I read with much interest Tengku Razaleigh's comment at THIS LINK in Malaysian Insider today and thought it worthwhile to share with you this post which I wrote last year on the same issue. I respect Tengku Razaleigh for his very progressive and fair views on many issues. I thought it is timely to discuss the necessity of variety and freedom of speech in a democratic country.
Excerpt from the report:
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has dared Umno to gag its members over the Kelantan oil royalty issue, sarcastically noting they might as well silence all talk about former prime ministers and party presidents Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and Tun Hussein Onn who had fought for such rights for the Malay heartland.
The veteran Umno leader popularly known as Ku Li has openly clashed with his party over the issue, prompting vice-president Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to announce a gag order for statements on the oil royalty matter that could affect the party’s image.
The Kelantan prince, who is scheduled to speak about the issue at several events in March, pointed out that Umno, which he pointedly called “Umno Baru”, should consider the late Abdul Razak as a “traitor” for asking him to formulate the Petroleum Development Act 1974 which ensured states like Kelantan get 5 per cent oil royalty.
“I think Umno should apply this gag order properly, and from today onwards also stop altogether talking about Allaryaham Tun Razak. Umno Baru would consider him a traitor. For it was he who ordered me to design the Petroleum Development Act in such a way that the Malay heartland states of Kelantan, Terengganu, Johor and especially his beloved Pahang, would benefit directly from offshore oil beyond 3 nautical miles through the mechanism of 5 per cent cash payments made directly to the state consolidated fund,” Tengku Razaleigh said in an email to The Malaysian Insider following Hishammuddin’s remarks.
To me, variety and criticism must be emphasized as these would empower the government to conduct the affairs of the state in a legitimate and civilized manner, especially in our country which is democratic in nature.
Democracy has two important pillars - tolerance of divergent views and freedom of expression. In sharp contrast, when a communist thinks of democracy, he does not bother to even consider different viewpoints ; his ultimate concern is whether a particular government policy is being carried out in public interest. To them, the view of the politburo and the masses do not matter. Communists are DOGMATIC; they consider they have the right answer. Now, this sounds strangely familiar.
Democracy believes in rational empiricism which is an important element in the democratic way of life. Rational empiricists consider truth as tentative, changing, and therefore subject to constant checking and verification. They believe that the solution to a problem or a policy to be adopted cannot be considered absolutely correct and that a confrontation of opinions will help people to make a viable decision. To me, in doing so, divergent views would be necessary for the democratic process. Is there an open avenue for divergent views in our country?
In sharp contrast, under a dictatorship, there is no tolerance of a variety of views. There is only ONE view - that of the ESTABLISHMENT! The dictator expresses the official policy and everyone else will bow in servile submission. Such a process creates such a stifled atmosphere whereas in democracies where tolerance of divergent views are SUPPOSED to exist, citizens would then enjoy variety, verve and color in their lives, thereby satisfying the basic need of free expression. Do we have this in our country?
John Stuart Mill, in his essay
"On Liberty", discussed the whole problem of individual liberty. Most wisely, he discerned that man has the tendency to impose his views on others instead of being tolerant and open-minded. In doing the former, there arises a situation where there is the silencing of opinion which is not only harmful but also wrong because it robs individuals of the opportunity to express or listen to dissenting or different views. Therefore, unless fearless expression of opinion is guaranteed, a society cannot be completely free.
At the same time, such expression of the views must not incite hatred or racist sentiments. I believe that expression of opinion and criticism of views and policies of those who are at the helm of government must be done responsibly and constructively with no hidden motives. Citizens must have the freedom to study views expressed in parliament with the good of the nation at heart and to weed out politicians with personal aggrandizement as the sole motive to vilification and half-truths. Variety and criticism would be casualties in the process. Yet, suppression of opinion is unjustified because it is the individual’s privilege to interpret each experience his own way.
The principle of liberty by itself implies variety and the diversity of opinion. To me, if dissenting or divergent views are suppressed, we will be reduced to docile individuals. If and when that happens, the people cannot be said to be ruling themselves and thus the government by the people will not prevail. Thus I surmise that unless there is this freedom of the fearless expression of opinion, there can be no democracy, not the way it was intended.
It is most ironical that while nearly every country deems itself to be democratic, there are actually different forms that exist. I find it silly that even a totalitarian state can ridiculously want to brand itself as democracy even when they knowingly deny people of the freedom of expression and universal suffrage. You see, since democracy means rule by the people, it means people as a WHOLE so it should naturally include BOTH the majority AND the minority. Thus, if the minority has no share in ruling, the system CANNOT be considered as democratic. Therefore the majority and the minority must have their voice and their criticism and opinions MUST be HEARD and CONSIDERED.
It can seen that since democracy utilizes dialogue, the good talkers, quick thinkers, clever publicists and the most articulate persons should occupy positions of responsibility. Some may feel that the layman may know very little but they have common sense and the ability to judge the success or failure of policies. So given the variety of citizens, there is variety arising from the fearless airing of views as well as healthy criticism. Whether or not the ruling party wants it or can take it is another matter. In the mean time, as citizens, we must study the constitution to know our rights.
So, to speak or not to speak - should there be such a question?
For further reading, please read my post on:
THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECHFREE SPEECHAs always, do leave a comment to share your views. Thanks! Take care and have a lovely day!
