The Danish caricature furore, as I like to refer to it to, has caused many a flag burnt, an embassy threatened, an insulting placard carried, and ultimately, so many jumpers on the free-speech bandwagon that it's amazing the wheels have yet to disintegrate under the pressure. I won't dissect the whole religion vs free speech issue here, because I have done so elsewhere, but another issue that warrants discussion. Arising from this fiasco, is the question of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic countries; of integration, and of how this is to work, in today's world.

I say today's world because the social landscape of the world we live in today no longer mirrors what it was a mere decade ago. Globalisation is no longer an economic concept; it is very much one of social migration too. On the one hand, perhaps some forty or fifty years ago, or even earlier than that, a generation of migrants sought to seek greener pastures, moving abroad and starting a new life elsewhere for various reasons: to escape political pressures, to escape poverty, even to just escape.

Generation gaps

This generation of migrants was happy to take on more menial jobs, happy to be able to start afresh. Their lower status in society did not bother them as much. But over the years, their children, and their children's children became more educated, more integrated in society and more aware of their rights, the identity and the confused culture they were often living in.

Secondly, of late there are highly skilled migrants from less developed countries choosing to embark on careers that suit their qualifications in first world countries. The breakdown of communication barriers and the advancements of technologies such as the Internet has made it easier for this to happen.

The result: countries in the West that were predominantly Caucasian are now being infused with a mix of different ethnic groups, with different cultures, different beliefs and different ideals. Initially repressed to small communities by a generation more apologetic and accepting of their immigrant status, younger generations are beginning to see this is no longer needed; and that as tax-paying, law abiding, full-fledged citizens; restrictions to their way of life seem to go against the grain of the human rights doctrine the country they live in preach. They demand respect for their way of life, and rightly so.

Obviously the difference in cultures doesn't sit in well with everyone. We fear things we are unfamiliar with, and as a defence mechanism we often lash out; in retaliation the other party lashes out too, and all of a sudden we have a riot on our hands. OK, perhaps not that dramatic, but where there are many cultures, many different ideals and beliefs, more care has to be taken about what is said, what is done and what is practiced.

You could begin to understand the sense of unease the immigrant community brings to locals. Immigrants are often those who are seeking a better life, and by way of natural selection, are those with more gumption, dedication, emotional strength and ambition. It follows that even in their new country, they are apt to work harder, try harder and come out better than locals who have perhaps been lulled into a false sense of security, living lives padded with subsidies and handouts.

And yet this is a reality of the future we are to live in. How indeed do we deal with multi-culturalism, multi-ethnicity, diverse beliefs and religions? Is there a model of integration somewhere which could paint and point - the way forward for others?

Follow the leader

Perhaps the best way, at least from the locals point of view, is to follow the age old adage: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is fine and dandy, for as long as you are comfortable with what the Romans do, and this doesn't offend your sensitivities or your beliefs. A tad more complicated, say, if it is in Roman culture to bathe naked and communally, and this is a taboo in your own society. And so therein lies to conflict do the Romans tell the immigrants to shove off home if you don't like the way we do things, or do the Romans accommodate the immigrants and meet them halfway?

The clash, of late, seems to be between Islam and secularism. Unlike other faiths, Muslims live their life according to their scriptures. Muslims believe that religion covers everything from politics to economics to community life, and they strive to stay true to the principles in their everyday life. Very different from say, Christian and Jewish traditions, predominant in the West, where there is a clear demarcation between state and church (or synagogue, if you will).

A recent commentary in the UK's Independent newspaper recommended that Europe should stop looking at Turkey as the model for the fusion between secularism and Islam, because of the homogeneity of its people; and instead look further afield to Malaysia, where she argued, the multi-ethnic nature of the country provides a stronger basis to set an example by.

It was rather heartwarming to read nice things about one's homeland when one is abroad, especially since most foreign press Malaysia gets rarely sings it praise in a worthwhile manner. But is the Malaysian model really the answer? Recent cases have tested the secular vs Islamic rule divide in our country notably the case of the late Everest hero M Moorthy and Nyonya Tahir. While I feel that the authorities have acted with care and, dare I say it, somewhat commendably, the public sentiment was still worrying.

Don't be sensitive dear

"Usah bincang isu sensitif" ("Don't discuss sensitive issues") was the headlining letter on a letters page of a local Malay daily, which I was reading when I was at home. Many letters before and after its publication basically underlined the same sentiment don't discuss issues deemed sensitive so that the balance of sensibilities can be maintained. Is this the way forward? Sweep everything under the carpet and pretend nothing really happened, as opposed to engaging in constructive dialogue and trying to come to a mature solution?

Also, perhaps many outside the country are not aware of the special rights awarded to bumiputeras (sons of the country). Would bestowing similar rights to the bumiputeras of the various European countries also result in the same 'harmonious' integration that we seem to 'enjoy' in Malaysia? What if child benefits in the UK were only to be given to those of English or British heritage? What if buying property depended on where your parents or grandparents were born? What if there were universities that were only for students of British descent?

Perhaps the dynamics are different. Circumstances are not the same, one might argue. These races are not inferior, that is why they don't need a legs up by the government to get ahead. Ooops, did I imply that bumiputeras of Malaysia were inferior? Am I inferior? Am I not good enough to make it if it weren't for special assistance and special rights? Perhaps so. Maybe that is why I have such low self esteem.

All that aside, though, there is no conclusion to this issue, because in the world today, there seems to be no workable model of integration. That's because as much a global village as the world is today, we still live as if there are boundaries everywhere. We still act as if the world is a playground: where the big kids get away with picking on the little ones; where the teacher in charge tries, in vain, to calm the situation; where the self-appointed prefects keep slingshots in their back pockets but confiscate the same weapons from others. Where the rules of the game are still being dictated by the jocks without really thinking or wanting to listen to the ones who may be on crutches or in wheelchairs, but still want to join in.

If everyone thinks they are always right, then no one wants to admit that they ever wrong. If we define the world in black and white, we don't see the shades of grey that it really is. That's where integration is in the shades of grey. How do we get there? I have no idea.

IDLAN ZAKARIA is still waiting for marriage proposals. Send your resume to her at idlan@idlanzakaria.com .