A One-act comedy of errors

Scene: Some marble-floored, walled and ceiling-ed hall of buffoonery, home to an imaginary institution so pretentiously important its abbreviated name has an abbreviation. A class is in progress; it’s obviously detention, as only a handful of slouching teeth-picking idle-minded sods have showed up. An abstract teacher saunters in, dumps books too thick or complicated for any of these pupils to ever contemplate finishing on a commodious front desk, and begins...

“Good evening class, today’s lesson is going to be about ‘Freedom of Speech’. Now before I begin, does anyone here not understand what freedom of speech is?”

Malaysia [raising its hand idly]: No teacher, I do not. [A few other pupils follow suit warily]

Teacher: I see. Well, it looks like we have a lot to cover today. For the benefit of those who have just raised their hands, freedom of speech is basically the freedom of the citizens of a particular country to voice whatever opinion he or she may have, whither by publication, speech or mindset.

At this point, several students get up and leave the class. The biggest and toughest looking of them, the Soviet Union, is first, followed by several from the Arab region. China and North Korea dutifully follow, the last pausing only for a bout of temperamental fist shaking in the direction of the teacher, who is rather taken aback. Little Singapore, anxious not to be left out, scurries out after them.

Teacher: Well, they’ll never learn will they? Oh well, best continue with what we have. Now, I’m assuming you’re all here because you think that there is a right for countries to exercise stiff censorship of their citizens’ views, am I right? [a few nods from the class] The fact is censorship is all part and parcel of freedom of speech, now I’ll bet none of you knew that, did you?

Malaysia: I exercise stringent censorship of speech, but having a multiracial make-up, I do so in order to ensure the public do not offend one another. It’s a very fragile balance, is multiculturality, and is one I will try to maintain so we will continue to look good in the eyes of other countries, even if it means denying that I am cloistering those under my control.

Teacher: Ah, but you didn’t reckon with the responsibility of the people within your control, did you? You see, freedom of speech requires several key features to be operative. The first is discretion, more specifically the wisdom of how to exercise discretion when necessary. People may say anything and everything, but it is as much to their discretion what they choose to say or not to say, as it is for you, the listener to pay any attention. Thus the prerogative is on both sides to remain respectful of the other’s right to convey any opinion, without acting upon the urge to shut them down at the slightest hint of controversy. This leads to the second key feature, which is responsibility. Again this works both ways: as much as people may wish to say whatever they want to, they will have to learn to keep it respectful. It is one thing to have a vociferous opinion, and another to downright insult the other party. Having said so, some people due to sheer ignorance require a real kick up the arse, and this is where responsibility in the form of diplomacy must be exercised. A person may be admonished, but in terms that are restrained.

[At this point, Malaysia stands up, triumphantly waving a copy of a well-known newspaper, The Star, dated Monday, January 14th 2008. Always ready to please the superiors, he turns to the letters pages and points to the lower right corner of the right page. There is published a letter submitted by a humble blogger the previous week. At this point, the teacher interjects…]

Teacher: Ah, Malaysia. I see you have given due recognition to the blogger who submitted the letter you showed me last week. I highly recommended you publish his letter in its entirety, he did after all make very cogent and eloquent rebuttals to the idiot whose letter you allowed the previous Wednesday.

Malaysia: Indeed I published it, teacher. However I had to heavily edit it. He was to my mind, too heavy-handed, and might have offended the sensitivities of more than a few people if we had published the unaltered version. It was practical to do so anyway, as you can see I put it in a small red box next to another letter addressing the same topic to keep it contextual. It makes it look like I merely edited it to make it fit the allocated space.

Teacher: Come, bring it up here, let me see what you have done.

[Malaysia obliges. He brings the page up for the teacher to see. The letter sure enough, is there, and is published as follows…]

Wrong to say only a few good men out of 900mil

I refer to Africans must clear their own image (The Star, Jan 11). This is exactly the kind of blinkered and unfounded stereotyping that proves just how progressive and open-minded the average ‘modern’ Malaysian is.

At the end of his letter, the writer attempts to use Malaysia as some sort of counterpoint, stating that we are lauded and admired by many African nations “for good governance and improving the quality of life of the ordinary people”.

Fair enough, perhaps, but then it doesn’t justify the tar-brush he used to smear the African people.

As a Malaysian, I am as aware as any other of the types of Africans we are used to. We read and hear about the money-laundering and employment scams, and the occasional violence exacted by groups or individuals of expatriate Africans.

But I fail to see how it is in any way justifiable to use that stick to beat an entire continent over the head with. We’re not even talking about individuals or sub-groups here, we’re talking about 900 million people in 53 countries covering 6% of the entire surface of the Earth!

It is small-minded to suggest the most that can come out of 15% of the world’s population are a few “good men”. Negative stereotyping isn’t the fault of the Africans themselves. Africa isn’t what we see on CNN or read about in the news. Every country, region and culture has its problems. Each has its quirks and issues, we provide the stereotyping.

In Malaysia, a friend of mine cannot walk the streets in his Iron Maiden T-shirt without people gawking at him, any lad with long hair is a rebellious punkish troublemaker, and any young woman in a short skirt is loose or a China girl.

I have come to know many Africans from all over the continent in my time as a foreign student, and from what I can tell they are like many of the world’s other races, proud and confident about themselves.

It is one thing to maintain conservative values, and another to judge every other race on the basis of fear and what we derive from the news. What we see and interpret of Africans, and indeed all other people around us, is not necessarily what they are.

We would do well to stop taking everyone at face value and recognise that sure, they may not be what we are, and yes, some of them are bad, but then no two people are the same.

Multiculturalist, Kuala Lumpur.

[The teacher reads the letter thoroughly, and then pulls out a sheet of paper; it is a copy of the original letter. The teacher makes a lengthy comparison between the two, and then peers up severely at Malaysia, who is still standing and beaming from cheek to cheek…]

Malaysia: See, I published it, I gave him a chance. He was of course, way too controversial for our liking, so we had to do a little ‘butchering’. I even changed the pseudonym, just to show he can’t mess with me the way I expected him to.

[At this point the teacher stands up and admonishes Malaysia]

Teacher: Oh Malaysia, how could you? Butchery is a fine word indeed! You cut out all semblances of rebuttal and passion from the letter and have reduced it to a pile of non-directional rambling void of message or cogency! Not only did you change the pen name, you changed the title, the content of the letter, and even the order at which he wrote it! You have clearly not practiced proper free speech in this instance, you have clearly had only one thing on your mind, and that is sterilising the letter according to your own conservative standards out of your fear that it might offend people. See, this is the third key feature of free speech, and that is courage. Governments must have the courage to allow the citizens to exercise freedom of speech, if not they will become significantly more radical under the suppression, leaving them vulnerable to irresponsible outbursts. A government cannot in this situation be paranoid about people’s sensitivities; the onus is on them to allow the citizens to become progressive and accepting on their own accord. You, Malaysia, have evidently acted out of this age-old fear. This is what is keeping the citizens back, they are not allowed to truly express themselves, because you yourself try to sanitise everything in order to retain a sense of non-controversy. If you want a good example of freedom of speech, look at Australia. In this regard, he excels because he practices excellent free speech. Look at the flowering of awareness amongst the citizens as they are allowed to debate and maintain any point of view that they wish. Look at the number of protests held everywhere, people are allowed to protest government policies which they regard as dubious, and they know to do so peacefully because they are aware of their responsibilities as citizens. The government itself knows the prerogative of paying heed to its citizens’ calls lies above all with itself, so it can choose whether to act upon the initiative or disregard them totally. They have the confidence in themselves that they have, at the end of it all, the final say, and if they so wish, will not put it beyond themselves to actually address the issue at hand and give it due consideration. You, Malaysia, and all the rest of you other countries, would do well to learn from this fine example of freedom of speech.

[Malaysia, thoroughly cowed, shifts uneasily. But then a resolute glower flickers across his face. He is determined to show he will not bow to the outside pressure…]

Malaysia: You know what? I don’t have to care about what Australia or other people do. I am a shining light for the rest of the world, a beacon of modernisation and a model for all the others who aspire to become me. I do not wish to hold true to whatever you have been saying because I hold true to my principles and traditions, and none of you may ever contravene that. Freedom of speech is for those who wish to live dangerously, for those who cannot foresee that it will only lead to a total loss of control amongst the citizenry. For the sake of my image I will not loosen my principles for such infidel behaviour.

[Malaysia storms out of the hall. The teacher’s gaze follows him through the door, head shaking slowly…]

Teacher: I have tried to teach you the proper way to progressive happiness. It is clear, Malaysia, you will never learn…