Yes or No to freedom of speech?
Blogging is just like saying whatever you like on the net, one would say. It's not true! I must admit that all this while I've been trying careful not to mention something sensitive in my blog, just in case that it might lead to complications. Living in a country such as Malaysia, with the restrictions on speech, one is not allowed to speak freely about what is on one's mind. There are just so many topics that we must avoid such as religions, sexist commentations and dirty politics.
The question asked today is : Should we be entitled the rights to say whatever we want?
1) In a multi-racial country such as Malaysia, it involves a lot of understanding and tolerance to live with each other in the community. It would be catastrophic when everybody is voicing their thinkings without regarding the other individual or party's feelings. A restriction on the freedom of speech will allow active idea contributions with consideration.
2) In politics on the other hand, The ISA has been consistently used against people who criticise the government and defend human rights. Known as the "white terror", it has been the most feared and despised, yet convenient tool for the state to suppress opposition and open debate. The Act is an instrument maintained by the ruling government to control public life and civil society. Many countries* had objected to the ISA practised in Malaysia. However, after the terrorist attack such as the 911 and 7-11, these countries have changed their opinions towards the act and thought that this act is definitely an important tool to arrest suspicious criminals before presenting concrete evidence; a fast action against terrorists.
3) Under the ISA, a person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which “prejudices the security” of the country. After 60 days, the detention can be extended for a period of two years, with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs. It can then be renewed for successive two-year periods. A detainee can thus expect to remain in detention indefinitely.
4) There is no true boundary of what one can speak and one cannot. It is absolutely a grey area that one can simply overstep. It is not unusual to hear about countries which practise communism arresting people merely because they mentioned, gossiped or critised the government. Since a government is never perfect, a restriction on the freedom of speech is simply preventing the public from complaining and suggesting an improvement.
5) Freedom of speech will allow a continuous flow of opinions in debate and discussions. It can be practised with consideration for people to voice about their views and dissatisfactions on sensitive issues. But how many ppl out there are rational enough in their angry mood against something that they have strong opinions about?
What do you think?
The question asked today is : Should we be entitled the rights to say whatever we want?
1) In a multi-racial country such as Malaysia, it involves a lot of understanding and tolerance to live with each other in the community. It would be catastrophic when everybody is voicing their thinkings without regarding the other individual or party's feelings. A restriction on the freedom of speech will allow active idea contributions with consideration.
2) In politics on the other hand, The ISA has been consistently used against people who criticise the government and defend human rights. Known as the "white terror", it has been the most feared and despised, yet convenient tool for the state to suppress opposition and open debate. The Act is an instrument maintained by the ruling government to control public life and civil society. Many countries* had objected to the ISA practised in Malaysia. However, after the terrorist attack such as the 911 and 7-11, these countries have changed their opinions towards the act and thought that this act is definitely an important tool to arrest suspicious criminals before presenting concrete evidence; a fast action against terrorists.
3) Under the ISA, a person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which “prejudices the security” of the country. After 60 days, the detention can be extended for a period of two years, with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs. It can then be renewed for successive two-year periods. A detainee can thus expect to remain in detention indefinitely.
4) There is no true boundary of what one can speak and one cannot. It is absolutely a grey area that one can simply overstep. It is not unusual to hear about countries which practise communism arresting people merely because they mentioned, gossiped or critised the government. Since a government is never perfect, a restriction on the freedom of speech is simply preventing the public from complaining and suggesting an improvement.
5) Freedom of speech will allow a continuous flow of opinions in debate and discussions. It can be practised with consideration for people to voice about their views and dissatisfactions on sensitive issues. But how many ppl out there are rational enough in their angry mood against something that they have strong opinions about?
What do you think?
posted by Yanyee at 1:45 AM
2 Comments:
Actually, it seems that any law on such an issue wouldn't work perfectly, would it? If people just think about the consequences of what they say before saying it, it'd be great. Unfortunately, each person has their own view of what needs to be said, and what can be kept quiet about. So, what should we do? We can't allow everyone to say whatever they want, it'd most likely create chaos. On the other hand, we can't silence everything, or there'll be a monarchy instead of a democracy.
So, maybe a body is required to look out for extreme comments (Not collect all media and filter them, but just keep an eye out for extremists). And free speech should be allowed.
I agree with RK tht any law won't be perfect on this highly contentious matter. For instance, why is it that in Austria, denying the Holocaust is a crime, but denying other crimes against humanity (Rape of Nanking, Rwandan genocide,etc) is not? Or is most countries criticising the Government is a crime but not criticising the opposition? And in communist countries the people are required to sing praises to the government. I think that restrictions to free speech are in place mainly to help those in power be in power. Aside from genuine wartime needs (to prevent instigation and public panic), such laws are draconian and have no place in a modern, matured society. Then again, most societies are not matured enough not to be riled by some dingbat making outrageous statements, causing public disorder. And most societies are matured enough *not* to have the strictest forms of restrictions on them. Treading the fine line for each society is the challenge for every government.
Post a Comment
<< Home