Malaysia -- a nation shrouded in sensitivity

By Stephanie Sta Maria

SPECIAL REPORT KUALA LUMPUR: In Malaysia “sensitivity” isn't just a word. It is a way of life; an ideology that warily circumvents the country's political, economic and social spheres.

Such guardedness is inherent in a nation with a mixed racial and religious population, but the practice of sterilising and reshaping thoughts and ideas for the sake of keeping the peace may be backfiring on us.

The tip-toeing around “sensitive issues” originated at a time when Malaysia was still testing its multiracial waters. The formation of a young nation meant placing freedom of expression as a secondary priority to national unity and the invisible lines were honoured for this very reason.

Fifty-three years on and those lines have spread and hardened to create boundaries that silence the country's growing number of dissenting voices. While the length of the leash on freedom of expression heavily depends on which side of the political divide one is on, “sensitivity” remains at the root of every discourse.

In short, you are either gagged for broaching a sensitive issue or given free rein to speak your mind because your sensitivity has been breached.

The question that begs an answer, therefore, is whether our learned sensitivity requires a restriction on freedom of expression or whether the restriction itself has enhanced our sensitivity.

HR Dipendra, project coordinator of the SEA Media Legal Defence Network, believes it is the former.

“This sensitivity has restricted the development of thought and hampered the ability to think critically,” he explained. “So when confronted by controversial topics, many Malaysians will either shy away or unwittingly tread on toes.”

Dipendra described the first group as using “sensitivity” as an excuse for their inability to engage in critical discussions. Most of the critical thinkers, he noted, are a handful who reside within the Klang Valley.

Danger zones

The population beyond the urban landscape is either devoid of an opinion or is afraid to vocalise it for fear of being offensive. While the passivity is alarming, more concern should be reserved for the second group.

“This group recognises its right to freedom of expression but doesn't understand how to exercise it responsibly,” Dipendra said. “It lacks the intellectual creativity to put forth critically constructive comments and resort to stereotypes and insults to get its point across, which only serves to justify the government's clampdown on freedom of expression.”

Dipendra confided that his biggest concern is this set of people who allow their overwhelming frustrations to blind them to the danger zones. He chose controversial rapper Wee Meng Chee, better known as Namewee, as an example.

Wee shot to popularity in 2007 after releasing a song which purportedly ridiculed the national anthem and the Islamic call to prayer. Last month he made headlines again with another music video in which he was accused of making seditious remarks. The latest video also contained his trademark utterances of vulgarities and obscenities.

“I feel that Namewee had actually exercised some restraint in that video,” Dipendra laughed before resuming seriousness. “But if given a choice, he would have been more inflammatory and a wildfire would have started.”

“These people are turning to music and writing as an outlet to express themselves because there is a lack of discourse from the government,” he pointed out. “It's always the civil society that reaches out for a dialogue. We don't live in caves, we live in a globalised world. If we can't talk of basic things, then why do we even exist?”

Indeed it was talk of the basics that landed actor and radio personality Patrick Teoh in trouble with the authorities during his tenure at the now defunct Radio Four.

Teoh had fielded a phone call from a listener who related his experience with an allegedly corrupt policeman. The broadcast of that conversation led to a police report being filed against Teoh and the ensuing “interviews” at the police station. Yet Teoh maintains that he had more room to breathe than the radio announcers today.

“I could raise and talk about issues more openly but the broadcasts on Radio Four weren't exactly earth-shattering,” he quipped. “My show consisted mainly of my opinion and those of the average Malaysian on what was already published in the mainstream media. But I daresay that back then, things were not as sensitive as it is now. Much of what I discussed on air would never been given the green light today.”

98.8 FM DJ Jamaluddin Ibrahim recently found that out the hard way. The popular Chinese-speaking DJ was given the boot after being accused of discussing too many “sensitive issues” on air. While his sacking has been widely speculated to be politically motivated, it also underscores the staggering power that “sensitivity” wields.

Constant harping

Teoh, however, pins the blame for this sensitivity on the constant harping by the government for Malaysians to be tolerant rather than understanding of each other.

“We have always been a racist society,” he declared. “But we kept our racism contained within a trusted circle of friends where our remarks were considered funny instead of offensive. There was no exaggerated sensitivity because we understood each other.”

“Then after May 13 the government demanded that we tolerate each other because we are so different. But unlike understanding, tolerance has a shorter lifespan which means it can run out and from the looks of things, that could be fairly soon.”

Political analyst Dr Ong Kian Ming agreed that the May 13 riots has been used as a justification to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression and turn Malaysia into a sensitive society.

“I think people are much more willing to discuss so-called sensitive matters in a way that is rational and constructive,” he added. “It is when certain politicians use these issues to up the ante that emotions are riled up. The solution is not to have further restrictions but to encourage an environment where 'extremist' politicians are punished electorally.”

Ong also supported Dipendra's observation of the link between sensitivity and the lack of critical thinking.

“I blame the authorities in power, the politicians and the education system for this. With the proper environment, our multicultural society should encourage rather than restrict debate and engagement on different ideas and belief systems.”

Here, Dipendra mused that our multicultural society may very well be the breeding ground of our sensitivity. In his opinion, the fact that we're not a homogeneous society has robbed us of a common agenda to move forward together.

Malaysian gene

Interestingly enough, Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew touched on this very same sentiment in his interview with the International Herald Tribune three years ago.

In that interview, he acknowledged that Singapore didn't have the “ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors... a homogeneous population, common language, common culture and common destiny”.

This further heightened Lee's awareness of the challenge that lay before him to “create and develop a stable and prosperous nation that was always on guard against conflict within its mixed population”.

“The Malaysian gene also plays an important role,” Dipendra added. “Our forefathers were traders who came to this country in search of economic prosperity. Freedom of expression was not on their agenda unlike that of the generations after them. So what we have on our hands is an ideological battle between the old guard and the new order.”

courtesy of FMT