Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

If you were in primary school in the 80s, you must remember reading about Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy happily playing football together every evening.

There are studies that show Asian is by nature highly tolerant and non-confrontational people. If the studies are true, Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy may have grown up realising their differences and the differences in treatments they received, be it through ideas conveyed by their elderly and elected leaders or from actual demarcation set by the policy makers. Being tolerant and non-confrontational people, instead of risking their friendship by discussing their differences, they vent the concern and frustration amongst their own people who ‘understand’, without listening to their friends’ side of the story and their version of concern and frustration.

Just as how an inflamed contained air will explode after a certain period, although it was not their intentions, the childhood friendship between Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy will eventually deteriorate and as a result the disparity between the different group of people they represent is amplified.

It is an accepted fact that Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy do not share the same descent, culture and more often than not religious belief, hence the differences. It is also an accepted fact that the policy makers and the history of frictions between their groups of people are not making it any easier on Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy to remain friends in utter absence of any reservation and unhealthy sentiments.

Just as how an explosion of an inflamed contained air can easily be avoided if one opens the container to let the hot air out and to let the cool air in to reduce the heat, don’t you think Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy should have and should now, with a view to maintain and strengthen their friendship, vent their concern and frustration with each other and try to understand each other, for a change?

Furthermore, if you study the landmark histories of frictions between distinct groups of people all around the world, they were mainly motivated by and revolved around sense of superiority of a particular group of people over another. But if you study our landmark histories of frictions between our groups of people, they were mainly motivated by and revolved around sense of insecurity and self-protection. Should we not take this as good news and be more optimistic that solution for us is more imminent, promising and easier as what we have is the lesser of two evils?

You may agree with the above or you may totally disagree or you may want to share your thoughts or even explain your side of the story and vent your version of concern and frustration as Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy should have done.

You are cordially invited attend the Second Malaysian Closed-door Dialogue on “Race Relations in Malaysia” to be held tomorrow, Friday 29 February 2008, from 4.30pm to 7.30pm at the Bar Council Auditorium jointly organised by the National Young Lawyers Committee, the Syariah Law Committee and the Human Rights Committee.

The purpose of this dialogue is to create a dynamic forum with hope to provide an opportunity for members of the bar to share their thoughts and to constructively question other’s thoughts while critically examining their own, with focus on understanding differing perspectives and on strengthening ties.

An effort such as this and your participation in a discourse such as this are valuable, because like it or not Malaysia is Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy’s home. Because like it or not Malaysia is our home. And if there is one thing that we can agree upon, is that we want Ali, Ah Kow and Ramasamy of the future to happily play football together, and be friends forever, in utter absence of reservation, fear or favour.

***************************

Notes:

This closed-door dialogue is only for members of the Bar and chambering students.

To facilitate a meaningful and healthy dialogue, and to create a protected space for meaningful discourse at all levels, the following guidelines should be followed:

1. The rules of etiquette and professional conduct amongst lawyers must be maintained at all times.

2. Pre-conceived assumptions and ideas should be suspended. Each member must come to the dialogue with honesty and sincerity, with the intention of learning from each other. We are each an expert in our own lives. That is what we bring to the dialogue process.

3. Speaking rules are as follows:

3.1. Only one person should speak at any one time, as recognized by the moderator.

3.2. When one person is speaking, others should listen.

3.3. All persons should be treated as equals, no matter their seniority.

3.4. Accusations, destructive or judgmental observations should be avoided. Frank and honest expression of problems may be made provided they are couched in polite terms and non-accusatory language, and with the view to promoting understanding rather than to inflame anger and passions.

3.5. Participants may speak in either Bahasa Malaysia or English.

4. Listening rules are as follows:

4.1 Listen without judgment. The purpose of the dialogue is to come to an understanding of the other, not to determine whether they are good, bad, right or wrong.

4.2 Listen for understanding, not to agree with or believe. You do not have to agree with or believe anything that is said. Your job is to listen for understanding.

4.3 If you are sitting there thinking: “That's good”, “That's bad”, “I like that”, “I don't like that”, then you are having a conversation in your own mind, rather than listening to the speaker. Simply notice when you do this, and return to being present with the speaker.

5. Understand that to dialogue is not to debate:

5.1 Debate is oppositional: two or more sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward a common understanding.

5.2 In debate, one searches for the other position’s flaws and weaknesses. In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other position.

5.3 Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right. Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude, an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.

5.4 In debate, winning is the goal. In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal.

5.5 Debate defends one's position as the best solution and excludes other positions. Dialogue opens up the possibility of reaching better solutions than any of the original solutions.

5.6 Debate assumes there is a right answer and that someone has it. Dialogue assumes many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution.

5.7 Debate implies conclusion. Dialogue remains open-ended.

6. The dialogue is held in a closed-door setting for members of the Bar only.

6.1. “Chatham House Rules” on confidentiality are to be observed (i.e. the content of what is said may be publicized, but not the identity of the person who said it unless that person’s express written consent is first obtained).

6.2. Special care should be taken not to identify any member as having responded or failed to respond as the case may be so as to bring that person into disrepute.

6.3. No video or audio recordings will be permitted.

These Guidelines were partially adopted and adapted from Scraboro’s Missions website here: http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Interfaith_dialogue/guidelines_interfaith.php

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed