WHEN IS FREEDOM NOT FREEDOM?

So you see, once we debate the subject of freedom we need to take so many issues into consideration. But if we just debate your notion of freedom then that is not democracy because in such a debate my notion of freedom is being ignored.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Today, the new catchword in Malaysia is freedom. Most know about the late Nelson Mandela’s ‘long walk to freedom’. Every day we talk about freedom and scream that we want more freedom. But most of us do not actually understand what the word freedom really means.

And this is the psyche of most Malaysians. We have learnt new things mainly because of the era of the Internet. So we talk about these new things we have learnt. And we think we know what we are talking about. Isn’t there a saying that a little knowledge is dangerous?

There is currently a hue and cry in Malaysia regarding freedom of the media (triggered by the government action against The Heat). We complain that there is no freedom of information, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom to publish, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and much more.

Singapore has summed it up very well. Singapore practices guided democracy. That means the government guides you on what you can think, say and do. And Singapore guarantees you freedom of speech. It is just your freedom after speech that is not guaranteed. You have freedom to say what you like and the government, too, has freedom to do what it likes to you whenever you say something the government does not like.

How do we determine what is freedom and when is freedom not freedom? To do this we need to study the history of humankind over the last 10,000 years (or the last 6,000 years if we use the Bible as our guide). Freedom has evolved over thousands of years and has transformed into what we see today. Possibly, 10,000 years from now, the interpretation of freedom may change. The notion of freedom today may not be the notion of freedom 10,000 years from now.

Hence, when we talk about freedom, we are merely looking at it from the perspective of the year 2013. In the year 1000 or the year 1000 BC, the notion of freedom at that time was very different and will, again, be different 1,000 years from now in the year 3000.

And that is why I always say that values change over time and place, and good becomes bad and bad becomes good depending on which era and which area you happen to be living in.

How do you know what the difference between good and bad is? Are you sure good is good and bad is bad? You think you do because you are applying today’s values according to the country you happen to be living in.

For example, Bibles can be printed in Bahasa Malaysia but you are forbidden from using the word ‘Allah’ as the name for God in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible. But even then this applies to some parts of Malaysia and not to the entire Malaysia. Hence you can plus you cannot use Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible depending on where you live.

You may say this is bad. How come you cannot use the Allah name in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible in West Malaysia but you can in East Malaysia? So this is bad because according to freedom of religion and all those other freedoms you should be able to use Allah as the name for God in the whole of Malaysia.

That may be a good argument today. However, 1,000 years ago, that would have been a bad argument because Bibles could only be in Latin and not in English, German, French or whatever, especially not in Bahasa Malaysia. Hence, in the first place, there should not even be a Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible let alone using Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible going by the values of 1,000 years ago.

So, is denying the use of the Allah word in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible a violation of your freedom of religion, etc? You may think so today. But in the year 1000 you did not even have the freedom to translate the Bible into any other language outside Latin. And doing so is heresy and will result in you being put to death.

What is going to happen 1,000 years from now in the year 3000? I am not clairvoyant but it is not farfetched to imagine that 1,000 years from now religion may be totally banned because it causes so much pain and suffering due to the religious conflicts all over the world. Hence, Bibles, too, may be totally banned. Hence, also, the issue of Bahasa Malaysia Bibles and the use of the Allah word in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible may no longer be relevant since Bibles would not exist anyway.

Is that farfetched? Sex changes and gay marriages were farfetched 1,000 years ago but today it exists. So nothing is farfetched or impossible. If it can happen then there is always a possibility that it will happen. Only if it cannot happen (like humans can naturally fly like birds without any aid of a device) will it not happen (unless scientists eventually discover a way to crossbreed humans and eagles and they are called heagles or something like that).

Freedom, therefore, is just a notion based on the value system that you adopt. In a different time and in a different place this notion would change. Your notion of freedom in the year 2013 in Malaysia would not be the same if you lived in another country or in another time.

For example, can I say that we must be allowed the freedom of not being brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing in God or in a religion? Can a law be passed making it illegal for parents to deny the freedom of choice of their children by brainwashing and indoctrinating their children into following the religion of their parents?

You may argue that parents should be allowed the freedom of raising their children as, say, Catholics. But that is the freedom of the parents. What about the freedom of the children? Are you not denying your children the freedom to be free of all religious doctrine by raising them as Catholics? If you did not brainwash and indoctrinate them with the Catholic faith would they grow up as Catholics or grow up as atheists? And is being an atheist once you turn 18 not part of freedom and are you not denying your children this right?

Hence true freedom is to not program your children with a religious faith. Your children should be free to choose what they want to believe. And you are denying them this freedom.

Did your children choose to be born into a Catholic family? No one gave them any choice in the matter. And if they were given a choice would they become Catholics? We will never know until they are old enough to decide for themselves but because they have been brainwashed and indoctrinated as Catholics then most probably they would remain Catholics once they grow up. That is the power of programming, brainwashing and indoctrination. Even monkeys can be taught to fly to the moon when properly programmed.

So, when you talk about freedom and demand freedom that is merely your notion of what the word means. That may not necessarily be my notion as well. And you are applying your notion of freedom and forcing it upon me. So I must adopt your notion of freedom and if I do not then I am violating your notion of freedom.

But notions of freedom are subject to time, place and upbringing (such as society’s norms, education, indoctrination, manmade laws, and so on). This does not mean you are right. It just means you think you are right.

You say you have freedom to speak. What about my freedom of not having to listen to what you say? Do I not have that freedom as well? Hence by speaking you are actually denying me my freedom of not having to listen to you. Can I then demand that you be banned from speaking so that my freedom of not having to listen to you is protected and respected?

So you see, once we debate the subject of freedom we need to take so many issues into consideration. But if we just debate your notion of freedom then that is not democracy because in such a debate my notion of freedom is being ignored.

The bottom line here is, if you feel you are ready to debate the subject of freedom then you need to open your mind and think beyond just your notion of what the word means. But are you ready and mature enough to do that? If we apply very narrow boundaries and just debate within those boundaries then we are not debating true freedom. We are just debating your notion of freedom. And that means it is not freedom because my freedoms are being denied.

Not easy is it when we need to think outside the box and reject what we perceive as norms and accept the fact that norms are not normal after all?