2010/09/26 NST
By Ong Tee Keat
By Ong Tee Keat
WE just celebrated our 53rd birthday, so we can still be considered young. But one thing is certain, our country has matured and we are not spared the trials and tribulations associated with the coming of age.
As a father to three daughters, the youngest who has just stepped into adulthood, I now understand well the angst and challenges of bringing them up.
They demand more loudly (but thankfully, polite) to have a voice in decision making in the family, and to lead the life they think best suits them, although I have reservations about those decisions.
I experienced the initial difficulties of letting go but in the end I accepted the fact that as parents, we set the foundation for them and now it's time for them to stretch their wings and take flight.
There is a similarity between my personal experience to that of the government and its people. The political tsunami in 2008 showed that Malaysians are maturing, and the scenario is now different, with people more aware of their legitimate expectations, the freedom to be heard and access to the truth.
I am assured by the words of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who promised freedom of press. But as a Malaysian and elected representative of the people, I am confused and disquieted by news of suspension of editors and radio disc jockeys, and, more recently, statements that suggest the setting-up of cyber squads to monitor statements made on the Internet, such as Facebook (the latter conflicts with the MSC Bill of Guarantees).
In today's world, knowledge is king. This is spurred by the growth in technology.
Now that we have pockets of information everywhere, and these sources of knowledge are readily available and obvious for everyone to see, we are faced with a very real dilemma.
Which is reliable and which is not? Which ones should be read and which ones to avoid? Should the government exercise a paternalistic attitude by clamping down on such expressions and information? Is it possible, if at all?
Drawing experience from my own parenthood, I do not condone the extreme view that a parent should not have any influence over his or her child.
Similarly, we intuitively reject the anarchic claim that the government should have no justifiable power over its people, and that there should be no acceptable limit to the freedom of the individual.
Surely, we do not condone lies, slander and half-truths. Something must be done.
On the other hand, we are not and do not want a government that pays little regard to the liberties of the people -- a totalitarian state -- with a big brother watching our every move and word uttered.
What we as Malaysians want is somewhere in between these two extremes. A maturing or matured civilised community expects freedom to voice our hopes, desires or opinions, however unpopular they are.
I have frequently voiced my stand that there should be freedom of thought and discussion, subject to certain limits to what one is permitted to say in public.
The argument that the government should not tolerate information that is false or ones that causes confusion and ultimately cause destruction or disunity is overtly paternalistic.
It again assumes that the government knows best and belittles the intelligence of the people to tell the truth from falsity. More importantly, truth, falsity or half-truths will never gain by silencing the voice.
The act to suppress the truth (or even half-truths) will deny us the opportunity to exchange error, whole or partial, for truth.
But if we suppress lies, we lose in a different way because we are ultimately denied the chance to challenge, reconsider, correct, and perhaps reaffirm our true views.
There is also the issue of how certain is the government that the views raised or words uttered over radio, printed in the newspapers or uploaded on Facebook are damaging.
Should they be the arbiters of the truth or what is right? Shouldn't we be leaving the era of government knows best behind, or should we? Do we really want to know everything and the truth?
The answer is that we cannot afford to take a step back as a society that has achieved and grown so much over the past 53 years since Independence.
We should confidently shed the comforts of being spoon-fed with information, like a child, and not continue to live in blissful ignorance. Perhaps the truth may be too hard to bear, but this is a step into adulthood and into a perilous path that we all have to take.
Clamping down on an individual's liberty to express himself, even with falsity, will not only backfire but is virtually impossible.
The laws and regulations that impose limits on press freedom are also archaic. For example, the Sedition Act 1948 and the Printing Presses Act 1948 were legislated before independence and were designed to counter the threat of communist insurrection.
The act, which is now called the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, is ill-crafted to deal with the vagaries of the Internet, Facebook and information posted on blogosphere.
The only way to counter information or opinion that is considered damaging or untrue is not to clamp down on it but rather to tell the true story.
I can speak from experience when I handled the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) debacle. The allegations of fraud and misappropriation surrounding the project became a frenzy on the Internet and blogs, and it was eventually picked up in the news-papers.
Detractors and individuals with motives added their own spin and half-truths. I felt that the best way forward is not to come down on the naysayers and spinners of lies.
