Citizenship devalued by censorship
by CK Ng
3:50pm Wed Sep 3rd, 2003
malaysiakini.com
Mustapha Ong’s recent comments on the current state of political debate and the issues he raised are worthy of some rebuttal.
Unlike Mustapha, I am of the post-Merdeka generation, and by his definition, "the younger generation". To what extent there is a major citizenship, or even political difference between his generation and mine and those that come after me, is beyond my naive comprehension.
However, it is apparent that Mustapha has put on a highly paternalistic political prism when it comes to analysing the current political and social debates.
The sweeping media reports of the current issues as suggested by Mustapha are merely a reflection of the poor state of journalistic affairs in this country. It is the result of a highly constrained and controlled press that is merely the mouthpiece of the political parties in power.
How can the controlled media really put out detailed discussion of the issues when in fact they are not supposed to? In my view, the media in Malaysia is largely a social pacifier – its aim is not to raise important issues, but to ensure the social ‘stability’ and continued political hegemony exercised by Umno and its lesser political cohorts.
Seriously, without a free press, many thinking Malaysians simply do not have the means to express themselves in a reasonable manner, nor do they know the limits of reasonable civic debate on issues that matter.
Many of us simply do not have the opportunity to learn how to discuss issues constructively and with care. This inevitably results in rather poor and at times rough attempts to voice one's opinion; extreme or otherwise.
And to those who are following the issues, they have little to fall back on when it comes to adjudicating the severity of the opinions. As I see it, this is a learning curve we have all got to endure as a democratic society coming to grips with re-awakened civic consciousness.
Indeed, our collective growth in civil society is badly stunted by our constant reminder of May 13, 1969, and the Internal Security Act trap-door. Indeed, the very fact that we do not discuss certain ‘sensitive’ issues has retarded our civic growth as a society and in the long run, will badly damage national unity.
We are dysfunctional for the very reasons Mustapha has feared and seeks to redress. Without open public avenues to discuss issues, many Malaysians have to live with ill-informed discussions, many which are based on myths and hearsay, and perpetuated misunderstandings.
And we wonder why, after 46 years of Merdeka, Malaysians are still divided along racial and religious lines! We simply do not talk openly with each other, and when we do, even in reasonable tones, we are reminded of the ISA and its spectral threat! Is this ‘social stability’ - a façade if anything - such a great prize?
Does anyone seriously think Malaysia will be thrown into chaos as the result of openly discussing of issues such as the ISA, corruption, the national anthem, or flag flying? This nation is not as fragile as one would like to think.
Indeed, we have survived far worse. How can we as a nation learn to come together or even integrate/assimilate if we do not openly discuss racism, sexism, or even encroaching Islamisation without fear or prejudice? Or for that matter, any on-going issues of importance to the rakyat?
Through open debate comes a consensus-based outcome. The outcome may not please everyone, particularly the ruling elite, but at the very least it is a democratically-reached consensus, in which everyone has a vested interest. The process is just as important as the outcome.
This is a sign of a healthy democratic society; a society that listens to, and adjudicates, the issues. By shutting out open discussion, we condemn ourselves to rule by dictation, and gave up the right to be a self-governing people. Perhaps this is the type of society some would like Malaysia to be.
For many of us, this is not where we would like to end up after years of education, during which we learnt to think and to understand issues.
To suggest that the ‘sensible’ approach to raising ‘sensitive’ issues is through parliamentary level is ridiculous. How many of us, the rakyat, actually gets a say in those select committee hearings? It is hardly sensible, and neither is it a workable route.
Indeed, it is one sure way to disengage the public from all things political, and instill a pseudo-feudalistic society. The current electoral system which favours the ruling parties over that of the opposition has long made it impossible for any sensible or open discussion of such ‘sensitive’ issues.
Many of our Dewan Rakyat representatives are complacent, and never tested by real political competition. Indeed the recent outburst on the flag issue is a clear case of an untested and unthinking politician.
You would have thought these types of politicians would have been weeded out earlier by the political machinery. For all this, we have the likes of Mustapha to thank. Syabas!
To presuppose that Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s departure from the active political arena will lead to Malaysia losing its grip on international and national affairs is simply ludicrous. This presupposes that Malaysia has no person of political or leadership talent other than Dr Mahathir.
I would say Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and many others would be most unimpressed if not insulted by that insinuation. I suspect Mustapha has been reading too much of the mainstream news to think otherwise.
Mustapha’s analysis smacks of blatant high-handed paternalism and one which makes some sense in the early days of Merdeka when Malaya/Malaysia was ruled by the educated political elite.
Malaysia has since changed. Our society has matured, and gone through many trials and tribulations along the way. The political elite would like to think otherwise, and seek to deny us our fundamental civic rights.
However, to dismiss all that history, to consider the rakyat as childlike and in need of constant protection from sensitive issues is unjustified, and an exercise of pretension at the highest level.
Of what value is citizenship when we cannot participate in airing our political and social views free of fear and prejudice? And of what long-term value is a stable society when our openness is severely restricted by harsh laws and policies that are based on unproven fears and historical events that no longer apply?
It would be wise to give the current Malaysian society a sense of dignity and the civic rights it deserves by insisting on the continued growth of a strong civil society imbued with democratic ideals, protection of the minorities, open and free press, and a compassion for the less fortunate.
Our current problems of corruption, blatant abuse of power and poor management of resources are the result of a ruling system that propagates fear through non-discussion, denial, and a shackled press.
A muffled society will always remain uncivil and politically disengaged, a stagnant society - an outcome far worse than ‘anarchy’. That is not the Malaysian society I have in mind for the present or the future.
