Forbidding discussions on 3Rs a double-edged sword

 

From Ti Lian Ker

Malaysians in general were uncomfortable when 3R (race, religion and royalty) issues were raised recently in the public space with a political spin to arouse or put down a certain race or religion. This was with the intention of using the 3Rs as political bullets.

This is more so with PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad attempting to spew racial hatred and pour poisonous venom by resorting to 3R narratives.

In retaliation, the Pakatan Harapan-led government has clamped down hard on discussions or discourses touching on the 3Rs, though the coalition was a fierce proponent of freedom of speech and liberalism in the past.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim shot a strong warning by saying: “There are some people who think that they are all high and mighty – that they will not be charged or challenged.”

He added: “We will not look at their race, ranks, wealth or social status (when taking action).”

Many who disapprove and frown upon Hadi and Mahathir’s 3R venom are happy with the government’s swift action.

However, the series of clampdowns specifically targeting political opponents and the proposal to draft laws to stop any form of discussion on race and religion may not be the best of options for the country, whose growth has been very much stunted as a result of suppressions and restrictions by other so-called “draconian” laws.

This includes the Internal Security Act 1960, the National Security Council (MKN) Act 2016, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the Official Secrets Act 1972, the Sedition Act 1948, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and the Anti-Fake News Act 2018.

In fact, we have more than enough laws to bring these “naughty old boys” in line and keep them in check.

PH leaders themselves were very vocal in advocating that some of these laws should be abolished when they were in the opposition. Why is there a sudden need for another draconian law with the specific intent of clamping down on political opponents, when we have so many existing laws that can be used?

PH supporters may be euphoric as the proposed law is aimed at PAS and Perikatan Nasional. But what if these laws were passed and someday PAS takes over as the government of the day?

What if these laws are then used to suppress any resistance to PAS’ political agenda? What if they are used against any of PAS’ political or civil opponents? What if PAS decides to push religious-based legislation or policies that may affect non-Muslims adversely and we are not allowed to question them?

Today’s situation is reminiscent of the post-May 13 scenario in the 1970s and 1980s, where the government clamped down hard on discussions relating to the 3Rs in the name of national security and harmony.

It was also in this period of “opaqueness” that many policies were introduced and decisions forced through in the name of eradicating “Bumiputera” poverty but rampantly abused.

The fact is that heightening the sense of fear and concern over 3R topics means we are now effectively further suppressing all public conversations, emotions and views necessary for a healthier national growth and progress.

By having a blanket ban in the name of 3Rs, we blur the lines and exclude rational or critical thinking. All issues that need an open sensible discourse will then be swept under the carpet. This will empower politicians. It was this empowerment that allowed Mahathir to rule with an iron fist for 22 years.

Any clampdown on 3R topics should follow the “rule of law”. The PH-led government should not impose a “rule by law” through the introduction of new laws as political weapons to strike fear into their opponents.

If race and religion cannot be discussed at all, then we will not be allowed to articulate and deliberate on any future policy involving delicate and refined issues covering these subjects.

In conclusion, supporters of liberalism and the rule of law must speak out and caution our government that it must uphold the spirit of the rule of law. We need more civil-minded critical thinkers to go beyond what the politicians want.

The short-term justification of any statutory empowerment aimed at our opponents today could be an impediment to us on another day. Forbidding a discussion on the 3Rs is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways. Someday, we could be living in regret as we may be the victims of our own doing. - FMT

Ti Lian Ker is a senator and an MCA vice-president.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.