The best way to tackle the PKFZ time-bomb was to simply tell the truth.
* The writer is Pandan member of parliament.
As a father to three daughters, the youngest who has just stepped into adulthood, I now understand well the angst and challenges of bringing them up.
They demand more loudly (but thankfully, polite) to have a voice in decision making in the family, and to lead the life they think best suits them, although I have reservations about those decisions.
I experienced the initial difficulties of letting go but in the end I accepted the fact that as parents, we set the foundation for them and now it's time for them to stretch their wings and take flight.
There is a similarity between my personal experience to that of the government and its people. The political tsunami in 2008 showed that Malaysians are maturing, and the scenario is now different, with people more aware of their legitimate expectations, the freedom to be heard and access to the truth.
I am assured by the words of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who promised freedom of press. But as a Malaysian and elected representative of the people, I am confused and disquieted by news of suspension of editors and radio disc jockeys, and, more recently, statements that suggest the setting-up of cyber squads to monitor statements made on the Internet, such as Facebook (the latter conflicts with the MSC Bill of Guarantees).
In today's world, knowledge is king. This is spurred by the growth in technology.
Now that we have pockets of information everywhere, and these sources of knowledge are readily available and obvious for everyone to see, we are faced with a very real dilemma.
Which is reliable and which is not? Which ones should be read and which ones to avoid? Should the government exercise a paternalistic attitude by clamping down on such expressions and information? Is it possible, if at all?
Drawing experience from my own parenthood, I do not condone the extreme view that a parent should not have any influence over his or her child.
Similarly, we intuitively reject the anarchic claim that the government should have no justifiable power over its people, and that there should be no acceptable limit to the freedom of the individual.
Surely, we do not condone lies, slander and half-truths. Something must be done.
On the other hand, we are not and do not want a government that pays little regard to the liberties of the people -- a totalitarian state -- with a big brother watching our every move and word uttered.
What we as Malaysians want is somewhere in between these two extremes. A maturing or matured civilised community expects freedom to voice our hopes, desires or opinions, however unpopular they are.
I have frequently voiced my stand that there should be freedom of thought and discussion, subject to certain limits to what one is permitted to say in public.
The argument that the government should not tolerate information that is false or ones that causes confusion and ultimately cause destruction or disunity is overtly paternalistic.
It again assumes that the government knows best and belittles the intelligence of the people to tell the truth from falsity. More importantly, truth, falsity or half-truths will never gain by silencing the voice.
The act to suppress the truth (or even half-truths) will deny us the opportunity to exchange error, whole or partial, for truth.
But if we suppress lies, we lose in a different way because we are ultimately denied the chance to challenge, reconsider, correct, and perhaps reaffirm our true views.
There is also the issue of how certain is the government that the views raised or words uttered over radio, printed in the newspapers or uploaded on Facebook are damaging.
Should they be the arbiters of the truth or what is right? Shouldn't we be leaving the era of government knows best behind, or should we? Do we really want to know everything and the truth?
The answer is that we cannot afford to take a step back as a society that has achieved and grown so much over the past 53 years since Independence.
We should confidently shed the comforts of being spoon-fed with information, like a child, and not continue to live in blissful ignorance. Perhaps the truth may be too hard to bear, but this is a step into adulthood and into a perilous path that we all have to take.
Clamping down on an individual's liberty to express himself, even with falsity, will not only backfire but is virtually impossible.
The laws and regulations that impose limits on press freedom are also archaic. For example, the Sedition Act 1948 and the Printing Presses Act 1948 were legislated before independence and were designed to counter the threat of communist insurrection.
The act, which is now called the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, is ill-crafted to deal with the vagaries of the Internet, Facebook and information posted on blogosphere.
The only way to counter information or opinion that is considered damaging or untrue is not to clamp down on it but rather to tell the true story.
I can speak from experience when I handled the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) debacle. The allegations of fraud and misappropriation surrounding the project became a frenzy on the Internet and blogs, and it was eventually picked up in the news-papers.
Detractors and individuals with motives added their own spin and half-truths. I felt that the best way forward is not to come down on the naysayers and spinners of lies.
The best way to tackle the PKFZ time-bomb was to simply tell the truth.
* The writer is Pandan member of parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment