The fact that a few minutes of my BBC interview o­n March 29 has aroused an obviously contrieved controversy in the official media for almost o­ne week seems to suggest that, despite our many high-rise and modern-looking buildings, the community of opinion-making elite in Malaysia still seriously lacks the culture, ethos, institutions and rules of engagement of democratic debate and decision-making.

While I still respect the right of free speech of my well-meaning but apparently misguided critics (some of them are secularly quite intolerant despite their high and secular education), I also think that there are lessons to be learnt and mistakes not to be repeated in future.

The whole story was rather simple, natural and straightforward: while the anti-war (and/or anti-American and anti-Western) opinion and sentiment seemed to be 'unanimous' in the media and the streets of Kuala Lumpur and Penang, some of us (my personal friends, acquaintances and contacts) felt that it did not represent the ground feeling in magnitude.

Obtaining feedback

So, in the last two months, I talked to some personal friends and people in the streets, pubs, coffee shops, unisex salons as well as former colleagues in the mainstream media (of all languages) and others who had not voiced up any opinions or sentiments in the public media.

I also randomly telephoned some non-elite, non-ideological and non-intellectual friends and acquaintances outside the Klang Valley in Penang, Ipoh, Johor Baru, Kampung Bacham and Simee (in Ipoh), Tapah, Bidor, Mambang Diawan and Air Hitam. It has always been my belief that while ideological and intellectual reasoning should be respected and studied, it should be checked against the sentiments and opinions o­n the ground.

The personal impression I formed from those contacts and conversations is that two in three were (may be still are, if they are not opportunistic to cross over to the side of the victor in the battlefield) anti-war. Their reasons varied from absolute pacifism to genuine sympathy with the innocent Iraqi people and children, anti-Americanism, anti-(any)power (including Mahathir and Umno) and et cetera.

Above all, there is also, in my observation, the element of opportunism: secretly and privately pro-war and/or pro-US but publicly anti-war and/or anti-US because the government and the major opposition parties have adopted the anti-war and/or anti-American position(s).

The "one" in "three" who was (most probably still is because his/her side seems to have won) pro-war and/or pro-US also does not enjoy seeing ordinary or innocent Iraqis suffering but he/she opines that war is the o­nly way to terminate the Saddam regime which had killed and maimed more people in Iraq and its neighbours.

Asked why they did not publicly express their pro-war views, the "o­ne" in "three" usually said that is "not nice" to be publicly seen as "pro-American", or being "cruel".

Better to keep quiet

Some (not many) Muslims who are privately pro-war typically feared that, if they expressed their opinions publicly, they would be isolated or alienated in their own ethnic-religious community. Many non-Muslims who are pro-war opined that it was better to keep quiet because their views might cause ill-feeling among their Muslims friends.

However, while there were (and still are) many non-Muslims who are publicly anti-war, there were (still are) also Muslims who are openly pro-war, such as my friend Dzirhan Mahadzir who is a lecturer in military history and strategy with the Malaysian Armed Forces Defence College.

After attending two lectures delivered in Kuala Lumpur by Dr Malik M Hassan, the president of the Council of American Muslims for Understanding (Camu) last month, I also found that there are other Malaysian Muslims who shared the views of Dzirhan, although they were still in minority and preferred not to air their opinions publicly as Dzirhan has been doing with intellectual courage and moral conviction.

There is also a portion of Malaysians I talked to who did not express any opinion at all because of indifference or de-politicised apathy. Some of them humbly and honestly admitted that they could not form any opinions from afar. Fair enough.

Those personal observations suggested that, at least o­n March 29 when the BBC interview was conducted, the majority of Malaysians were still anti-war for various (not o­ne monolithic) reasons. In the absence of independent, credible and honest opinion polls in Malaysia, the more staunchly pro-war Malaysia could still dispute my observation that they are in minority, as could the staunchly anti-war o­nes who opine that some 90 per cent Malaysians share their views.

As those random and personal observations were, however, gathered before the reported disintegration of the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad and the liberation of Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul, they may have already changed by now.

As all honest students of history, political science or war studies know, since time immemorial (at least from the times of Thucydides and Sun Tzu), human beings and even nations form and change their opinions not o­nly basing o­n what they perceive as justice, but also what they perceive as interests.

For example, while many Iraqis might be staunchly pro-Saddam when Saddam still reign supreme and was believed to be 'invincible', some of them may now be welcoming American, British, Australian and Polish troops into their cities and towns with flowers.

Many government officials, propagandists and ideologues, academicians as well as police and military personnel who o­nce served the Saddam regime may now have decided to be anti-Saddam, or more anti-Saddam than the Kurds, Shiites and other long-standing critics and opponents of the Saddam regime.

Similarly, just before the disintegration of the Saddam regime in Baghdad, both France and Germany had turned around and expressed the "hope that the regime may end soon. In fact, throughout the war, despite the political and diplomatic opposition to war, Germany had always allowed the Nato military bases to be used by the Anglo-American forces.

Eight lessons

What can we Malaysians learn from the debate o­n peace and war in Iraq? In my opinion, there are at least eight lessons, but others can add more.

One, there is no independent, credible and honest opinion polls in Malaysia to more or less scientifically quantify in empirical terms the support or opposition to the war in Iraq, and all other public issues.

Two, there may be divergence of views, opinions and sentiments between the ideological and intellectual elite living and working (thinking) in close association with o­ne another o­n o­ne hand, and those of the mass of non-elite outside the press rooms, party headquarters, university offices and lecture halls o­n the other.

Three, in a society where unknown fears of all description (especially the fear of being lonely and isolated by the majority) still rule psychologically, there is always the vast discrepancy between privately or secretly held opinions o­n o­ne hand, and the politically and publicly correct views o­n the other.

Four, the numerically majority in the debate in Malaysia o­n peace and war in Iraq does not seem to be intellectually and morally very self-confident and/or self-efficacious in their positions (note: I use the plural "positions", not singular "position"); and their over-reaction to a misquoted (or spinned or doctored) statement of mine in the BBC interview may be indicative of that lack of self-confidence and/or self-efficacy.

Five, there is still no acknowledgement in the Malaysian official media of the plurality of views and opinions in a modern (and therefore complex) society, the very human and natural limitations of information, knowledge and wisdom of any individual writers and commentators as well as the pressing need to genuinely diversify opinions and views.

Six, public opinions, o­nce formed at a given point of time, are not immutable, unchangeable or permanent.

Seven, although without political power, some secular public intellectuals could be as intolerant, domineering and emotionally abusive as political tyrants.

Eight, in a moment of mass hysteria, anger, fear and anxiety, genuine 'progressives', however well-meaning, could be misguided to give unconscious and indirect but effective support to tyrants and terrorists or their ideologies, as happened o­nce to the German social democrats o­n the eve of the rise of the National "Socialist" Workers' Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party) in 1933/1934.

This article is not intended to close any public debate. O­n the contrary, it hopes to serve to continue and enlarge it for a deeper, more honest, comprehensive and organic understanding of our own nation, society and people in their plurality and diversity.

The lessons to be learnt, I believe, generally apply to all other debates o­n other public issues in Malaysia.