MH17: A lesson in handling sensitive issues

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has won praise for the way the government has so far handled the MH17 tragedy. He deserves it.

I believe most, if not all, Malaysians would acknowledge that he did the proper thing by working behind the scenes to get the separatists in eastern Ukraine to release the bodies of the dead and to hand over the plane’s flight recorders.

Najib did two things: he did not condemn the separatists or point the finger at Russia which supports the separatists in Ukraine, and he undertook to personally contact top Russian leaders and the separatists, away from public glare.

And that has paid off.

I am glad, too, that opposition parties have been supportive of the efforts of the government. Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not shy about praising Najib’s handling of the matter. Anwar said he agreed with the government’s decision to engage with rebel leader Alexander Borodai, adding: “Although the move has courted controversy, it is necessary as it is the trait of a responsible leader to safeguard the interests of his people first and to get things done.”

It reflects well on Anwar’s character, and the opposition’s standing, too.

It is not often than you see the opposition and the government on the same page. It is unfortunate, however, that it takes a tragedy of this proportion to unite Malaysians.

For several days after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine with 298 passengers and crew on aboard on July 17, there was uncertainty about the repatriation of the bodies and whether a proper investigation could be carried out as evidence might have been tampered with.

This was due to the fact that the separatists and the Ukrainian government were fighting a civil war and the separatists appeared unwilling to offer immediate access to the crash site, which they controlled.

Most Western nations, especially nations with citizens who had been travelling aboard MH17, slammed the separatists and Russia. Malaysia did not.

That helped.

It underscores, yet again, that neutrality does pay. In a world that is returning to a Cold War-like situation, when countries appear to be aligning with Russia or China or the US, Malaysia continues to be friends with everyone.

For this, we must thank those early leaders who laid the foundation of Malaysia’s foreign policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and establishing close relations with everyone.

The moral of this story is that it pays to be friendly with everyone. And it is important that communication channels always remain open. And it pays to drop your ego once in a while at least.

I propose that we use the same method in dealing with some of our more difficult problems – problems that are related to race and religion. This is especially so because some groups within Malaysia are too quick to point fingers. They see enemies all around them, feel constantly threatened, and cry wolf.

Some issues can be better solved by not apportioning blame on anyone. And, no matter how much you dislike someone or some group, it is always best to keep the channels of communication open so that dialogue is still possible.

What happened in the MH17 case, where the separatists agreed to allow the bodies to be transported out of the site, shows the importance of keeping communication channels open.

It also highlights the importance of putting the ego aside and talking to others, even if they are strangers, even if they are not on the same level as you are.

For this to work, the government and government agencies must take a neutral stand when dealing with issues. Rather than taking sides, they should seek to resolve the matter in the most amicable manner possible.

I believe some of the intractable issues facing Malaysia, such as the Allah issue, could have been resolved if those involved had adopted this method.

The important thing is not to consider everyone your enemy. It is better to think of others as friends who hold different opinions. It is better to engage in discussion and dialogue. It is better to keep talking rather than resort to condemnation or violence.