Real freedom means you must remove some freedoms

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jan 6, 2014

And this third part is more difficult than the first two parts. It is easy to whack and expose wrongdoings and transgressions and to come out with untold stories. But to train Malaysians in how to think and rationalise and present their views intelligently and with mature arguments is going to be a very long process.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

RPK, generally speaking when one talks about Freedom (or for that matter, any subject), one is addressing an opposite party (or parties) whose mindset on the subject of discussion is close to one’s (heart?). Otherwise every time one speaks, one needs to define the parameters, the limit and scope of one’s argument, etc., etc., before one actually lay down the argument. This manner of debate would be extremely long-winded and tedious.

The problem I find with most people (Malaysians especially) is they would ‘wriggle’ out of an argument by introducing so-called ‘refinements’ thereby widening the argument till the original subject debated is totally lost, i.e. most participants have forgotten what they are debating about to begin with. — HT Low (ex-VI boy)

**********************************************

HT, partly I agree with what you say regarding defining the scope and parameters of any debate or else the debate is going to go off-tangent or in all directions with each person talking about something else altogether. However, before one engages in any debate, one should at least have a grasp of the subject to be debated plus have some knowledge regarding the philosophy behind that subject being debated.

For example, we must understand the philosophy behind freedom if we wish to debate the issue of freedom and understand, also, the philosophy behind religion and how religion runs contra to freedom. In other words, freedom and religion are opposed to one another and are not compatible.

If we can accept this fundamental and opposing characteristic of both freedom and religion, then we will achieve something with the debate. If not then it is futile to debate what is going to be a non-starter.

Now, before I go on, allow me to remind you of the various reasons why we set up Malaysia Today almost ten years ago. One was to expose the wrongdoings and transgressions of those who walk in the corridors of power. Second was to tell the untold stories or expose secrets. And third was to encourage intelligent and intellectual discourse so that Malaysians can learn how to think, rationalise and present their views in a mature manner.

When I say we expose the wrongdoings and transgressions of those who walk in the corridors of power I do not mean just those committed by the Barisan Nasional or Umno people (meaning just ruling party politicians). This means anyone who happens to walk in the corridors of power such as those government officers or civil servants (some, in fact, who are opposition supporters).

Hence we exposed the wrongdoings and transgressions of even the AG, IGP, Judiciary, SPR, MACC, GLCs, private companies, businessmen, Chinese underworld, local councils, police officers, customs officers, tender committees, family members of people in power, and more.

In short, anyone and everyone who happens to have power and who abuses this power becomes a target if we can catch them committing a wrongful act.

No doubt, in 2004, when Malaysia Today was initially set up, the opposition was practically massacred in the worst election ever for the opposition. Hence Barisan Nasional had almost absolute power and the opposition was wounded badly. Hence, also, the government was our main focus of attacks. I mean, why do we need to attack a badly wounded opposition that may not even be around come the next general election?

But in 2008 all that changed. The opposition bounced back and managed to grab five states and 82 Parliament seats. The opposition was now poised to take over the country, possibly in the general election after that.

Hence, now (meaning in 2008), the opposition was also in a position of power and most likely was going to be the next government. And that would mean the opposition, too, now needed to be watched and whacked if they commit the same wrongdoings as those from amongst the ruling party who walk in the corridors of power.

Regarding the untold stories (reason number two), there were many secrets that the Malaysian public was not aware of. And this means we needed to reveal those secrets so that the Malaysian public would know what goes on behind the scenes in the corridors of power.

Today, since 2004, there are so many blogs, news portals and websites that talk about all sorts of secrets. Hence many secrets are no longer secrets. So we now have very few untold stories to tell. Hell, we even have videos of all sorts of ‘secret’ acts that are no longer secrets.

In short, there are very little secrets left in Malaysia and secrets seldom remain secrets for long. So there are very few untold stories to tell. These stories have already been told and everyone is talking about them. This means Malaysia Today need not talk about them since every Malaysian is aware of these stories and if we talk about them we would not be talking about an untold story but about a story that is already basi (stale).

And that brings us to the third thing: to encourage intelligent and intellectual discourse so that Malaysians can learn how to think, rationalise and present their views in a mature manner.

And that is what we focus more on nowadays. Hence I write all sorts of analyses, opinion pieces and commentaries regarding current issues, not to report about those issues since everyone has already read about them, but to trigger intelligent and intellectual discourse so that Malaysians can learn how to think, rationalise and present their views in a mature manner.

This is the main weakness of Malaysians. So more effort needs to be put into this. No doubt many blame Malaysia’s education system for this. Who is to blame for this is one thing but will playing the blame game improve the situation? What we need to do is to expose Malaysians to intelligent and intellectual discourse and hopefully teach them how to think, rationalise and present their arguments in a mature manner.

Let us go back to my earlier comment regarding freedom and religion where I said that both are not compatible. The religionists would probably take offense to my insinuation that freedom is about democracy while religion is undemocratic. But then is this not so? If you wish to fight in support of freedom then you need to fight against religion. Can any of you do this in all sincerity?

Take the Allah word as one example, a current hot issue in Malaysia. Freedom means any Malaysian can call God by any name that he or she so pleases. But you cannot do that, can you?

Religion comes under state jurisdiction, and state laws stipulates that there are about two dozen words that non-Muslims cannot use, Allah being one of them — even in Selangor, a Pakatan Rakyat run state.

And Islam comes under the state Rulers so the Ruler can issue a decree regarding any matter whatsoever that affects Islam (the use of the Allah word by Christians as one example).

We say that the ruling party does not respect the law. We say that we want those politicians in power to respect the law. Well, in Selangor, Pakatan Rakyat is the government so should they, too, not respect the law? And the law says that Islam comes under the Rulers and is a state matter and the law says that the Ruler has the power to decide.

So is this not the lawful thing to do (ban non-Muslims from using the Allah word) since everyone is just respecting the law and complying with the law? Why should Christians be exempted from the law while Muslims be made to face the law (such as getting arrested if they drink beer in Selangor)?

So you see, freedom is not really freedom, as I said in my previous article. You do not have freedom when it comes to matters of religion. Religion is undemocratic because it curtails your freedom. Hence, to have real freedom, you need to ban all religions, Christianity included since the Christians are violating the law in Selangor by using the Allah word.

But if you do that then what about the freedom of those who believe in God? Do they, too, not have freedom of worship and belief? So, if you ban all religions, would you not be violating the freedom of those who believe in God the freedom of belief?

That is what I mean by intelligent and intellectual discourse. Argue this issue if you so wish. Present your points and let us hear what you have to say. Make sure they are intelligent and mature arguments. Do we ban religion so that we can have real freedom? And what about the freedom of belief and worship? Would not by banning religions we would also be removing freedom of belief and worship and is this not a violation of real freedom?

And how would calling me a racist or accusing me of being a turncoat (like many of you do) strengthen your argument in this debate? Focus on the debate. Never mind if I am a racist or turncoat because that is not going to solve the matter of whether the Allah word can lawfully and legally be used by non-Muslims in the state of Selangor.