I recently visited Japan under the auspices of a Japan-East Asia exchange programme, which brought together 15 participants from Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand to learn about Japan’s culture and journalism practices.

We called on various institutions, such as Nippon TV, Hokkaido Shimbun, Fuji Women’s University, and the Hokkaido prefecture government office.

I was moved upon learning about their newsrooms’ commitment to advocate peace following the horrors of World War II.

But the most interesting programme was a three-day cosy homestay with local families in Sapporo, Hokkaido.

My hosts, a typical nucleus family of four, generously fed me with delicious home-cooked meals and brought me on a whirlwind tour around the city’s notable attractions, such as the Hokkaido Jingu shrine and Sapporo Maruyama zoo.

Through ample interactions, I gained an understanding of Japanese lifestyle, traditional family structure, and the grouses of youth against rising living expenses.

Invaluably, these experiences demonstrated to me Japan’s layered and complicated society, which still is grappling with a few spectres of history along with a bevy of social issues.

Knowing me, knowing you

To my pleasant surprise, the intercultural exchange occurred not only between foreigners and locals, but also among Malaysians of different ethnic backgrounds.

Over nine days of travelling, Malay and Chinese Malaysians worked together on assignments, resolved inconveniences, and enjoyed delicious Japanese food together.

As we admired Japan’s extremely conscientious society and spotless streets, we joked that the few pieces of rubbish on the streets must have been littered by visiting Malaysians.

Without being defensive or concerned about public scrutiny, we exchanged views on current affairs and the conundrum of identity politics. This candid togetherness was greatly appreciated by the Malaysians, as vacationing abroad with people of different ethnicities is uncommon within our circles.

All these true “muhibbah” episodes had me thinking: perhaps Malaysia should also emulate such an intercultural exchange programme on the domestic level.

Communal barriers

It is safe to say that half of the country’s problems stem from the contradictory visions and narratives for Malaysia, as held by the varying communities.

Some believe in a pluralistic vision of Malaysia while others champion “Ketuanan Melayu”; certain people dream of creating an Islamic nation while others are vehemently secular and capitalistic.

Regionalism is on the rise in East Malaysia with their bitter demands of “liberation from Malaya” now heard across the South China Sea.

As such, national events and developments are often interpreted differently depending on the dictates or perspectives of each.

Topics such as the position of Islam, the special provisions for Bumiputera in the Federal Constitution, the role of communist guerrillas in anti-colonial movements, the Malaysia Agreement 1963, and many others often find their way into debates among the rakyat.

The knotty tensions generated by contrasting mindsets are further compounded by linguistic and class barriers. To a certain degree, each of us lives in an echo chamber that reinforces either our sense of entitlement, or deprivation.

Colonial suppression

The origin of these communal cocoons, weaved in the comfort of racial and religious ideals, can be traced back to the period of “Malayan Spring” – a term historian Tim Harper refers to as the time between World War II and Merdeka.

For fear of jeopardising Western business interests in the colony, the British colonial administration crippled Malayan labour movements – often trans-communal in nature – leaving the locals with few options but to advance their political struggles along religious and racial lines.

Nowadays, this communal configuration still exists in our social subconscious, evidenced in situations where some Malaysians refuse to rent homes to people of certain ethnicities, and some label non-Muslim Malaysians as “kafir (infidels)”.

I believe intercultural programmes can serve to bridge the communal trenches driving us apart and nurture a positive mindset towards our pluralistic society.

Intercultural exposure

Such an intercultural exchange programme should be implemented across various states, considering that people from the interior of the Borneo states, the tranquil villages of Perlis, or the transit town of Johor Bahru might define what constitutes “Malaysia” in very different ways.

It should feature topics showcasing the strengths of each state: forestry and wildlife tourism in Sabah, heritage preservation in Penang, or agricultural technology in Johor.

Meanwhile, the homestay programme should expose the participants to different ethnic cultures to ensure that intercultural learning takes place. Organisers should make a conscious effort to recruit participants from all ethnic groups, including minorities such as the Orang Asli, Eurasians and others.

But it must first avoid repeating the controversy of the “Zom Ziarah Geraja” programme by making clear that religious promotion and proselytism are to be strictly prohibited.

Halal food requirements for Muslims should also be handled with care. The easiest solution is “tapau” food from halal eateries. Host families could also provide disposable dinnerware and utensils to dispel the apprehension of Muslim participants.

Getting it done

Putrajaya could execute it under the national unity ministry, with the assistance of the youth and sports ministry, and education-related ministries. The religious affairs ministry could be consulted for guidelines on meeting halal requirements.

On a smaller scale, this could be taken up by state governments or NGOs, as policy changes at the federal level are often cumbersome and heavy-handed.

It could also be conducted as visits between the various schooling streams extant in our education system. Ikram, an Islamic NGO, has been running a similar programme for some years.

It would certainly come with a hefty bill, but there must be some appealing benefits that prompted Japan to invest US$315 million in the Japan-East Asia programme between 2007 and 2012.

In other words, the Japanese government is aware that soft power diplomacy could promote goodwill, showcase its cutting-edge technology, and familiarise the world with their own language and customs.

Hopefully through such intercultural exposures, Malaysians would begin to appreciate each other first as human beings capable of compassion before considering their communal affiliations.

The nation could then develop immunity to rhetoric that weaponises religion and ethnic identity, and expect the emergence of a more cohesive national identity.

The four Malaysians who took part in the exchange programme: Mohamad Al As (New Straits Times), Rex Tan (Free Malaysia Today), Vickson Wong (Sin Chew Daily) and Ammar Shafiq Hamzah (Bernama).

Rex Tan is a journalist with FMT.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.