TMI: Of discordant voices — by Mat Salleh Rempit

Of discordant voices — Mat Salleh Rempit

TMI: July 07, 2011

JULY 7 — I have a confession to make. I am not a communist. And... I know I am French but, I swear, I don’t go on a rampage around the world, trying to destroy every monarchy on the planet.

I am not anti-Muslim. And, more importantly, I am not some stupid hooligan planning to wreak havoc upon your beautiful country. Yet, this is what the government wants you to believe about me. And still, I hope to be someone tolerant, peaceful and logical.

There is no need for me to introduce Bersih. We all know what it is about. Oh, wait... do we? As I have come to notice, there are a lot of conflicting reports on the topic. So, before I proceed, please allow me to define what Bersih is, based on my opinion.

Bersih is a movement by citizens, for citizens, asking for free and fair elections, which are usually seen as a pre-requisite for any healthy democracy. But all those conflicting reports have generated conflicting opinions.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I have no qualms with people having different opinions to mine. On the contrary! It is a great opportunity for us to exchange ideas, to have a dialogue, to... dialogue?

OK, so, this is where I am getting all hyped up. Let the NGOs, the government, the opposition deal together, sort the legal stuff out and untangle the whole situation. What I am really concerned about is the lack of reasonable arguments, of any real dialogue, at the grassroots level, between citizens.

I am worried about the way normal people, people like you and me, react to this situation. Doesn’t it look like a lot of people are popping out of their minds recently? That common sense has just gone rushing through the gutter?

I tried having a dialogue with some anti-Bersih people. Some are actually moderate and we can have a nice cup of tea and talk like civilized friends. But too often, I get those deaf monologues.

The “I speak, I speak, I speak and I won’t listen to whatever you have to say” kind of conversation. When I post a pro-Bersih statement on Facebook, some other pro-Bersih’s will “Like” it, some others would comment on it, and then comes an anti-Bersih.

He counter-argues. With two words, “Ambiga ke***g.”

Are you kidding me? Is that all you have to say? Is that your strongest argument against Bersih? I swear, sometimes I feel like a cartoon character about to pull off her hair out of frustration!

Ask an anti-Bersih a legitimate, logical question to understand his point of view, and he will most often shoot himself in the foot by avoiding the answer and ranting about something else. How to look credible and sensible with this kind of reaction? Another example:

Anti-Bersih, on my wall: Malaysia is not like Egypt, Libya or Syria. There’s democracy, elections and freedom in Malaysia. We should be grateful to be Malaysians.

Me, trying to use reason: Freedom? What about the freedom of speech and expression? The right to peaceful assembly? Those are ensured by the Malaysian Federal Constitution, Section 10, Articles 1A and 1B. How come then that they are not respected?

Anti-Bersih: Malaysians are peace-loving people. We can have teh tarik, roti canai and nasi lemak anywhere without disturbance. We don’t like violence.

Aaargh, pening! Just answer the question!

Not being able to run through a dialogue would be bad enough, but the anti-Bersih’s are also making themselves guilty of what they are accusing us of. Yes, let’s talk about threats of violence.

I am sure you have all heard of this Silat master planning to call on all his students to go to the streets and fight to protect the country. Can you imagine them? “You shall not pass.” (To be pictured with a Silat pose.) It would be funny, if they were not serious about it.

Who would be starting the violence? Am I supposed to look like a dangerous warrior, hiding weapons up my sleeves, lurking in the dark, killing innocent citizens?

And yet some people are getting really frantic and personal about it. An acquaintance of mine, an army veteran, went to the point of making threats. I am going to quote him on this. “Old soldiers never die, they fight all the way. We are determined to demolish all these evil people once for all, enough is enough. These idiots have underestimated us, we will see what happens. Are we going to just sit and watch? You know what ex-French legionnaires are capable of!”

He concluded by telling a friend “If they attack the Istana Negara, there will be bloodshed.”

Any attempts at rationalising the discussion, at calming down the situation, went to no avail as this veteran is the Ambiga-ke***g-I-won’t-answer-your-question kind of person.

Am I violent? No. Am I planning to overthrow the monarchy and the government? No.

Am I planning to destroy the country? No.

So why make threats of violence against me? Yes, I am scared. And I do believe that rising above your fears is very important. But one disturbing statement made by this ex-soldier keeps running through my mind. “I hope to meet you on July 9th.” Oh really? What for? I don’t want to find out...

Between threats of violence, kindergarten-level reasoning and refusals to have a civilised dialogue, anti-Bersih’s are most of the time harming themselves. I do agree with one anti-Bersih argument, the one stating the opposition’s hidden political agenda. Yes, the opposition is trying to hijack the movement and, no, I don’t like this one bit!

But I am open to dialogue. Are you? Will you listen and try to understand my arguments, as much as I try to understand yours? Let’s start a dialogue. A real, mature one, amongst normal citizens, between you and me.

