To prevent hate speech is also to protect open dialogue

 

I don’t like racism or any other forms of extremism that involve race and religion. I think that this is quite evident in the many writings and films that I have done.

Coming from a mixed-race family where I have Malay and Chinese backgrounds (while so many of my other relatives consist of other races as well), I think I understand how important it is for everyone to understand and accept one another.

In my own personal opinion, no one should be treated better or worse just because of their religion or their race, no matter where they are.

In Malaysia, if a person is a citizen, they should be given equal treatment whether they are Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban, Bidayuh, or whatever race they are. This should be the same whether they are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, or atheist.

Malaysia is not a homogenous country and this is something we all know and realise for a long time. We are extremely diverse when it comes to race, religion, and culture.

This is something quite special and great that we need to embrace and move forward with. If we can create unity in diversity, we can become a society that can achieve so much more than we already have.

As much as I am not really a supporter of systematic censorship or control over the freedom of speech, I do think that at this point in time, some form of structure needs to be in place to protect the safety and harmony of Malaysia.

So, I welcome the initiative of creating a new law to do so as announced by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said.

The proposed initiative is one that restricts the 3R issues (race, religion, and royalty) and creates a law that is supposed to safeguard social harmony and prevent hate speech.

The law, which the minister has said could potentially be called the State and Nation Act, will impose civil liability instead of criminal liability over those who break it. Hence, laws like the Sedition Act won’t have to be used.

Toxic politics

I think that this is a noble intention and a positive step forward in trying to build a Malaysian society that will no longer harp on racial and religious issues when it comes to governing the country.

I think that so many Malaysians have had enough of politicians and public leaders who constantly try to divide the country in order to garner votes in elections.

Why do I say this? I think that if you go down to the grassroots of the people of Malaysia, we are not a racist bunch of people.

I believe that every single individual Malaysian actually understands that people are different. Different people have different beliefs and practice different cultures, and although we are all different, we are all equal as people living in this country.

The problem is that in the last many decades of our history, politics have been that one area that is always fanning racial and religious issues to divide rather than unify.

The race-based political system that we have practised (or forced on us, depending on how you see it), has been so detrimental to the country’s social contract.

Just open up any news portal and I can bet you my bottom ringgit that you will be able to see a news report where a politician touches on racial or religious issues that will make you feel uncomfortable.

Sometimes, these incidents are so ridiculous and offensive that it makes me feel uncomfortable even mentioning them even though I am trying to comment on and criticise them.

For example, instead of making a statement saying that one religious group is more corrupt than another, why not just state that corruption is rampant and we need to eradicate it all? What is the purpose and intention of pinpointing one group over another like that? Doesn’t a statement like that just reek of accusation, blame, and divisiveness?

Another example. If an industry like computer and technology retail in Malaysia is seen to be dominated by one group of people, why then should another group of people feel threatened and compete with them by creating an opposing marketplace if they are all Malaysians?

Couldn’t they all just learn from the dominant group and then come together and unite to create an even stronger industry?

Allow room for dissent

I support Communications and Digital Minister Fahmi Fadzil when he says that he also supports the proposed law that his colleague Azalina wants to bring to the table. Yes, I am saying again that I support this move.

However, we must also be careful that it doesn’t become a tool that can be abused by those in power, just like how so many laws from yesteryears had become.

It takes political will to change something like systematic racism and religious extremism in a country. The new State and Nation Act should be drafted as carefully and detailed as possible.

One of the problems of some of the draconian laws was their vagueness, which we assume is because it makes them open to abuse. So, the new law should define everything as clearly as possible.

It is supposed to prevent hate speech and maintain peace and harmony. It shouldn’t prevent the freedom of intellectual discourse. There should still be room for criticism and dissent that serves the progression and development of society. It should not and must not be made as a tool to curb the right to discuss ideas and thoughts.

If that happens, then we might as well not have the law at all.

Democracy thrives in an environment that has open dialogue, criticism, and the ability for the people to hold their leaders accountable, challenge the norms, and drive progress.

We need to create a society that encourages critical thinking and values diverse opinions. By fostering responsible speech, we can bridge divides and build a stronger and more united Malaysia. - Mkini

---

ZAN AZLEE is a writer, documentary filmmaker, journalist, and academic. The Sheraton move really frustrated him but maybe after November 2022, he can start feeling better again. Visit fatbidin.com to view his work.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.