Are we practising what we preach on moderation?

Foreign Minister Anifah Aman is reported to have said at the 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York that Malaysia seeks to bring forth the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) initiative to the UN through a resolution to negate the propagation of extremism and radicalisation.

Among its core objectives is to douse the flames of hatred and stem the influence of extreme and myopic ideas of intolerance, xenophobia and racial hatred.

But not just that. Anifah said it was imperative for communities of different races, religions, and cultures to band together in seeking common peaceful aspirations and celebrate diversity, rather than be enticed into extremist traps.

I cannot disagree with any of those aspirations. And knowing Anifah the way I do, he is being very honest and committed to this agenda, without any notions of hypocrisy.

But my difficulty has always been the contention that all nations should not just work towards moderation, preserving the dignity and rights of different communities at the global stage, but also entrenched as a key pillar of nation building domestically. Only that will lend credibility to our claim to be exemplars of moderation.

But can we honestly do so, what with the current chaotic narrative of religious extremists, fanatics, racial vigilantes and bigots undermining the tenets of multiracial harmony in Malaysia?

Anifah was not the only Malaysian politician who was throwing out noble and civilized beatitudes at the world stage.

At the 11th Asean Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime and the second Asean Ministerial Meeting on the Rise of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi seemed to have gone on a self-righteous “joy ride” in wanting to advise the Myanmar government while taking pot shots at their Nobel laureate.

We have also taken offence with the Asean chairperson’s statement on the humanitarian situation in Rakhine State, but, are we forgetting that Asean works on consensus?

I wonder what would have been the official replies by both Anifah and Zahid if foreign heads of state or other members of the diplomatic fraternity had asked them about the rise of radicalisation in terms of Malaysians being involved with IS fighters in the Middle East, Indonesia, Philippines, and perhaps soon in Myanmar?

More importantly, are we are a moderate country at this stage of time?

I also wonder what our response and reply would be if we were asked what happened to Raymond Koh, following the professionally executed abduction of the 62-year-old pastor and charity worker in broad daylight.

And why stop there?

What about the intolerance displayed by religious bigots and vigilantes who are going around infringing the civil rights of non-Muslims, going viral at times – which is causing fear and alarm among peace-loving Malaysians of all races and religious persuasions, while those expected to serve and protect seem in a state of political and administrative comatose?

This despite the supremacy of secular law in Malaysia, as upheld in the 1988 Federal Court case of Che Omar bin Che Soh.

Religious bigots, fanatics and extremists are either continuing to impose dominance on non-Muslims, or insisting on their religious superiority, when nothing like that is embedded in the Federal Constitution.

Perhaps, as the saying goes, charity should start at home, and we should stop self-righteously lecturing others, while expediently closing both eyes to the deterioration of racial and religious harmony in the country.  

The overgrown polarisation from the cradle is a grave injustice to the nation’s founding fathers and the aspirations of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s 1Malaysia policy.  - Mkini