Savage the idea rather the person

In the furor surrounding his famous satire, a novelist said ‘Without freedom to offend expression, freedom of expression ceases’.

Read with the recent decision to suspend an UMNO division leader from the party, the quotation underscores the promotion of a regressive culture rather than a progressive one.

The division chief said - Malaysian Chinese were immigrants, thus they do not deserve equal rights. Simply put, he stated a cold fact and then rendered a blunt opinion.

Both points are perfect grounds for a partisan discourse but his adjudicators pandered to an emotive gallery and demanded of the ‘alleged offender’ an apology for re-stating a historical fact and when he refused they ostracized him, thereby dismissing an excellent opportunity to rebut a popular, albeit privately, held sentiment amongst many.

A clear distinction between savaging a person’s opinion, expression or approach and savaging the personality should be drawn. His detractors chose to savage the person rather the idea and unwittingly allowed a fellow Malaysian and the nation itself to be publicly ridiculed in blogs and the international media.

When a President of America took the nation into an unpopular war, his detractors within the country trashed him. They called him (pardon the french) a ‘son of a bitch’ but qualified that ‘he is OUR son of a bitch’.

The conjunction in the context is the operative. It signals solidarity and coalescence that indirectly discourages unsolicited interference. It signals unity and offers reprieve to make good.

Point is, every citizen of Malaysia is directly or indirectly responsible for the state of his nation and conduct of its people and in that context, the suspended leader in question is ‘OUR’ citizen and as a hallmark of a progressive people, his freedom to opine however blunt his opinion belongs to him as much as the opportunity and space to challenge him belongs to his detractors.