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

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz

Drawing from first-hand knowledge and experience at managing inter-faith dialogue, former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh has called for an overhaul of mindset among all parties concerned with freedom of religion.

Speaking at a panel session at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, he laid out pitfalls drawn from previous dialogue attempts, as well as suggestions for more successful interaction between those of different creeds.

He said one of the first ground rules for successful dialogue that has been ignored by inter-faith groups and individuals is the necessity of setting ground rules.

Diving straight into dialogue when parties are not yet attuned as to its objectives and the process has usually ended in 'an empty net', said Yeo.

"One of the defects of current dialogue is (that) you ask everybody to come together - everyone coming with diverse beliefs - and you expect them to find a solution. You go straight into solution-finding. At the end of the day, it (doesn't work)," he told the packed auditorium.

"We start by realising what are the multiple objectives of dialogue, and what are not objectives of dialogue.”

Among the objectives, said Yeo, are the attainment of better mutual understanding of different perspectives, the establishment of commonalities and to build upon them, to reduce the distances and differences between groups, and to find mutually-acceptable solutions to current and future problems.

"In my limited experience with interfaith dialogues in which I've often participated, moderated, or observed, I've found that it often becomes a contest of religious doctrines, which is not of help."

‘Poor listening skills’

Another important rule is the need to build on mutual trust and to avoid mistrust by fostering and maintaining dialogue as a form of communication rather than a contest of ideas or strength.

In this sense, even non-verbal cues that project arrogance also play a role in destroying trust, noted Yeo.

"I am a fervent believer in dialogue. However, I think the current methods of dialogue will get us nowhere. It is because when different groups of persons come to a dialogue table, there are cross-signals of a respective sense of superiority of belief. Each group believes they are doing the right thing and the more proper thing, and that hinders horizontal discourse.

"Instead of a dialogue, it becomes a debate as to who, for example, is more logical, who is more modern, who is more in consonant with human rights, or who is more serious about his or her religion. This will not help because it becomes a competitive debate rather than a dialogue.”

Related to this is the inability of most proponents on inter-faith issues to listen to opposing views.

"In the current dialogues, our listening skills are very poor. We want to put forward our views very strongly, but we are very slow and very impatient with listening with humility and compassion to views with which one strongly disagrees.

"It's very easy to listen to views that we agree with, but we have to learn to listen to views that we find even ridiculous, because that is the starting point of building trust. We cannot be dismissive or judgmental.”

Inter-faith dialogue participants have also overlooked the fact that some matters pertaining to the faiths may not have been sufficiently articulated in the desired intellectual and logical terms.

"Faith is something that is - yes, it is intellectual and logical - (but also) emotional and very difficult to pin a logic to," said Yeo.

In this regard, participants to a dialogue "must agree not to ridicule another's view, no matter how objectionable".

"The pure force of logic in dialogue, which ignores psychological and emotive factors, produces a suffocating and undesirable effect and drives the less learned, the less eloquent, or the less logical to argue through the use of force."
Yeo also called for the use of "appropriate texts and sub-texts" during dialogue and discouraged the use of inappropriate ones. Although the message itself may be acceptable, the language in which it is conveyed can be offensive and harm the process of communication.

Root of problem

Proponents of inter-faith dialogue have to recognise that it is not the religious doctrines - or even the laws regulating them - that is the problem, but the politicisation of religion by leaders competing for scarce or valued resources, said Yeo.

For this reason, civil society has to assert the need to maintain dialogue as a means of communicating and resolving grievances in the face of political pressure by the power-hungry to suppress them on the pretext that such grievances touch on sensitive and emotive topics.

Freedom of belief and freedom expression are not as much about the beliefs themselves or the content of any speech but more about the freedom, said Yeo.

"Therefore, it really doesn't matter which interpretation one takes. Free discourse is about allowing each and every one of us to abide by each of our respective or chosen or preferred interpretation.

"The problems of faith in Malaysia have their roots neither in religion nor the law. Where the laws are inadequate or are construed in ways that do not resolve real-life issues, no amount of clever legal arguments will help change it, unless there are changes in how Malaysians think and behave about inter-faith issues, changes in the way we dialogue with one another, as well as the way in which politics and government is organised," he added.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed