Fear and anxiety
Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism in Singapore recently shot to fame for all the wrong reasons, as he was reportedly called by the island state's Internal Security Department to explain his contentious and disparaging remarks on Buddhism and Taoism at a church event, which many found offensive.
He finally apologized in order to soothe the mounting anger.
This senior Christian leader is no stranger to controversy: he was once criticized for attributing childhood abuse to homosexuality and linking gay people with paedophiles, which merely laid bare his ignorance of the sexuality issue as a whole.
Around the same time, a teenager by the name of Kenneth Lin launched a petition to demand an apology from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (MM Lee, 'affectionately') for telling the National Geographic that Singaporeans had become "less hard-driving and hard-striving".
When interviewed by the Temasek Review, Lin went a step further by accusing the strongman of controlling the state media "for his own greedy needs".
Such downright criticism is a rarity indeed, but it only served to unnerve the church that Lin is affiliated with.
Needless to say, pastors and elders were compelled to sit down with him to 'lance the boil'.
That the Buddhist and Taoist communities in Singapore reacted angrily to the denigration by a Christian pastor is perfectly understandable.
Still, one can see from the overwhelming online responses that cooler heads did not quite prevail.
Many used it to justify their view that such 'sensitive issues' would only 'undermine religious harmony' and 'give rise to social unrest'.The proposed solution? Public discussion on religion is a no-go area, some would say.
Searching for false conformity
Sounds familiar? The very same argument is repeatedly heard here in Malaysia too! But is it possible to create a mature and rational society without tackling openly religious differences with a view to seeking common grounds?
As for Lin's teen valour, it exposes the conservative nature and fear of politics on the part of Singapore's religious establishment to the full.
In a country where politics is the sole monopoly of the People's Action Party (PAP), religious bodies are made to behave more like a supplement to enhancing social harmony on behalf of the authorities, rather than functioning truly and freely as a vibrant part of civil society.
In Singapore, nothing demands more courage than voicing one's dissent to the ruling elite. When the PAP government decided to construct the Integrated Resort - an euphemism for casino - several years back, all the major religious communities were alarmed, seeing the move as the path to perfidy and decadence.
MM Lee, fearing that his son Lee Hsien Loong might not stand his ground but cave into the mounting pressure, came out in full support of the project.
Since then, all the discontent of the religious leaders may be expressed only "internally".
As Malaysians, we know what that means.
Shut the mouth and enjoy life
Such is the realist dilemma confronting Singapore: a model under which the powers-that-be ensure superb efficiency and the best possible quality of life, while depriving the masses of the right to genuine participation in decision-making and democratic process.
With greater material comfort comes easier manipulation, so the reasoning goes.
As the masses become acclimatized to what "should" be publicly discussed and what should not, they are also likely to expect others to 'play by the rule' instead of rocking the boat.
Such mentality is engendered by nothing but oppressive fear of 'turmoil', which prompts the majority to seek refuge in a false conformity.
While it is true that Malaysians' political awareness has vastly improved since the March 8 general elections two years ago, it does not stop Barisan Nasional - like the PAP - from resorting to fear-mongering in response to the rising calls for democratization.
Just look at the way Hishammuddin Hussein Onn reacted to the series of attacks on places of worship, when he time and again threatened the public with the notorious Internal Security Act.
Hishammuddin is perhaps the antsiest politician I have ever seen, as his unnecessarily excessive reaction is driven by a deep sense of anxiety.
This senior Christian leader is no stranger to controversy: he was once criticized for attributing childhood abuse to homosexuality and linking gay people with paedophiles, which merely laid bare his ignorance of the sexuality issue as a whole.
Around the same time, a teenager by the name of Kenneth Lin launched a petition to demand an apology from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (MM Lee, 'affectionately') for telling the National Geographic that Singaporeans had become "less hard-driving and hard-striving".
When interviewed by the Temasek Review, Lin went a step further by accusing the strongman of controlling the state media "for his own greedy needs".
