Rojak and Cocktail: M'sian euphemism for ‘no freedom of speech’

On other issues, my disagreements with prominent Malaysians remain intact. I am bemused by Pak Lah who says in that time-honored Malaysian tradition that ‘there is no freedom without responsibility and that bloggers must be responsible for their writings or risk facing legal action’.

The Malaysian prime minister is correct only in his first four words: ‘There is no freedom’. A head of state who makes such a statement is making it clear to all his subjects that there will be no speech without government control. The New Straits Times, after all, is a government- controlled newspaper. ‘Freedom of speech is allowed only if the speaker is responsible’ is merely a euphemism for ‘there is no freedom of speech’. Is the Malaysian government so insecure that it fears public opinion to this degree? Some Malaysians claim that Malaysia is not ready for democratic free speech, that the nation would degenerate into chaos and all the politicians would lose their power. Nonsense.

As an American who has had extensive ties with Malaysia in the past, I often submit letters to Malaysiakini to point out US perspectives in presenting two sides of an issue. I do this to counter Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s decades-old ‘hate America and its people’ propaganda campaign and the government-controlled, Joseph Goebbels-inspired media used to implement it. Why do I add ‘its people’?

Could it be because Mahathir once said ‘Americans are a very ignorant people’? By the way, the Nobel prizes for medicine, physics, economics and mathematics all went to Americans this year; and Nobel prizes have always gone disproportionately to people in the US university system. Do these facts not mitigate the Malaysian perception of US culture as one of ignorance?

Has Mahathir, who is always willing to smear another people, been nominated for a Nobel yet? What would Mahathir’s reaction have been if Clinton - as a respected president -had said something like that about Malaysians?

However, Malaysian pundits and authorities do show some wisdom now and then. The foreign minister, for example, is perfectly correct in opining that Bush’s new Iraq troop-surge policy will not work. Seventy-two percent of Americans agree with Malaysia on that point, and disapprove of Bush entirely. Only 28 percent of American approve of him.

Examining other issues, I also agree with those Malaysians engaged in the FTA talks with the US that American biotech companies should not attempt to enforce strict intellectual-property rules everywhere they sell medicines. After all, Bill Clinton and others have pressured these companies to make anti-HIV/Aids drugs and other medicines more affordable in Africa, with some success.

Yet the sky has not fallen down, nor the end of days come upon us: those companies are still making profits. On the other hand, if I write a book - which I have- or produce a film, I would hope and expect to get paid for my labours and not have cheap, low-quality pirated copies made for distribution in Malaysia. I would probably prefer my intellectual property not to be distributed in Malaysia at all.

On other issues, my disagreements with prominent Malaysians remain intact. I am bemused by Pak Lah who says in that time-honored Malaysian tradition that ‘there is no freedom without responsibility and that bloggers must be responsible for their writings or risk facing legal action’.

The Malaysian prime minister is correct only in his first four words: ‘There is no freedom’. A head of state who makes such a statement is making it clear to all his subjects that there will be no speech without government control. The New Straits Times, after all, is a government- controlled newspaper. ‘Freedom of speech is allowed only if the speaker is responsible’ is merely a euphemism for ‘there is no freedom of speech’. Is the Malaysian government so insecure that it fears public opinion to this degree? Some Malaysians claim that Malaysia is not ready for democratic free speech, that the nation would degenerate into chaos and all the politicians would lose their power. Nonsense.

The US was a small, Third World country from its independence in 1776 to about 1918 (with the caveat that its first university, Harvard, founded in 1636, started a university tradition and system that eventually helped propel the country into prominence). Yet, the US government for the most part has always respected the people’s wish for a free and unfettered press, and the country has obviously clawed itself up to a ‘Vision 2020' status without the government meddling with our First Amendment.

While we Americans can learn much from a nation such as Malaysia - things like family values, foreign-policy interactions with Muslim countries, and many other areas - Malaysia might benefit from studying American notions such as individuality, creativity and the meaning of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech means, first of all, that the American public is protected from vengeful public figures (politicians, CEOs, celebrities, etc.) by powerful safeguards against libel and slander lawsuits. Public figures who attempt to sue a reporter or an individual or an entity of some kind for libel face an uphill battle because the complainant must prove not only a ‘reckless disregard for the truth’ but also ‘actual malice’.

In other words, it must be proven that the writer (a) lied outright, and (b) lied in order to specifically damage the reputation of the complainant and (c) has in consequence caused him/her injury or damage. Second, freedom of speech means there is no such thing as a printing license or license to be a reporter or a media outlet. If there were, there would be no freedom of speech, because the government would deny licenses on any whim - as the Malaysian government does. There are also no laughable ‘show-cause’ letters, which are absurd relics of totalitarianism.

My thoughts on freedom of speech bring me to the president of the Consumers Association of Penang, who calls on ‘the authorities’ to immediately ban a local McDonald’s TV commercial because the CAP finds it offensive. Here is an unfortunate attitude, for it leads me to wonder if the Malaysian people actually take it for granted that ‘authorities’ should restrict free expression. Can that be true? If it is, it does not bode well for a Vision 2020. I would suggest to CAP to lighten up and let the market place decide what is acceptable for TV ads and what is distasteful.

Taste is not a matter for government control nor should NGOs be the arbiters of good taste; encountering bad taste is the price we pay for freedom. If the Chinese public is generally annoyed by McDonald’s TV ad, they can complain to the TV station, who will no doubt take it off the air for fear of losing advertising revenue. This is how it’s done in the US, and this is a way to get it done without encouraging government censorship. After all, giving the government a blank cheque to censor anything it finds distasteful could backfire. You could be the next one to be censored or even prosecuted for expressing an opinion.