DECEMBER 18 — Are we better off trying to curtail freedoms in Malaysia?

This must reverberate, the soft or hard path choice debate, in the prime minister’s brain trust. The last Pakatan Government collapsed in bitter form in 2020 after being outflanked by the right. 

Anwar Ibrahim is an accomplished Islamist, perhaps more in the eyes of an international audience rather than the local one presently but still holds the reputation. And appreciates how easily the administration can become tone deaf.

Recently, it has waded into the conservative pool.

From announcing expanded programmes to teach deeper nationalism in universities to harassing spas in the city with a disproportionate male clientele, the government’s convinced Malaysia becomes a better nation, and we a better people, if it got into our homes, our lives, our bedrooms and as ever our minds.

I say this now as the year-end festivities are set to descend upon us, and social enforcement wings decide whether they rear their ugly heads into our personal lives.

There is the other existentialist question.

With omnipresent Internet connectivity and devices, upped daily by AI updates, does a nanny-state harm rather than benefit the population?

If the state overextends itself, won’t the people just retreat deeper into their worlds or fantasies or just stamp their passports on their way out?

Decision making matrices

Since politicians decide the extent of encroachments, they have to consider, calculate how progressive Malaysians are currently.

When they try to, I hope they read the social barometer rather than guess it.

How happy or upset Malaysians are about these freer times?

To begin with, social acceptance of alternate lifestyles has improved radically in the new millennium.

Up to about 20 years ago, there was late night traffic in Chow Kit as young people drove around the block to scan the transvestites and transexuals standing outdoors to draw in customers. The chock-a-block days are over. Not that third sex groups have diminished but rather the phenomenon of ogling at them as social oddities is uncool.

Today, young women dish out as many expletives as young men. They also travel in-country and abroad as freely without being monitored. Safety is always a universal challenge but they are making their own decisions on the trade-offs.

These are just examples, and as far as examples go, they can be conflated.

The right can equally claim it’s winning the culture war.

You show teenage girls walking around in the city after midnight, we’ll show you the number of teenagers signing up for religious courses.

Most of us will agree that our society is fragmented — not fractured — into multitudes of lifestyles. There is so much going on in little social alleys, there are more layers of Malaysian lifestyles.

What is discussed here is the tone the government should take. Permissive, reactive or lead the charge to drag Malaysians back to proper?  

Freedom, as it was taught to me in school, is dangerous. Freedom is not happiness was the gist of the education. It harms society.

It took years to figure out that they conflated freedom and narcissism. That being free is being selfish, which is not true. Freedom is not tyranny, it is the very opposite.

The other guy is watching

Our government has been on notice since the Iranian Revolution, in its consciousness. Be too free — or the more feared term “liberal” — and lose the country to the conservatives.   

This is what Madani watches out for. Being outflanked by the conservatives.

The Madani government tries to fashion itself as an all-weather outfit. Progressive when needed, suitably conservative.

The current furore over dress-codes in government facilities pushes the government to uncomfortable terrain. Give in to either the pro or anti dress-code side, and the government is pummelled for being too soft or preaching from the pulpit.

How well does a decision to relax or stiffen fare in Kuala Nerus, Indera Mahkota or Mersing play?

Speak up or lose out

I am absolutely convinced Malaysians are far more progressive than they realise. This is a modern and permissive society but the silence stifles the defence of this certainly free but organic reality we live in.

Younger Malaysians have to realise though they have criticism of all sides leading the country, they cannot ensure the country stays freer if they continue to disengage.

Turn up the volume and openly back your social preferences.

The deputy president of PKR Nurul Izzah Anwar in the past spoke about decriminalising and legalising medical marijuana but Malaysian youths have been muted about the matter. That’s just one instance.

Social shifts are not going to be realised without legislative and legal reforms. They occur through discourse and social action. Participation is critical, and the single most critical thing to do is to vote.

If the politicians realise your social causes come with votes on election day, then they listen attentively.

The right’s advantage is that it speaks up for conservatism without feeling attacked. It has the benefit of history with it.

Progressive Malaysia’s problem is that it wants to keep its opinions private. That does not work in a democracy. Noise leads to attention and those who feel strongly about their social ideas and beliefs have to speak up, or shut up — and in due time, shut down.

That’s the next stage of the evolution of social rights in Malaysia, for people to say out loud it is their choice.  

Or party in the isolated dark, until they catch you.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.