Titas is about cross learning in a multicultural society

I must begin by conveying my gratitude to Dr Lim Teck Ghee and S Thayaparan for their views on the position I hold on the implementation of the Islamic and Asian Civilisation Studies (Titas) course at private tertiary institutions (IPTS).

While the ensuing exchange of views on the matter has earned me many labels from some of the readers of Malaysiakini (including lumping me as another Umno prototype), I look at it positively. If Malaysia were to progress, we must be able to debate openly and accept criticisms both ways.

I will explain the basis for the position I have taken before I respond to some of the issues raised by Lim and Thayaparan.

Will our understanding of one other build a better Malaysia for all?

The most important question is the simplest: given the state of the society now, will we benefit from knowing more about one another? Can we reduce the misunderstandings and prejudices against one another if we have a better understanding of the fair representation of Islamic, Malay, Chinese and Indian civilisations, since they form the greatest influence on our society?

I believe we do.

In fact, I think it will help a lot if younger Malaysians see one another's perspectives positively, even if they disagree on certain issues because stereotypes and polarisation is bad. Lack of understanding and appreciation of the basis for cultural differences in a multiracial society like ours does contribute to stereotyping and polarisation.

My support for Titas stems from this very simple premise: I do not see anything wrong if we compel our youngsters to learn more from one another and about one another.

Much of the fuss about Titas has revolved around the alleged creeping Islamisation that Umno is trying to sneak into IPTS.

While there is a basis for the suspicion, yet we have totally overlooked the positive impact that Titas may have on producing more Malays who understand and appreciate multiculturalism.

I spent my tertiary education and early working life in the United Kingdom.

I did my A-level in a Scottish boarding school - that means going to the chapel every morning together with the rest of the school for morning prayers.

I did not sing the hymns yet I learnt to appreciate that Christians, like Muslims, also take the position that a strong emphasis on religious and universal values is good for the society. As a member of the school's orchestra, once a year we performed in the church.

I started my working life in an accounting firm in London with 90% of the partners who were of the Jewish faith. While the issue of Palestine had always been uneasy (so we avoided it), I got a special treatment simply for being a Muslim.

There was a small space in the office where we could pray (although there were only four of us in the firm who were practising Muslims) and I had extra holidays for Aidilfitri and Aidiladha.

More grateful of my Islamic identity

In spite of this experience, I was not converted. If any, I become more grateful of my Islamic identity in a foreign land. It provided me with the strength and sense of solidarity with others. I came out a more sensitive and confident Muslim precisely because I understood Christianity, Judaism and other religions better.

Every now and then, I make sure that my interns come from the different faiths so that we learn from one another. One of my earliest interns (Galvin Wong, who is now studying in Australia), taught me more about the Christian community in this country than I had ever learnt from any textbook.

My point is: we should encourage our young people to be open-minded to learn about one another and of one another's religions and cultures. I would not have been as open on multiculturalism if I had not gone through the process of appreciating the religion and culture of the majority ethnic group when I was a minority in the UK.

If my experience as a Muslim minority in a Western (pre-dominantly Judo-Christian) society has been positive, I am confident that, if done correctly, it will have a positive impact in our society too.

It is dangerous to send a signal that any move that compels or encourages the cross-learning of religions and cultures among our young people is bad.

If we can agree on this premise, then we can concentrate on the practical problems that often cloud our judgment on Titas.

If the concern is on the alleged unfair representation of other civilisations or disproportionate Islamic content in the syllabus, then we shall focus on fixing the syllabus.

Yet we cannot object a subject that intentionally aims to promote greater understanding among the races on the excuse that the syllabus is flawed; it is akin to objecting to the use of a car because it carries a risk of accident!

If the concern is on the lack of manpower to teach the subject effectively, we should focus on a mitigation plan to roll this out to IPTS. And so on.

This is where I might have differed with Dr Lim Teck Ghee and S Thayaparan. While I take this as a major factor in arriving at my position on Titas, I do not see much discourse from them on the need for cross learning.

Much of their opposition to Titas comes from their suspicion and cynicism of Umno, which they allege would have authored the syllabus to "reconfigure Malaysian and world history as well as civilisation studies taught in schools to fit in with their 'ketuanan Melayu' and 'ketuanan Umno' mindset".

Tomorrow: Part 2 - Should the state interfere in syllabus?

---

RAFIZI RAMLI is PKR's director of strategy and the MP for Pandan.