TOLERANCE OR INTOLERANCE? OUR CHOICE
“Intolerant people” seems to be the mantra of our times. After over five decades of independence, our collective consciousness has been programed outwardly that tolerance is the existential pillar on which our national identity rests. We are Malaysians; therefore, we are tolerant because we have many races living together in harmony and unity. However, it is easier said than done because of many reasons.
By Masterwordsmith
About fifty years ago, a woman named Phyllis McGinley wrote “The Angry Man” – a poem that address the issue of intolerance. She was far ahead of her times as can be seen in the poem. Born on March 21, 1905, she wrote children’s books and poetry about aspects of suburban life.
The Angry Man
The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street —
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, “I am he
Who champions total liberty —
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.
“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.
Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”
“Intolerant people” seems to be the mantra of our times. After over five decades of independence, our collective consciousness has been programed outwardly that tolerance is the existential pillar on which our national identity rests. We are Malaysians; therefore, we are tolerant because we have many races living together in harmony and unity. However, it is easier said than done because of many reasons.
Sometimes, there are citizens who are honest in the way they express their opinions because they have a heart that cares. In such a situation, if they are sincere in their opinions which show sensitivity for the collective good of the nation, such honesty is not bigotry or racism. When a Malaysian is concerned about his own way of living, this concern is not racism.
In reality, tension is inherent in all societies. But this tension has increased dramatically in our country because of dissatisfaction arising from political and social problems confronting the citizens, some of whose views conflict with those of the majority of the society. What we need is toleration and tolerance.
According to Wikipedia:
Toleration and tolerance are terms used in social, cultural and religious contexts to describe attitudes which are “tolerant” (or moderately respectful) of practices or group memberships that may be disapproved of by those in the majority. In practice, “tolerance” indicates support for practices that prohibit ethnic and religious discrimination. Conversely, ‘intolerance’ may be used to refer to the discriminatory practices sought to be prohibited… These terms are increasingly used to refer to a wider range of tolerated practices and groups, or of political parties or ideas widely considered objectionable.
Toleration, both as a social and political practice, is a moral principle that is so important in a society like ours. Even as we are bombarded with exhortations to embrace diversity or to appreciate differences and to reach accommodation, are we sincere in our efforts to live together harmoniously? Do we, especially leaders, practise self-censorship to ensure that what we speak or do can enhance unity, harmony and mutual understanding or are there nuances which could dispel or even imply intolerance and a hidden agenda be it overtly or covertly?
Does tolerance mean accepting all views and values as equally worthy? To what extent must a society accommodate values or practices deemed alien to them? Can society accept the presence of those whose cultural and political goals are contrary to liberal values? We have to consider many factors, especially the moral fabric of society, peace and unity.
Consider the autonomy of the individual and the neutrality of the state when it comes to defining what is a good life. Theoretically, the state provides the conditions via the rule of law, public institutions, etc. that enable individuals to live as they see fit. The state does not interfere in the lives of individuals so long as their “personal” concerns such as religious beliefs, lifestyle choices and cultural preferences do not affect the rest of society negatively.
That does not mean everything can be tolerated in the public, or political realm. Toleration cannot be extended to the intolerant, because that undermines the necessary conditions for tolerance. There can be no toleration of those who actively pursue claims that are contrary to the moral structures necessary to preserve the state. It is up to the government to take immediate action to nip in the bud those who threaten national security such as in the fire-bombing attacks.
Tolerance is the ability to acknowledge the differing views of other people; for example, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views. It is also the act of putting up with something or someone irritating or otherwise unpleasant. In addition, putting up with bad or harsh conditions is also being tolerant.
I dare say a large majority of Malaysians are very tolerant and we HAVE really been putting up with MANY frustrating incidents, issues and situations which affect us directly such as in the rising cost of living, the increase in the number of scandals and indirectly – such as in our concerns regarding the recent fire-bombing and the direction that this country is heading.
To be honest, we must differentiate between tolerance and acceptance. Being tolerant means putting up with something distasteful whereas acceptance means that we feel nothing is wrong with it.
Rules and laws are at the center of differences between tolerance and acceptance. Our country has a set of rules that bind and protect us and we feel protected with the thought and when we comply to these.
In enforcing rules, the government is drawing the line between what is acceptable and what violates the rules in our civilized society. Consequently, rules and laws are enacted for order so we can enjoy our freedom.
Read more at: TOLERANCE OR INTOLERANCE? OUR CHOICE
