MAY 21 — A free society dances to the beat of civil disagreements. The presence of differences embodies, nay, advertises such a society.
However, a tedium-bent segment objects to free society’s vibrancy. It is disruptive, in their estimation.
Better to silence people for their own good is their thinking. Acceptance and subservience maintain the path to peace. They also probably eschew rock and roll.
They prefer if Malaysia is less free. Far less free. It appears, unfortunately, hardly anyone stands up to them.
In their own minds, it is the freedom which fosters discontent and threatens fixed values.
It invites us to dissect the cacophony of voices inside the typical free society. And ask, are these detractors correct? After all, a free society is decidedly noisy.
This, this and this, you ignoramus
The anatomy of a civil argument is as follows.
Let the other fellow speak just as much as you, quiz the opinion. Once both are aware or made aware of each other’s argument, they have choices, a myriad of them.
To switch opinions, to clarify their position, to admit to the glaring weaknesses of their position, rebut, present fresher arguments.
At the end, and it can feel a lifetime at times, they look each other in the eye, and if unable to recognise or concede, instead end up more opposed, then they can walk away from each other.
Adamant he is talking to a fool, while the other bloke stares at his rival’s retreating back and sniggers about the departing fool.
But in the best of debates, few concede the whole argument. The ego overwhelms. Maybe later, sipping tea at home, both wander through the opponent’s rationales and admire them more than either wishes to admit.
Neither is better for agreeing or disagreeing, no, both are in better stead because now better informed about the issue, regardless on which side.
Better informed is a universe better than sticking to your guns in order to protect an idea.
This is for disagreements in person, in a legislative chamber, in a social media post comment section.
Agree, disagree, everyone ends up in bed. To toss and turn, and even deeply unhappy about your opponent’s ideas. But no one dies.
The other option, which dominated most of human history, involves body counts.
Might determines outcomes in the alternative. Opponents quickly turn into combatants.
If in a restaurant, stab each other with dinner knives till one yields or in the case of gentlemen of a certain social standing of a different millennia ask to meet at dawn with pistols.
Or in the strong state, investigations and witch-hunts ensue.
There are no pretty choices in physical altercations to determine the correctness of positions.
If this was extended to a whole nation or people, it’s war or riot. Imagine the Somme or Mahabharata's Kurukshetra, and the LA 1992 riots or our own May 13, 1969 for the latter.
They only bring regret.
I really hate you, are you staying for drinks?
A free society prides in its inhabitants possessing severe antithetical views, diametrically opposed on a range of issues, yet sturdy and resilient to not let those differences compromise the state’s integrity.
To understand that the very nature of man is to hold differing opinions — from the very central like who must rule, to the personal like who can die or kill, or the silly but at times really personal like who gets relegated from a football league.
Since disagreements are to follow man, even in the absence of a state, it is in man’s interest and his safety to find means to manage disagreements.
Either to stifle him to prevent disagreements which were always prohibitive, now made impossible by the AI age, or to set the rules of engagement.
Which leads to the background we choose for these inevitable disagreements.
Is a free society desirable?
Only Malaysians can answer whether we are in a free society, or that we rather not be free in our society. Or the existential whether this is our society to begin with.
There are those who claim freedom is subject to predetermined societal norms.
I disagree. I do agree though they have a right to disagree with my disagreement. I earnestly believe, my free state exists beyond the confines of my mind.
If my side prevails, they get to argue with me and my ilk ad infinitum, till the end of existence.
If their preferred reality triumphs, those like me are made to shut up, full stop. Like Orwell’s “imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
I’ll shut myself up by winning
Like this conservative I know who yaps daily in my WhatsApp group, filling up 20 per cent of chat space and dominates with his inane links.
He rails against the excesses of freedom, liberty and pluralism, without any self-reflection in the irony of these ideas which defend and protect his right to flood other people’s timelines.
And as much as it annoys me, and boy oh boy, those words annoy me to the tip of the Kilimanjaro, it exhilarates me that I live in a society where the most annoying, impudent, ignorant and tone-deaf get their chance, get their voice.
And those who are of the same inclination, gather around the campfire even if to listen to each other vilify humanity.
The Internet has done far more to champion Article 10 of our Constitution, the right to associate, than the government since formation through its agencies like the Registrar of Societies, Election Commission and RTM.
Democratised Malaysian homes
Senior citizens recall the various ways their parents physically beat them, with wistful nostalgia.
Young parents today gallop left and right to persuade the children to correct behaviour, also reverting to bribes if all fails.
When new Malaysians are raised to speak up, even for the wrong reasons, how are they to accept a state that wants to reduce public disagreements and ardently wants complete support of the state view? Modern parents are literally pushing their kids to ask why?
And they do.
A culture of asking why is the fertiliser for civil disagreements. Malaysian parents are populating a free society, which is the upbeat ending for this session which started with an ask, to dance. To actively disagree and see it as a societal strength.
Malaysian leaders have to stop asking people to stop asking, and rather listen and explain. Be ready for the civil disagreement. Be ready to be a member of a free society.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
