JANUARY 29 ― Why is it that we instinctively seek to legally prohibit someone from expressing opinions that we dislike, instead of engaging them?
Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem said PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang might be barred from entering Sarawak for reportedly accusing Christian missionaries in the interiors of Sabah and Sarawak of using money and aid to convert people.
Adenan, who has banned opposition politicians and conservative Muslims like Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and Datuk Ibrahim Ali from entering Sarawak, had said that it was “not nice” for someone to say something “inappropriate.” A couple of Sarawakian politicians had called for Hadi to be banned from the state.
It’s no wonder that Malaysia can’t progress when we refuse to allow racists and religious bigots freedom of speech.
There’s a difference between saying racist or bigoted things, and making hate speech.
Malaysians, unfortunately, categorise things as hate speech far too easily. Hate speech should really only be defined as such if they make threats of physical harm.
Christian groups said that Hadi was wrong and even accused him of trying to create “discord and hatred” that supposedly contradicts Malaysia’s “spirit of unity and harmony”.
Free speech should never be curbed for the vague notion of “unity.” Unity does not mean that everyone should share the same opinions.
It means giving others space to express their own thoughts, even if we find them offensive and disrespectful, and engaging them by putting forth our arguments. I hesitate to use the word “dialogue” because it conjures up images of an all-male group dressed in robes who goes through the motions of talking to each other, but who never really resolves interfaith issues.
Banning Hadi from entering Sarawak will not fix the distrust between Muslims and Christians in Malaysia.
The reaction towards Hadi’s misguided remarks by calling for state action against him only provides fodder for the government to curb free speech based on their own interpretations, ie: punishing people for “belittling” government institutions or for spreading “religious extremism.”
Like ordinary Malaysians, the government probably has a wide latitude in defining religious extremism so that it goes beyond terrorists making bomb threats.
Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Salleh Said Keruak’s use of the phrase “social media abuse” is laughable. There is no “right” way to use social media. People just use it to express themselves.
If certain personalities feel that they’ve been defamed, they’re welcome to initiate a personal suit against their attackers.
However, hating or insulting the government should not be a crime. That’s how democracy works.
We’re free to hate and mock any political party, institution or leader for whatever reason, even if it’s not justified. Even if it’s so-called “disrespectful.”
We need to grow up and learn how to take insults and criticism, whether they are against the government or other races or religions, as long as no threats of physical assault are made.
It’s funny, too, how we carefully guard against insulting ethnic or religious groups, but not misogynistic remarks against women. However, I believe that sexist jokes (which excludes rape threats) should be allowed in the name of free speech.
Malaysia will progress if we stop calling for state action every time someone says something disagreeable. That’s the lazy way out.
Learn how to engage your opponent in a debate. That’s harder, but it’s ultimately more rewarding for everyone.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
