Debuning Multiculturalism





Alex Tang



Spiritual writing


Nurturing/ Teaching Courses

Engaging Culture

Spiritual Formation Institute

My Notebook

My blogs

Books Recommendation



Medical notes

Medical Students /Paediatric notes





























Dear Sir/Madam
The Star Newspaper

I refer to the article, “Debunking multiculturalism” that appeared in The Star (Aug 22, 2006).

Historically, the term "multiculturalism" came into wide public use during the early 1980s in the context of public school curriculum reform. Specifically, the argument was made that the content of classes in history, literature, social studies, and other areas reflected what came to be called a "Eurocentric" bias. Hence there was a reformed movement in education to move away from a “Eurocentric” bias to one where all cultures and traditions were respected. It was a praiseworthy movement in that the uniqueness and diversity of different cultures of different ethnic groups were recognised and valued. Another term used was “melting pot” of cultures. However, this was discarded subsequently because it implies that in a “melting pot” other cultures are assimilated by the dominant culture.

First, it is curious that the author has associated the historical background of multiculturalism with Christianity. Eurocentricity is not Christianity. In fact, in European history there have been numerous movements to separate the state from religion. The France revolution, the Russian revolution and the collapse of communism were not related to Christianity.

Second, multiculturalism is not an ideology; it is a way of life. This way of life involves respect and tolerance towards other cultures and traditions. It creates a space for our diversity and hence enriches our communal experiences. In Malaysia, multiculturalism has enriched our lives and we have been richly blessed by this. I find it hard to find examples in which this multiculturalism “strives to debunk Islam as a socio-political order.”

Finally, multiculturalism in Malaysia develops naturally in its almost 50 years history since independence. It was not imposed by any outside agent. Multiculturalism evolves in Malaysia as the various ethnic groups seek to live and prosper together. The Malaysia identity is the multiculturalism we are currently enjoying. It is not a “melting pot” identity.

Dr Alex Tang
Johor Bahru

|posted 26 August 2006|

Debunking multiculturalism

The Star 22 August 2006
Fellow,Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science, Insitute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia

HAVING a multicultural society does not mean that every Malaysian must subscribe to an ideology referred to as multiculturalism.
With reference to Malaysia, having a multicultural society is a fact, but to subscribe to multiculturalism is to interpret that fact in a certain way.
Multiculturalism is an alien ideology which came into being out of a particular historical, religious, and cultural setting.
In order to understand multiculturalism one has to keep in mind the long history of religious intolerance in Europe, followed by the Reformation movement, the rise of liberalism, and secularisation. It is a history that is full of horrible tales of persecution and intolerance in the name of religion (read Christianity).
Religious pluralism is the outcome of an attempt to provide a basis in Christian theology for tolerance of non-Christian religions; as such, it is an element in a kind of religious modernism or liberalism.
Liberalism in religion and in politics is historically and theoretically related to one another. Liberalism as a political ideology that emerged in the same period and locale alongside liberal Protestantism. Both took place in the aftermath of the Reformation.
Among the political and religious liberals the attitudes toward moral, social, and political issues are often the same. They emphasise the importance of tolerance, individual rights and freedoms to safeguard a pluralism of life styles.
At the foundation of political liberalism is tolerance of different opinions about religion. Then came religious pluralism which seeks to provide a theological basis for this tolerance.
Being an outgrowth of liberal Protestantism, religious pluralism rejects orthodox interpretations of Christian scripture and dogma to make salvation attainable via routes other than Christianity.
It is sceptical towards rational arguments in favour of the superiority of Christian beliefs. It appeals to the modem moral principles of tolerance and rejection of prejudice.
Because of its emphasis on the elements common to personal religious faith, ritual and theological doctrine are considered to be of secondary importance or a personal matter.
The liberal separation of religion from social order is founded on the assumption that this separation is consistent with the tenets of all religions and sects, whereas it is in direct conflict with the very nature of the worldview of Islam.
In the first place, Islam has never been structured upon some kind of church-state relation like that of medieval Christianity. Secondly, Islam is not a culture that evolves and develops in the way Christianity does.
Multiculturalism, as understood and propagated by its proponents in this country is not based on diversity, but rather it strives to debunk Islam as a socio-political order.
The ideological components of Malaysian multiculturalism can be summarised as a cultural relativism which finds the prominence of Islam in this country intolerable.
It rests on the attitude that religion should not be allowed to “interfere” in our social and political life. Hence, it is important that every Malaysian, especially the Muslims, be made to accept “the fact” that Malaysia is a “secular country”.
The Malaysian multiculturalism’s hostility towards Islam and its repudiation of an identifiable Malaysian culture based upon Islam is augmented by a radically new definition of community, one that deviates from the traditional, religious emphasis on family, neighbourhood, house of worship and school, towards an emphasis on race, gender, occupation and sexual preference.
Can multiculturalism be a viable principle for our national unity?
Ideological multiculturalists are radical-left inhabitants of a political dreamland. These ideological divisions within our society threaten to render the nation into hostile factions.
The multiculturalists assert that Malaysia is an idea rather than a nation possessing a distinctive but encompassing identity. Hence, after almost 50 years of independence we still hear people talking about the search for a “Malaysian identity”.
It means Malaysia, as far as they are concerned, has no identity, and if we are to have one, Islam should not be part of that identity.
Current manifestations of multiculturalism extend far beyond the kind of pluralism that seeks a richer common culture to multicultural particularism which denies that a common culture is possible or desirable.
In an attempt to validate the multiculturalists’ emphasis on particularism and its concomitant subversion of cultural commonality, knowledge and facts in their discourse are consistently subordinated to the so-called “critical thinking approach.”
The dismal truth is that critical thinking in practice means subjective questioning and unsubstantiated, unreasoned, personal opinion.
Contrary to the assertions of proponents of multiculturalism that limitless pluralism enriches our understanding, the de-emphasising of specific factual knowledge in their discourse resulted in what it inevitably must have – a plague of ignorance.
Multiculturalism’s subordination of facts and knowledge to unguided “critical thinking” demonstrates its intellectual bankruptcy, since any critical opinion worthy of consideration must evolve out of knowledge and be grounded in objective facts.
Malaysia is not a no man’s land, and everybody knows that, and the fact that Islam is the religion of the Federation is also common knowledge.
Further contemplation would be enough for one to realise another fact: namely, that Islamic ethical and socio-political order is ultimately the expression of certain ideas about life and existence as a whole.
To Muslims, those ideas are the integrating principles that place all systems of meaning and standards of life and values in coherent order.
To those who live on the assumption that Malaysia is a secular country, it is the secular worldview that is supposed to be the prism through which we understand who we are and how to go about living our lives.
Of course they can believe in whatever they want to believe. But we would like to ask a very simple question: Who says the secular worldview is our common worldview?
That is surely not acceptable to Muslims, who are aware that secularism is antithetical not only to Islam but to all religious worldviews.
Leaving the ignorant and confused Muslims aside, there is no way to make conscious Muslims accept a secular interpretation of life and existence as espoused by Western culture and civilisation.
The followers of other religions should recognise the fact that their religions have many things in common with Islam, particularly when it comes to ethics and morality.
It is through Malaysia, as an Islamic state, that other religions would thrive, and that we have better chance of fostering national unity based on a common religious worldview.
A secular Malaysia would be an enemy not only to Islam but a common enemy to all religions.
We must realise the fact that secularisation can be considered a natural phenomenon only in the case of the West, considering what they have experienced in their history.
To apply their solution to our problem is to admit that we are now experiencing the same problem they used to have; which is historically baseless and logically absurd.

|posted 26 August 2006|



"treat, heal, and comfort always"

 "spiritual forming disciples of Jesus Christ with informed minds, hearts on fire and contemplative in actions"  


Website Articles Spiritual Writings Nurture/ Courses Engaging Culture Medical Interests Social















  Creative Commons License

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is
licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

© 2006-2018 Alex Tang