Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Once upon a time, and at different periods for different parts of the world, empires were supreme. They were hard-fought with blood, sweat and tears. Those who were brave and lucky enough to succeed became kings, and established their empires. Kingdoms were built so that kings (and their offspring) could be well served. After all they took grave risks, and put their tough necks on the line. Emperors in turn occasionally showered benevolence on their subjects, often giving back only a fraction of what they took from the people.

The State, which in reality was equated to the king behind it, was everything to live for. People existed to serve the State. The State, and the king, could not be criticized or insulted. They were sacred. Their right to rule was said (by themselves of course) to have been decreed by heaven, and thus could not be questioned. Even criticisms of high officials of the State often carried big risks and grave consequences.

In those times patriotism was not an inculcated value. It was a mandatory requirement, the non-observance of which could bring dire consequences. The State determined the type and extent of patriotism that ought to be displayed by its subjects. Respect was demanded, rather than earned, by the government of the day. Patriotism had to be absolute. Loyalty must be unconditional and unquestioning, no matter how poorly treated the people might be.

What if the people were indeed badly treated, and wanted to voice their grievances? This might become a threat to those in power! Oh no, that could not be allowed. So weapons were developed to curb the desire to express discontent. One such weapon was the law of sedition, a silencer of free expression.

Satire on the State or the government was also out of the question. It was too risky to allow people to joke about such a serious matter.

But, history has repeatedly shown that no discontent could be forever suppressed. It merely simmered, waiting for the fault-lines that would surely develop over time. In some instances, the first vent for expression was through nursery rhymes, taught to and spread by young children, with sources unknown. Even tyrants found it unthinkable and too risky to start punishing young children for singing “seditious” songs.

That old-world style of compelled patriotism still exists today in a few places, the most notable being North Korea.

In most parts of the world, however, after centuries of cyclical royal extravaganzas and citizen struggles, comes this strange new concept that it is the people who are supreme, and that governments should exist to serve the people instead. Some call it government by the people, for the people. Some say it is democracy.

In a true democracy, the government is a trustee, and the people are the beneficiaries. Loyalty is owed from the government to the people. This reverse concept takes some getting used to, both for the government and the governed.

This is one of the fundamental differences between top-down imperialism (where power is concentrated in a few) and bottom-up democracy (where ultimate power is, or should be, broadly distributed among the masses).

In a democracy, those in power are no longer sacred. They can be criticized and even condemned. Power is not decreed by heaven, but conferred by the people. Satire is one of the many legitimate forms of expression. We are able to poke fun at ourselves. This does not mean that patriotism has no place. It only means that compelled patriotism is meaningless, and should be discarded. Loyalty is no longer a one-way street. There are many means of expressing discontent or dissent, not restricted to the use of nursery rhymes. Sedition, at least in its old-world form, is rightly seen as an oppressive relic of imperialism, and is committed to disuse.

But at times old habits die hard, even though the environment has changed and improved. The recent threat of sedition charges (and other forms of penal sanction) against a young Malaysian for a rap song he had sung is an example of a call to return to the bad old days when free expression was mercilessly controlled for the purposes of preservation of power.

The contents of his song and the manner of its presentation are certainly legitimate matters for discussion and criticism. Some may find that parts of it are in bad taste, offensive, or misguided. Others may condemn its manner of presentation, or its lack of patriotism. Yet others may find nothing wrong with it. These views, positive or negative, and whether or not congruent with the opinion of the government of the day, have every right to be aired. The singer’s work can be judged by public opinion, but he should not be criminalized through the machinery of law.

Freedom of expression is not, and cannot be, limited to the expression of views that have the approval of the government, or of the majority of the people. Freedom of expression cannot be jettisoned each time some members of the society find the material, or presentation, highly objectionable. The proper way to deal with views that one feels strongly against is to counter them with reason; and not to clobber the speaker (or singer) out of shape.

And what, after all, are the essential ingredients for incitement? A person cannot hope to incite something if no one else shares his sentiments. If, for example, I write or sing about how Malaysian adults shorter than 5 feet 6 inches are intellectually deficient and should not be allowed to hold any office of significance, the only person who will end up looking stupid is myself, and I will have no hope of inciting any ill feelings against short people.

The point is, there is danger of incitement only if the sentiments sought to be incited already exist in sufficient number of the members of society. That being the case, what need to be examined and addressed in such a situation is why such sentiments have come to exist, and not why a person has had the audacity to talk (or sing) about its existence.

For those who are unconvinced that sedition laws are incongruent with democracy, may I invite them to look at the definition of what is “seditious tendency” under the Sedition Act 1948. One of the categories of seditious tendency is that which tends to “raise discontent or disaffection” (and it does not say against what or whom) among the citizens of Malaysia! If such an absurd law is to be upheld, then all of us, except those who are totally unpatriotic and hence do not bother to express any view whatsoever on anything of social importance, are seditious offenders.

What, too, is patriotism? To me, total indifference to the goings on in the country qualifies for being unpatriotic, far more than one who says things the way he sees them (even if his perception may, arguably, have been misguided).

In my view, what is most unpatriotic is to be dishonest or corrupt, or to misuse public funds, or to keep quiet when wrongs are perceived to have been committed. These are the things that most put our nation to shame; not some satire that one may or may not find amusing. Let us not bark up the wrong tree.

Slogan shouting is not the same as patriotism. Patriotism, I agree, is a serious matter. It is a value earned by good governance and inculcated in an environment of truth and freedom. We must protect this environment. We may comment on, counter, criticize, satirize, but we must not criminalize, any attempt in the exercise of this freedom.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed