SEPT 5 -- In The Empire Trilogy by authors Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts, there is a group of magicians in the Tsuranuanni empire, traditionally outside the laws of the land, who are empowered to do as they see fit — really just about anything without any restrictions — so long as they act for the betterment of the empire.

When assembled to discuss matters of importance, each would announce his intention for the greater good by saying: “I speak for the good of the empire.”

It’s a ritual, but one with real purpose. It announces that whatever the speaker says, even things that sound blasphemous or incite anger or that may insult some of his colleagues, is said to introduce valid points into the discourse.

That sentence, with all its implications, was what flashed through my mind when I read Bernama’s report last night that the prime minister has reaffirmed his commitment to the 1Malaysia concept.

“As a nation, we need to come together and reconcile our differences for the sake of the future of Malaysia. We must continue to celebrate our diversity and defend our way of life,” the wire service reported the prime minister as saying in relation to the importance of national unity. “The silent majority of moderate Malaysians must stand up to speak for the voice of the moderates to be loudly heard.”

My takeaway from the news report is that “differences” are necessarily differences in opinion, in perspective moulded by our respective cultures. 

It is a stark contrast to accusations of “traitors” and “hidden agenda” elsewhere in Malaysia. The noise out there reminds me of Pareto’s law, which basically states that a majority of effects is due to a minority of causes. 

In this case, a majority of noise probably comes from a small minority of the population. 

So what makes a citizen a traitor? 

Is it when he questions the existing narrative and seeks something more sensible?

Is it when he has an opinion that runs against the official story — and gives voice to that opinion?

Is it when he seeks higher ideals that would benefit the nation yet drag fellow citizens out of their bubbles to face uncomfortable truths?

Answering these questions is all about perspective. 

When Julius Caesar was murdered by a mob that included Marcus Junius Brutus, to Caesar it would most certainly have seemed that Brutus betrayed him. Yet arguably the latter did it out of love for the empire, according to some historians — to stop a potential tyranny by Caesar — even if the republic was never restored after the dictator-for-life died.

Therefore from another perspective, Brutus did the right thing: he killed a would-be tyrant and saved Rome from Caesar. 

It depends on who you ask and what their stand on the issue is. 

The thought of skewed, misguided and misinformed perspectives being used to decide things is scary. 

The prime minister is right on one account: we need more individual voices to have a more accurate narrative of our society. To reconcile differences in opinion we must first hear the opposing view. Only then we can engage and have reconciliation. 

Time and time again engagement has been shown to be more effective in driving public opinion and discourse than heavy-handedness and enforcing silence.

But the problem is there will be those who refuse to recognise the better narrative when it forms. There will be those who insist on their position and their priorities and their opinions. 

They will insist -- at the expense of open discourse that might better the nation or a better future for our children... all for preserving the bubble as they know it, because they are scared of what lies beyond.

They will insist on the bubble they live in, not realising that the longer we wait to prick it, the more painful it will be when we eventually do — not just for the society at large but for the nation itself, the interests of which they ironically claim to uphold and champion.

So who is the traitor, really?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.