Embracing ‘similarities’

Professor Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
My View - The Sun Daily
April 20, 2016

SIMILARITIES according to the dictionary is "the state of being similar; likeness; resemblance" or "traits or features akin to another or another's." A topic of discussion featuring the "similarities" between A and B is really looking into how A and B can comfortably co-exist based on their commonalities.

This is a step in the right direction to be inclusive. It takes a huge leap of the imagination to see how it can be controversial, let alone offensive; especially in a world that is becoming more focused on differences and being exclusive, rather than embracing inclusiveness amid the diversity of global cultures, creeds or ethnicities.

So it was puzzling when a public university was criticised for agreeing to host a talk on "Similarities between Islam and Hinduism". The chorus of criticism led to a top-down decision for the topic to be changed. The episode gave the impression that we are not clear what the word "similarities" entails.

Unless our level of English is really appalling, the decision to halt the event or tamper with the topic, is rather difficult to fathom. More so because this is what multi-faith discussions are all about in enhancing rapport and understanding by deepening awareness about the common grounds and establishing identical principles among faiths. How much more educational can it get in building "unity in diversity" in a nation like Malaysia, and in realising the 1Malaysia tagline. Thus why the rush in coming to a conclusion that it is all "bad" in a rather prejudicial way? In fact, an academic-turned-politician was quoted using the word "satan" for which he later expressed regret and apologised. The issue had caused many people to lose their composure and make emotional statements. In realpolitik, the outbursts may garner some political points, albeit short-term; but why did non-political entities and even government departments lose it?

If it is about the speaker then it is another matter altogether. Foremost, the government had bestowed a prestigious award on him; to cast him now as an "undesirable" element of sorts would be tantamount to admitting a "wrong" decision had been made. If there was evidence that it is the case, then he should not be allowed to speak on any topic, short of barring entry into the country – a common practice of late, even between borders within Malaysia.

He had also given talks in Terengganu earlier hosted by another public university and no untoward incident was reported. So is it not better to give him the benefit of the doubt as in the case of Terengganu?
Moreover, the talk was to be held indoors. And we often hear that "indoor" gatherings are a viable alternative to those disallowed outdoors.

What is more in this case the necessary approval was allegedly obtained and set to go. The topic must also be known well in advance making the 11th hour U-turn look sinister. That it was held in a public university makes it all the more insulting given ensuing outcomes. After all in universities, the discourse often goes beyond "similarities" into one that is "comparative" in nature, which means that there must an acceptable level of tolerance in appreciating contrasting views and opinions as part of an all-round education, which is what a good university is all about. Without this education will quickly become "indoctrination" – one that can render "education" into the dustbin.

That a university has to be told what can be discussed is offensive to academic tradition and practice – especially following a "now-you-can't; now-you-can but …" wishy-washy kind of decision. This column has often called for the university to be left alone, and be respected as higher institutions of learning worthy of their being in the eyes of many. Let the learning take place as they deem fit, academically speaking. Advice by all means, but do not force it down their throat in such a manner that education is just another tool of indoctrination, keeping in mind that our universities are laggards in acknowledging the autonomy of institutions. Under such circumstances, the "similarities" between universities and prison-like institutions would be no different, whereas in actual fact they arguably have vast "dissimilarities" in practically all facets in meeting the future needs of nations. In short, the former must cherish the spirit inquiry and trust-building modules that maximise the innate human desires to bridge diversity by embracing "similarities".