3:50pm Wed Sep 3rd, 2003
malaysiakini.com
Mustapha Ong’s recent comments on the current state of political debate and the issues he raised are worthy of some rebuttal.
Unlike Mustapha, I am of the post-Merdeka generation, and by his definition, "the younger generation". To what extent there is a major citizenship, or even political difference between his generation and mine and those that come after me, is beyond my naive comprehension.
However, it is apparent that Mustapha has put on a highly paternalistic political prism when it comes to analysing the current political and social debates.
The sweeping media reports of the current issues as suggested by Mustapha are merely a reflection of the poor state of journalistic affairs in this country. It is the result of a highly constrained and controlled press that is merely the mouthpiece of the political parties in power.
How can the controlled media really put out detailed discussion of the issues when in fact they are not supposed to? In my view, the media in Malaysia is largely a social pacifier – its aim is not to raise important issues, but to ensure the social ‘stability’ and continued political hegemony exercised by Umno and its lesser political cohorts.
Seriously, without a free press, many thinking Malaysians simply do not have the means to express themselves in a reasonable manner, nor do they know the limits of reasonable civic debate on issues that matter.
Many of us simply do not have the opportunity to learn how to discuss issues constructively and with care. This inevitably results in rather poor and at times rough attempts to voice one's opinion; extreme or otherwise.
And to those who are following the issues, they have little to fall back on when it comes to adjudicating the severity of the opinions. As I see it, this is a learning curve we have all got to endure as a democratic society coming to grips with re-awakened civic consciousness.
Indeed, our collective growth in civil society is badly stunted by our constant reminder of May 13, 1969, and the Internal Security Act trap-door. Indeed, the very fact that we do not discuss certain ‘sensitive’ issues has retarded our civic growth as a society and in the long run, will badly damage national unity.
We are dysfunctional for the very reasons Mustapha has feared and seeks to redress. Without open public avenues to discuss issues, many Malaysians have to live with ill-informed discussions, many which are based on myths and hearsay, and perpetuated misunderstandings.
And we wonder why, after 46 years of Merdeka, Malaysians are still divided along racial and religious lines! We simply do not talk openly with each other, and when we do, even in reasonable tones, we are reminded of the ISA and its spectral threat! Is this ‘social stability’ - a façade if anything - such a great prize?
Does anyone seriously think Malaysia will be thrown into chaos as the result of openly discussing of issues such as the ISA, corruption, the national anthem, or flag flying? This nation is not as fragile as one would like to think.
Indeed, we have survived far worse. How can we as a nation learn to come together or even integrate/assimilate if we do not openly discuss racism, sexism, or even encroaching Islamisation without fear or prejudice? Or for that matter, any on-going issues of importance to the rakyat?
Through open debate comes a consensus-based outcome. The outcome may not please everyone, particularly the ruling elite, but at the very least it is a democratically-reached consensus, in which everyone has a vested interest. The process is just as important as the outcome.
This is a sign of a healthy democratic society; a society that listens to, and adjudicates, the issues. By shutting out open discussion, we condemn ourselves to rule by dictation, and gave up the right to be a self-governing people. Perhaps this is the type of society some would like Malaysia to be.
For many of us, this is not where we would like to end up after years of education, during which we learnt to think and to understand issues.
To suggest that the ‘sensible’ approach to raising ‘sensitive’ issues is through parliamentary level is ridiculous. How many of us, the rakyat, actually gets a say in those select committee hearings? It is hardly sensible, and neither is it a workable route.
Indeed, it is one sure way to disengage the public from all things political, and instill a pseudo-feudalistic society. The current electoral system which favours the ruling parties over that of the opposition has long made it impossible for any sensible or open discussion of such ‘sensitive’ issues.
Many of our Dewan Rakyat representatives are complacent, and never tested by real political competition. Indeed the recent outburst on the flag issue is a clear case of an untested and unthinking politician.
You would have thought these types of politicians would have been weeded out earlier by the political machinery. For all this, we have the likes of Mustapha to thank. Syabas!
To presuppose that Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s departure from the active political arena will lead to Malaysia losing its grip on international and national affairs is simply ludicrous. This presupposes that Malaysia has no person of political or leadership talent other than Dr Mahathir.
I would say Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and many others would be most unimpressed if not insulted by that insinuation. I suspect Mustapha has been reading too much of the mainstream news to think otherwise.
Mustapha’s analysis smacks of blatant high-handed paternalism and one which makes some sense in the early days of Merdeka when Malaya/Malaysia was ruled by the educated political elite.
Malaysia has since changed. Our society has matured, and gone through many trials and tribulations along the way. The political elite would like to think otherwise, and seek to deny us our fundamental civic rights.
However, to dismiss all that history, to consider the rakyat as childlike and in need of constant protection from sensitive issues is unjustified, and an exercise of pretension at the highest level.
Of what value is citizenship when we cannot participate in airing our political and social views free of fear and prejudice? And of what long-term value is a stable society when our openness is severely restricted by harsh laws and policies that are based on unproven fears and historical events that no longer apply?
It would be wise to give the current Malaysian society a sense of dignity and the civic rights it deserves by insisting on the continued growth of a strong civil society imbued with democratic ideals, protection of the minorities, open and free press, and a compassion for the less fortunate.
Our current problems of corruption, blatant abuse of power and poor management of resources are the result of a ruling system that propagates fear through non-discussion, denial, and a shackled press.
A muffled society will always remain uncivil and politically disengaged, a stagnant society - an outcome far worse than ‘anarchy’. That is not the Malaysian society I have in mind for the present or the future.
posted by Abu at
7:54:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home