opinion

The issue of government and society accommodating the diverse beliefs and lifestyles of the rest of the world becomes more muddled when we consider such things as gambling, smoking, and drinking. These are generally considered vices, whether in the East or in the West, among Christians or Confucianists or Muslims.

Yet, there is a school of thought that a little bit of alcohol after dinner actually helps to increase longevity. There are also those who hold that smoking eases some kind of asthma. And to many people a little gambling is money cheerfully spent.

Even so, here is a case where most governments in the world feel they have a right to interfere. There are, for example, very restrictive laws in the United States regarding drinking. Many university dorms and even campuses flatly outlaw alcoholic drinks. You couldn't lawfully take a sip of beer until 21.

Restrictions on tobacco advertising are also strictly enforced: The minimum age is 18, and the country's efficient publicity campaigns against smoking have more or less held the number of smokers in check. Many cities have also banned smoking in public institutions and most restaurants have to comply with orders to provide patrons with non-smoking sections.

As for gambling, as far as I know, no new casino gambling licences have been given out in any American state since 1993, and civic as well as Christian groups are campaigning to close down existing ones in their areas. These groups, however, are unlikely to achieve much success, as taxes from casinos are helping states to finance needed programmes in education and other fields.

Still, the fact that states are reluctant to license new casinos and that concerned groups are actively campaigning against more gambling establishments goes to show that gambling is not regarded as an inalienable right even in the United States.

Constraints on individual choices

Yet, despite restrictions on gambling, drinking and smoking, the fact is that such activities do exist in the West. This brings up two important points. One is that as far as possible, people should, as alluded to earlier, be allowed to do what we think is morally wrong unless that wrong adversely affects some other individual or groups of individuals. Second, a true democracy must take into account, though not necessarily follow in toto , the wishes of its minorities. Tyranny of the majority can be much worse than tyranny by a minority because in the former case there's less possibility for democratic change.

There are also areas where even in the most democratic and secular of countries individual choices are constrained or prohibited by societal interests and/or traditions.

The most obvious one is suicide. Surely, we might say, our life is our own and if we're old and without dependents we ought to have the right to take our own life? Yet the answer is no, and obviously this attitude is at least partly derived from Judeo-Christian Islamic traditions concerning the sanctity of life. Here we find a clear instance of "secular" laws based on religious traditions.

The examples discussed thus far show that determining what's public and what's private, or even what's secular and what's religious, is not always as easy as it sounds. The customs and traditions of a society tend to influence and in some cases delimit the boundaries of private behaviour.

Indeed, in many cases the tyranny of customs can be even more stifling than actual written laws. Many customs in Asia were highly oppressive towards women and the underprivileged, and even today discrimination against women continues in the workforce and at home.

But the most pernicious custom pertains to conformity of thought. In Asian societies the tendency to think alike can be so overwhelming that quite often the voice that differs is shouted down before it could be heard. "Keep quiet and don't create trouble" is a common advice given by most parents, teachers, and generally well-meaning elders.

Further, those who neglect the advice are likely to be punished or confronted with such ferocious personal attacks that they might never dare speak up again.

The oppressive conformist culture plays right into the hands of despotic governments which are only too happy to reinforce fears of trouble by threatening exactly that: Malaysians are used to repeated threats of May 13 and now, in keeping with the post-Sept 11 world, dark warnings of possible terrorist acts by some fringe elements.

'Carnivalesque' discourses

Today, it is more vital than ever for brave souls to speak up and contribute their thoughts for the sake of present and future generations. The thoughts need not always be correct. But those that are might point the way to a better society, and those that are not will help confirm the correctness of those that are.

Moreover, the correctness or incorrectness of an idea often fluctuates with the times. What was correct 50 years or even as recent as a year ago might prove to be incorrect today. Thirty years ago there was a common belief among my Indian friends that India could progress only if, like China, it adopted communism. Today, few Indians, I think, would buy into that theory.

The converse is equally true: What was deemed incorrect yesterday might prove correct today. During the 1960s, even non-Maoists conceded that without communism China could not survive. Today, most intellectuals tend to think that capitalism, judiciously practised, is the key to China's prosperity. The change in opinion is due largely to the willingness of the West to engage China in international trade. Facts change when the concrete material conditions that give rise to them change.

Besides, it's safe to say that most ideas cannot be expressed in black and white: They are neither completely true nor untrue. This fact, together with the contingency of what we deem to be true or untrue opinions, makes it imperative that all kinds of thoughts are given exposure in the mass media, including online forums. All discourses should be 'carnivalesque', meaning, as in ancient European carnivals when the laity dressed up as kings and nobles masked themselves as common folks, that every view, no matter who makes them, deserves to be heard. It is only through a polyphonic or democratic interchange of views that old ideas can be re-evaluated and confirmed or rejected, and new ideas found and experimented.

Giving space to polyphonic viewpoints creates the necessary conditions for dialogic discourse, the kind of argumentation that could never be solitary for it always involves at least two people and thus welcomes audience participation. The aim of dialogic discourse, then, is to let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand schools of thought contend.

The psychological atmosphere is inviting, as the collective search for truth takes precedence over the desire to convince. The goal of dialogic discourse is new knowledge, not hegemonic narrative. Dialogic discourse, therefore, functions on a set of ethics that is based on inclusivity - one is not made to feel that his or her ideas are less valid or valued before they are presented, evaluated and analysed.