Such downright criticism is a rarity indeed, but it only served to unnerve the church that Lin is affiliated with.
Needless to say, pastors and elders were compelled to sit down with him to 'lance the boil'.
That the Buddhist and Taoist communities in Singapore reacted angrily to the denigration by a Christian pastor is perfectly understandable.
Still, one can see from the overwhelming online responses that cooler heads did not quite prevail.
Many used it to justify their view that such 'sensitive issues' would only 'undermine religious harmony' and 'give rise to social unrest'.The proposed solution? Public discussion on religion is a no-go area, some would say.
Searching for false conformity
Sounds familiar? The very same argument is repeatedly heard here in Malaysia too! But is it possible to create a mature and rational society without tackling openly religious differences with a view to seeking common grounds?
As for Lin's teen valour, it exposes the conservative nature and fear of politics on the part of Singapore's religious establishment to the full.
In a country where politics is the sole monopoly of the People's Action Party (PAP), religious bodies are made to behave more like a supplement to enhancing social harmony on behalf of the authorities, rather than functioning truly and freely as a vibrant part of civil society.
In Singapore, nothing demands more courage than voicing one's dissent to the ruling elite. When the PAP government decided to construct the Integrated Resort - an euphemism for casino - several years back, all the major religious communities were alarmed, seeing the move as the path to perfidy and decadence.
MM Lee, fearing that his son Lee Hsien Loong might not stand his ground but cave into the mounting pressure, came out in full support of the project.
Since then, all the discontent of the religious leaders may be expressed only "internally".
As Malaysians, we know what that means.
Shut the mouth and enjoy life
Such is the realist dilemma confronting Singapore: a model under which the powers-that-be ensure superb efficiency and the best possible quality of life, while depriving the masses of the right to genuine participation in decision-making and democratic process.
With greater material comfort comes easier manipulation, so the reasoning goes.
As the masses become acclimatized to what "should" be publicly discussed and what should not, they are also likely to expect others to 'play by the rule' instead of rocking the boat.
Such mentality is engendered by nothing but oppressive fear of 'turmoil', which prompts the majority to seek refuge in a false conformity.
While it is true that Malaysians' political awareness has vastly improved since the March 8 general elections two years ago, it does not stop Barisan Nasional - like the PAP - from resorting to fear-mongering in response to the rising calls for democratization.
Just look at the way Hishammuddin Hussein Onn reacted to the series of attacks on places of worship, when he time and again threatened the public with the notorious Internal Security Act.
Hishammuddin is perhaps the antsiest politician I have ever seen, as his unnecessarily excessive reaction is driven by a deep sense of anxiety.
Character foundation wobbly
A keris-brandisher, he is easily provoked, often allowing his fickle temperament to get the better of him. I cannot help suspecting all his antics are merely part of a feeble attempt to affirm his 'manhood'.
Just last week, Hishammuddin was again outraged, this time by a China Press headliner that Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan was on the way out.
True to form, he went on to warn that sensationalizing any issue to boost sales could be met with stern action if proven untrue.
Hishammuddin issued the Chinese tabloid with a show-cause letter (which it has kept quite a few over the years), and reiterated the seriousness of the "unfounded" report.
Quite clearly, he worked hard to ensure the public feel the brunt of his anger and shut up under a climate of intimidation and fear.
Why such a big deal? In a real democracy, all public office bearers deserve apology when news related to them is misreported or misrepresented.
However, for a government to make a mountain out of a molehill and pursue the wrongdoer relentlessly is nothing but meanness and arrogance that borders on paranoia.
In a society where information flows freely, errors are inevitable. One may chastise, clarify or apologize, but never to throw the baby out with the bath water by curtailing freedom of speech with an atmosphere of intimidation.
Moreover, the China Press had not been completely off the mark, for Hishammuddin himself confirmed the next day that Musa Hassan is indeed to be replaced soon!
All governments are in the habit of playing on the 'vulnerability' of the masses so that they can justify their grotesque behaviour and even lunacy in the name of "protecting the public".
