Polemics and social anarchy
Restrictions are not meant to protect the government but to ensure everyone is not at each other’s throat.
Radzi Tajuddin
WE were told that democracy is the best system in the world. I agree.
It is so because we need someone to govern us. It would be good for that someone to command the support of the majority. And democracy respects the wishes of the majority. However, it is worth mentioning that democracy is not the easiest way to govern a country. More often than not, it fails to bring about stability, much less prosperity.
It tends to be disruptive because each change in government will result in a wholesale adjustment of policies and directions. The people and the administrative machinery will take some time to adjust.
But for more than 50 years, democracy has worked and served us very well.
I would argue that our democracy is robust and vibrant despite the sedition blitz around the country. Lawyers and human rights activists may disagree on this.
But generally, most Malaysians are free to argue and express their views, even about dogs and beer and no one gets arrested. Just read what Malaysians have posted on social media.
Maybe there are cases in which the person shouldn’t be charged at all for making a comment on religion and royalty. However, they still get a fair trial in court.
In some “mature democracy” countries, those who make anti-Semitic remarks will be jailed for years without a fair trial.
While the Malaysian community is arguing on every matter in this country, they seem to make a fuss on trivial matters.
Take, for example, the many “intellectual issues” discussed (or tweeted?) on social media. What’s the purpose of launching a series of “intellectual exercises” on the issue of “removing race/religion on the identity card” or “touching a dog in Malaysia”? Obviously, nothing can be gained except to escalate the animosity between the conservatives and the liberals.
These people want us to revisit some of the non-issues. Most of their discussions have been about “what if” this and that.
What if we didn’t get independence from the British? What if we followed Indonesia’s steps in assimilating its citizens? What if the New Economic Policy never took place 45 years ago? And the list goes on.
Their contention is that these issues will help sharpen the mind. But should we waste our time on these superficial “intellectual exercises”?
In the debate taking place in Malaysia, those who try to uphold the old values will be dubbed old-fashioned, conservative and, to some extent, extremist. And the ones who question the old values will be regarded as liberal and progressive.