Moreover, when questions of validity are made they are content-centred, not person-centred: it is the idea or ideas that we agree or disagree with, not the personal attributes of the speaker or writer, such as how she dresses or how many affairs he might have in the office.

Traits of gestapo propagandists

If dialogic discourse is aimed at collective enlightenment, monologic discourse is its direct opposite. Monologic arguments are aimed at getting audience consensus with only one particular view - the speaker's. The purpose is to impose his views on others and get them to do what he wants. Such a speaker or writer is less interested in searching for the truth than giving out answers.

This is the trait of all gestapo propagandists and their totalitarian/authoritarian masters. It is also the reason why dictators always strive to control the mass media. Alternative voices are not tolerated: When they emerge, they are either shouted down or silenced in a number of ways, including personal attacks based on rumours or fabricated 'evidence'. The method seldom varies, whether practised by a dictatorial regime or its troglodyte flunkeys like Hitler's SS or its Malaysian equivalent.

A good example can be seen in the way the ruling party attempted to undermine the credibility of malaysiakini . Wild accusations were made about the online paper accepting George Soros' contributions. Unable to take honest criticisms, the authorities hinted darkly at the nefarious plots of Western anti-government conspirators (this was before the Sept 11 tragedy). Having shown its displeasure, and given the legal and financial powers of the state, commercial organisations cannot but be circumspect when it comes to advertising in that website.

By silencing dissenting views a dictator not only presupposes the falsity of those views before they are considered - he is also assuming that all dissenters are creatures less than human and thus unable to think for themselves.

This disrespect towards human dignity is again typical of the dictatorial mindset: it is manifested in the way political prisoners are told to strip in front of their captors, in the psychological torture well-documented by former ISA inmates.

Besides the inhuman aspect, silencing other people also implies certainty in one's own views, a certainty that amounts to an absoluteness, an infallibility that one associates only with God. Thus, when a dictator squashes alternative voices, he not only offends humanity, he blasphemes against God as well.

Greatest victim

The irony of all this muzzling of alternative views is that it also does a disservice to the dictator. Because of the authoritarian nature of those who practise monologic discourse, there could be no accurate feedback from the people: Sycophants would tell only what their leaders want to hear. The cowed local press practises self-censorhip: They lay off 'sensitive' topics and dare talk loudly only about toll roads and the like. Thus we had the ridiculous spectacle of the prime minister hiring two Chinese advisers as consultants of Chinese affairs instead of depending on its servile MCA partner for reports about the Chinese community.

But the greatest victim is the country itself. The value of alternative views increases exponentially when a country is in trouble, for it is at such times that new ideas, new thought paradigms, are needed most.

There is a need today to solve not only the problem of corruption, but also other headaches such as the dependency of some people caused by the New Economic Policy (later replaced by the National Development Policy and now National Vision Policy), the discrimination of minorities in mother tongue education, the yawning gap between rich and poor, and the continued existence of the bumiputra/nonbumiputra classification that prevents the realisation of a truly united nation. And in the face of all these problems lies the challenges of globalisation as well.

It is true that, in the past, oppressive nations like Hitler's Germany and even Soviet Russia were able to produce creative individuals. Who can forget the German V2 rockets, their superior tanks and artillery and the Russian's dramatic conquest of space?

Yet it would be wrong to compare small countries like Malaysia with those powers. In the first place, those countries had been technological societies for well over a century. Secondly, the two nations had much larger populations and thus had more geniuses who were able to rise above their restrictive environment. Thirdly, after a period of time even those two countries were unable to match the creativity of freer societies.

Worse, their oppressiveness helped to drive some of the most creative people to the more democratic countries. Soviet refugees helped give the arts in America new creative directions. Many scientists in the Manhattan Project were from fascist Germany and Italy.

As for Malaysia, it is not only a latecomer in terms of science and technology - literacy rate is relatively low and quite a number of Malaysians still believe in witchcraft. Some hawkers even boil women's underwear in your favorite laksa in hopes of maintaining a roaring business.

Prerequisite for progress, survival

It follows that, in order to catch up with the rest of the advanced world, Malaysia has to provide lots of opportunities for free speech to the greatest possible number of people. It cannot do this shutting up opposition MPs and depriving them of their salaries. Or by arresting freethinking university students and threatening them with the ISA.

Every Malaysian should be regarded as a precious resource, to be provided with an environment conducive to creative and innovative thought.

Problematic issues should be resolved by holding nation-wide dialogic discussions in town-hall meetings and the mass media. The current anti-press laws should be rescinded and all political dissidents released. Only when the energies of all free citizens are harnessed can the country compete effectively with the rest of the world. In other words, liberty is essential even when we do not consider it as man's natural right: It is, from a utility standpoint, a prerequisite for the progress and survival of the nation.

Liberty, equality, fraternity - this slogan shouted in the streets of Paris more than 200 years ago is still relevant today in our struggle for a better society, for a country where all citizens, irrespective of race, creed, or religion, would be happy to call "motherland".

This is the final of a two-part article written by LC, a self-proclaimed literature hog interested in applying a multi-disciplinary approach to world affairs. The article first appeared on Dec 17, 2001 in various Malaysian forums.