Please. For the sake of democracy. For the sake of this country. Thank you.

* Mat Salleh Rempit is French and lives in Kuala Lumpur.

TMI: Towards a golden age of discourse -- Ambiga Sreenevasan

Towards a golden age of discourse -- Ambiga Sreenevasan

The Malaysian Insider, October 17, 2009

OCT 17 — Fair but robust criticism of legal judgments and laws is a wholly acceptable practice. In every democratic State it is a frequent occurrence. It is what makes a system of justice and law-making stronger.

In the past it was largely lawyers at the forefront of such criticisms. However, with the information age and globalisation, there is a rising tide of awareness of such matters amongst the public in Malaysia. It is heartening to see the public join in the outcry against injustice and unjust laws. It is stimulating to read the arguments for and against a viewpoint, and with this comes the realisation that we should neither take the Malaysian public for granted nor should we underestimate their ability to reason and debate sensibly.

Which makes the lodging of the police reports against JAG (Joint Action Group for Gender Equality) on the Kartika caning issue so disappointing. I must at once disclose my interest. I am an Executive Committee member of Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), a JAG member, and I was not present at the press conference on 1 October only because I was overseas. Nevertheless I fully endorse JAG’s stand in relation to the Kartika caning. It was a stand taken after due consideration of all legal and human rights factors and this basis is set out in full in the JAG Memorandum of 25 August.

Those persuaded by these arguments will continue to support them until and unless they are persuaded otherwise, not by threats, but by sound and logical arguments.

The aim of those who lodge police reports alleging a range of offences including sedition is clearly to intimidate and to suppress views that do not accord with theirs. Unfortunately, in today’s Malaysia, that is no longer acceptable. Forcibly shutting down discussion does a disservice to one’s cause. It gives an impression of close-mindedness and an inability to argue a case on principle or merit. I would invite them to look at things differently.

We should also deal with the all too-familiar-statements that “these are God’s laws you are questioning” and “you are non-Muslim, why are you interfering?”

Firstly, no one is questioning God’s laws. What is sought is a discussion of the human interpretation of these laws. It appears that even each Syariah State Enactment differs. So where is the seditious tendency in asking for these laws to be looked at and reviewed?

The other point about non-Muslims being involved must also be confronted. I would do that by asking in turn what the role of society at large is in the face of what they perceive to be an injustice, regardless of the religious underpinnings. Recently in Aceh, laws have been proposed that call for death by stoning as a punishment for adultery and flogging for other offences. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has condemned these laws as constituting torture. It would be wholly inappropriate to say that the HRW should not interfere because they may not understand Islamic law. We must remember that in the case of Kartika’s caning, there was international condemnation apart from the outcry amongst members of the public in Malaysia. In this day and age, what we do in Malaysia or what anyone does in any part of the world will be open to comment and scrutiny by anyone in any part of the world. We should just get used to it.

There is a more compelling response. No one can, nor should they ever be permitted to, shield from scrutiny any action that impinges or imposes on the dignity and the physical and mental well-being of another. The dangers of allowing that are obvious. Just imagine if that had occurred in the case of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia. We all fight the ISA together even if most of us are unlikely to ever be subjected to that legislation. We fight it on principle alone and because we do not believe any of our brothers and sisters should be subjected to it.

To me it is very clear. If we do not speak up for those who are afraid or reluctant or for those who are weak in the face of what we see as unfair treatment, then we betray our covenant to each other as a society of civilised peoples.

I lament the lack of leadership from the politicians on matters that touch upon religion. Few politicians (from either side of the divide) have shown the courage to take on the task of confronting the issues. To their credit, PAS has apparently said they are prepared to hold a dialogue with JAG on the Kartika caning, and we should take them up on this offer. Surely this is a preferred option to threats and intimidation.

Amartya Sen, a nobel prize winner in Economics in his book “The Idea of Justice” attributes the absence of a backlash on the Indian Muslim population in India after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008 to a great extent to “the public discussion that followed the attacks to which both Muslims and non-Muslims contributed richly”. A valuable lesson is to be learnt from this.

We must fight the urge to constantly shut down discussion. The temptation to do so as an easy way to avoid thorny issues may always be present. However, therein lies the road to misunderstanding and isolation. We must appreciate that the world is changing and that there is a clamour for dialogue as a means of fostering understanding.

Malaysia in all its multi-ethnic glory is well placed to set an example for the rest of the world in promoting peace and understanding, where people of various cultures and belief do not merely “tolerate” each other, but live in harmony. We must leave a legacy for the generations to come that when we had to face up to a difficult task in our history, we chose the path of openness and dialogue rather than force and suppression.

Let this be the start of our golden age of discourse. Let us all talk to one another. More importantly, let us listen.