islam.’ When I ask them why, they say, ‘Because it is not clear to us. We fear that this multi-racial position and character of the party will dilute the Malay character and sacrifice Malay interest. Everyone is competing to win over the support of the Chinese.’
And I assert, ‘To the contrary. We have to make it very clear... and I don’t have to be apologetic about it.’ Take the language issue, for example. Yes, we did battle the Chinese educationists before. Because at that time we were not convinced, and we knew for a fact that many of them were against the National Education Policy... a real and consistent exception was Prof [Khoo] Kay Kim, who was one of the very few Chinese scholars who were prepared to come out in support of the policy... but now we have a situation where even Chinese schools, including among those taking the the Senior Middle Class Three, accept the Bahasa policy. So the issue of Chinese-Malay differences with regard to language and education does not arise. But its being played up by the ruling cliques simply for political interest.
Economic issues: Why must we be expected to defend the NEP [New Economic Policy] at all cost? I ask them, ‘What do you benefit?’ Their reply, ‘Education.’ Fair enough. But you mean you need an AP bumiputera policy to make sure you get into university? They say, ‘Well, yes and no.’ Why? ‘Because without that you never know, the schools in the pendalaman [interiors] may be under threat.’ And so they argue.
But you can have affirmative action. I mean, if I were Minister of Education and a young Chinese came up to me and said, ‘Sir, I have 9 A1s but I cannot get into university,’ if you’re a man of any conviction, morality, ethical principles, and you are not a racist, then you cannot defend the policy. It’s as simple as that.
But does that mean you’re going to scrap all the assistance for Malay students for the pendalaman? Of course not! These are all issues you have to grapple with and adjust accordingly.
And now the leadership talks about meritocracy. But look at the mediocre elements being appointed vice-chancellors in our universities. You want a Malay? Then have a fine, capable Malay and have him be assisted by fine, capable non-Malays. I did that at the University of Malaya during the time of Syed Hussein Alattas and there were people who were so racist in their opposition, attacking ferociously the appointments of some deans who were Chinese and Indian...
You know, you have to be very open about it. Some people say, ‘Anwar is not clear, he’s a chameleon, says this, does that,’ but you should see how I address a very Malay crowd and how I deal with these issues.
That’s why I get annoyed when people say, ‘Well, you’re taking a different position.’ I say, ‘No, it is my conviction.’ The safest option would be for me to say, ‘Yes, these people are compromising too much with the Chinese. You should be firm and assertive.’ They would give me the applause.
But you choose to be a man of conscience, how to say ‘no’ to a person who has got 9A1s, what­ever the reason. And, you know, people accept this argument. So, I say, this is what we mean.
Now, similarly with economic programmes. Apart from problems affecting the Malays, Chinese squatters constitute 1% of the problem; fair enough, why can’t you be seen to be dealing with it. The situation with the Indians is far worse. Look at the estate workers. If I speak in a mosque, articulating issues concerning Indian poverty in a way that is far more pronounced than the MIC, why can’t it be regarded as a change in orientation for Malaysians?
And don’t underestimate those poor Malays in the kampungs. They accept it. I say, ‘Why do you talk about justice? How can you talk about justice when all this is happening around you? You know why people don’t respect Islam? Because we are unjust.’
And they accept it...
Maybe that’s why there’s a complete blackout of what I say. Because I address the issues. And I like it when some media, the foreign media, for example, follow me to places like Terengganu where they can see that my arguments may be different but the issues are the same. I’ll give an example from the Quran, the example of the Prophet... I don’t need to quote Shakespeare, though there are situations where I need to do that!... But you cannot say that there is a lack of consistency, and you simply cannot underestimate the masses...

EK: You have been heralded, most recently in the pages of the NewYorker, as a much needed voice for a more ‘moderate’ and ‘progressive’ Islam. You yourself have articulated the need for a shift towards moderation in Islam in many of your writings? How do you think this may be achieved in practical terms in Muslim societies?
AI: Well, it certainly not going to be easy. I recall when I was Minister of Education I wanted this book by Fazlur Rahman, entitled Islam and Modernity to be translated into Malay by the DBP [Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka] because I felt that the book focused on thought and the intellectual tradition of Islam compared to the strictly legalistic interpretations of many other books.
But in there the author had made a reference to the truncated system of education, dominated by Azhari influences, in many Muslim societies and because of that fact, Jakim, Pusat Islam, felt that the book should not be translated. And when I asked the DBP why they had to refer to Pusat Islam, they said anything Islamic must be referred to them. Imagine that.
Then there was a novel by the French-Algerian author Tahar ben Jelloun, published in Malay by the DBP and banned because it discussed the matter of prostitution. I had read the English translation of the novel and it was a fine book?
Similarly with the issue of Salman Rushdie. In this case, I conceded because it was a far more serious situation. But even in this case I insisted that the authorities concerned must know what they’re banning. I had already read Rushdie’s Midnight Children, enjoyed it thoroughly and thought it a great book; but they would have banned that too since it lampooned both the Hindus and Muslims. I don’t know how from that he arrived at The Satanic Verses but with this book there were far more serious sensitivities to address. But you cannot sentence the author to death. And the Muslims must be very clear in their views [on this issue].
Okay, I agreed that the book should be banned, but insisted that you cannot impose a sentence of death. Who, after all, are you to pronounce it and who gave you the authority? You have to respect due process. For articulating this I was taken to task quite a bit.
But if you say these things in a mosque, explain it and the people can accept your arguments then you are alright.
And there is no consensus [about censorship] either. It all depends on who is an authority. At one time they even banned some works by Naguib Al-Attas.

EK: This leads to me asking there are some commentators [including Muslim ones] who have suggested that Islam in the contemporary world suffers from a serious inability to deal with questions of plurality? Do you agree with this?
AI: Yes, and I think I know why... because there is no broad appreciation of the Islamic experience and the Islamic tradition of learning. So much attention is devoted to the application of syariah, legalistic matters, and people are not willing to question [this]. People often tell me, ‘But who are we to question, we are not in a position to.’ And I say, ‘But you are educated.’
If you look at many of the writings of the Islamic tradition like al-Beruni or from the traditions of Andalus, many of them emerge and deal with contexts that are multi-racial, multi-religious.
I am in no position to say that people advocating syariah or the implementation of Islamic law are wrong, and in a situation and context where everybody accepts syariah, then there may be no question.
But here we are looking at a completely different environment that is far removed from that addressed in the classical Arabic texts. So what do you do? You have to then start acknowledging that this is a different context and we are living within international parameters; even if you have a Muslim state, purely, where all Muslims say they want an Islamic state, I don’t think I would endorse it because it would be so impractical in an international environment.
So , we have to deal with it. Earlier we were talking about a truncated education system; this is what we mean. Deal with it first.

EK: Our experience is quite interesting because we don’t have to look to far, just to Indonesia where you have a figure like Gus Dur who is crucial in not just advocating but taking the message of moderation out to the public. He is a man who has asserted that Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dipertahankan [God Need Not Be Defended]. We, in Malaysia, have never had a force like that... a consistent force to counter to more radical forces?
AI: Yes, but you must take into account the historical and cultural context. You take the figure of Gus Dur. It would not be easy for many Muslim to accept a figure like him outside the Indonesian context because he is seen by many to be far too liberal. Even though I share many of his views.
I think for us the first task is to engage and educate, to stress that this is a country that requires moderation, let them then espouse their message, then initiate an open debate or discourse about the Islamic state. Because if you don’t do that, then the problem will get protracted and you will begin to hear so many things from so many people without a proper dialogue actually taking place.
There are those in PAS who ask me, ‘What do you actually want?’ and I say, ‘If an Islamic state means you curtail freedom, you say that freedom is only for the ‘Chosen Few,’ then I cannot accept.’
But you have to argue with them substantially. I would suggest that a broad debate must take place, involving committed Muslims, non-committed Muslim, less committed Muslims, non-Muslims. The debate now, however, is among those who themselves profess and claim to be spokesmen for Islam and it is so often reduced to banal issues.
And I think it’s possible. I am dealing now with some of the most difficult figures on all fronts but I do see possibilities and am even optimistic. I could choose an easier way but...
I would say that the biggest obstacle now is the media. We may leave aside politics, suggest a dialogue of critical importance about the Islamic state, cultural issues, issues of freedom without involving political parties, but there doesn’t seem to be an avenue for that.