It would not have been possible for the Bush administration to wage catastrophic wars on Afghanistan and Iraq without the pervasive fear generated in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy.
One must not forget too that the terrorist attacks scared the western media out of their wits that many were willing to go along with the wars, a sheer outcome of shrinking public space for rational debate.
A society living in constant fear is also unable to behave normally. I was therefore least surprised when some Malaysian Christians held the Catholic Church responsible for "blowing the usage of Allah out of proportion".
After all, they had long accepted the received wisdom of not confronting the government head-on!
In fact, the world is big and spacious enough for one to speak truth to power without being radical (though radicalism itself has been a positive catalyst for change throughout history).
Sadly, many choose to remain silent before political chaos, mostly out of fear as well as for vested interests, which only benefits the ruling elite in the long run.
In either Singapore or Malaysia, the ruling elite tend to tempt the masses into giving up their right to meaningful political participation with promises of 'social stability' and 'affluent life'.
But is it not paradoxical that a government that is duty-bound to manage the country well should not only claim the credit, but take away our freedom of thought along with it?
Listening to the opposing views and making our voices heard are conducive to our collective health. Engaging Khoo Kay Khim, Ridhuan Tee and Perkasa leaders in public debate is also vitally important to creating a vibrant civil society, which is also likely to weaken the hegemonic discourse of the powers-that-be.
But it is up to the individuals to decide if they want to be critical citizens or submissive subjects.
Just last week, Hishammuddin was again outraged, this time by a China Press headliner that Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan was on the way out.
True to form, he went on to warn that sensationalizing any issue to boost sales could be met with stern action if proven untrue.
Hishammuddin issued the Chinese tabloid with a show-cause letter (which it has kept quite a few over the years), and reiterated the seriousness of the "unfounded" report.Quite clearly, he worked hard to ensure the public feel the brunt of his anger and shut up under a climate of intimidation and fear.
Why such a big deal? In a real democracy, all public office bearers deserve apology when news related to them is misreported or misrepresented.
However, for a government to make a mountain out of a molehill and pursue the wrongdoer relentlessly is nothing but meanness and arrogance that borders on paranoia.
In a society where information flows freely, errors are inevitable. One may chastise, clarify or apologize, but never to throw the baby out with the bath water by curtailing freedom of speech with an atmosphere of intimidation.
Moreover, the China Press had not been completely off the mark, for Hishammuddin himself confirmed the next day that Musa Hassan is indeed to be replaced soon!
All governments are in the habit of playing on the 'vulnerability' of the masses so that they can justify their grotesque behaviour and even lunacy in the name of "protecting the public".
It would not have been possible for the Bush administration to wage catastrophic wars on Afghanistan and Iraq without the pervasive fear generated in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy.
One must not forget too that the terrorist attacks scared the western media out of their wits that many were willing to go along with the wars, a sheer outcome of shrinking public space for rational debate.
A society living in constant fear is also unable to behave normally. I was therefore least surprised when some Malaysian Christians held the Catholic Church responsible for "blowing the usage of Allah out of proportion".
After all, they had long accepted the received wisdom of not confronting the government head-on!
In fact, the world is big and spacious enough for one to speak truth to power without being radical (though radicalism itself has been a positive catalyst for change throughout history).
Sadly, many choose to remain silent before political chaos, mostly out of fear as well as for vested interests, which only benefits the ruling elite in the long run.
In either Singapore or Malaysia, the ruling elite tend to tempt the masses into giving up their right to meaningful political participation with promises of 'social stability' and 'affluent life'.
But is it not paradoxical that a government that is duty-bound to manage the country well should not only claim the credit, but take away our freedom of thought along with it?
Listening to the opposing views and making our voices heard are conducive to our collective health. Engaging Khoo Kay Khim, Ridhuan Tee and Perkasa leaders in public debate is also vitally important to creating a vibrant civil society, which is also likely to weaken the hegemonic discourse of the powers-that-be.
But it is up to the individuals to decide if they want to be critical citizens or submissive subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment