R Nadeswaran
Published: Sep 12, 2024 10:20 AM
COMMENT | It is more than obvious that some politicians lack common sense and know little about public discourse in the policy-making process.
The citizens’ right to offer and discuss dissent and disagree with diktat being forced down their throats is often interpreted wrongly.
Efforts to impose values and ethos of cultural, moral, and religious requirements must be thwarted, as they are sometimes abused and misused in the name of the Almighty.
More than a decade ago, Celcom produced a TV commercial titled “See football in everything” to augment its sponsorship of the telecasts of the English Premier League matches.
Sorry to say many of our politicians see religion in everything – from attire in sports and the length of skirts and from public policies to what we eat.
Last year, I wrote: “The phrase ‘sensitivities of Muslims’ is often used as carte blanche when no plausible reasons could be afforded when ridiculous and birdbrained theories are advanced.
“When the reasoning of religious zealots is summarily dismissed and challenged and when they cannot defend their actions, they feel that the token ‘sensitivities’ will suffice as justification.”
Nothing escapes their eyes or ears. Aided and abetted by people within the system, they will go to great lengths to achieve their objectives, which can sometimes be described as birdbrained.
Published: Sep 12, 2024 10:20 AM
COMMENT | It is more than obvious that some politicians lack common sense and know little about public discourse in the policy-making process.
The citizens’ right to offer and discuss dissent and disagree with diktat being forced down their throats is often interpreted wrongly.
Efforts to impose values and ethos of cultural, moral, and religious requirements must be thwarted, as they are sometimes abused and misused in the name of the Almighty.
More than a decade ago, Celcom produced a TV commercial titled “See football in everything” to augment its sponsorship of the telecasts of the English Premier League matches.
Sorry to say many of our politicians see religion in everything – from attire in sports and the length of skirts and from public policies to what we eat.
Last year, I wrote: “The phrase ‘sensitivities of Muslims’ is often used as carte blanche when no plausible reasons could be afforded when ridiculous and birdbrained theories are advanced.
“When the reasoning of religious zealots is summarily dismissed and challenged and when they cannot defend their actions, they feel that the token ‘sensitivities’ will suffice as justification.”
Nothing escapes their eyes or ears. Aided and abetted by people within the system, they will go to great lengths to achieve their objectives, which can sometimes be described as birdbrained.
Shoe brand Vern’s logo is alleged to resemble ‘Allah’ calligraphy
Before I continue, some declarations must be made, lest I am accused of having an agenda to propagate my thoughts or provoke dissension against the government or any other party.
A confused lot
Like all right-thinking Malaysians, I have and will continue to express my views by putting my name to them without hiding under pseudonyms or on social media posts.
I do not get confused easily – unlike those who believe that an air well in the shape of a cross will confuse their flock.
I know that a hot dog is edible, unlike those confused lot who translate it to call it anjing panas and try to link it with religion.
Even the manufacturers of root beer and ginger beer without fanfare changed the names of their products to be politically correct and avoid the wrath of a few.
Before I continue, some declarations must be made, lest I am accused of having an agenda to propagate my thoughts or provoke dissension against the government or any other party.
A confused lot
Like all right-thinking Malaysians, I have and will continue to express my views by putting my name to them without hiding under pseudonyms or on social media posts.
I do not get confused easily – unlike those who believe that an air well in the shape of a cross will confuse their flock.
I know that a hot dog is edible, unlike those confused lot who translate it to call it anjing panas and try to link it with religion.
Even the manufacturers of root beer and ginger beer without fanfare changed the names of their products to be politically correct and avoid the wrath of a few.
I have no qualms about shaking hands with anyone and extending greetings in their language during their religious or cultural festivities. Neither do I protest the wording on a cake.
The Oktoberfest in Munich has its Malaysian versions, but some self-appointed guardians of public morals have previously declared it a pesta arak, even before stepping inside the venue or knowing what happens inside.
When the government introduced the Anti-Fake News Bill in 2018, I was among the first to speak against it. I wrote a few commentaries and spoke at seminars and gatherings to highlight its flaws and shortcomings.
I called it a hare-brained idea, but people were not lining up at police stations to report that I had called their benefactor a four-legged animal who famously lost the race to a tortoise!
The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018
It was accepted as the government of the day knew it had enough numbers in Parliament to make it law. But on record, it was unacceptable and rushed through to prevent the truth from emerging on the 1MDB scandal.
It is academic now as the law has been repealed, but it is a reminder of what can be expected when parties have a majority and their allies remain silent.
But as a citizen, can I express similar views if the government intends to introduce policies that I find unpalatable?
Why do politicians link such views with religion? Do they lack common sense? Or as I have often asked myself if they are doing it deliberately to score political points.
Isn’t there a thick line between opinion on a public policy or an impending promulgation of the law and the right to express an opinion?
Why have police reports become tools for destroying reputation, character, and charisma? Why have such documents been allowed to become part of some politicians’ arsenal of weapons?
Recent brouhaha
Just three weeks ago, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim urged young Malaysians to have the courage to address critical issues such as humanity, corruption, poverty gaps, and environmental concerns, guided by solid principles and values.
“We need energetic young people with ideas, ideals, and principles who believe in freedom, justice, and humanity to drive change,” he was quoted as saying at the Summit of Young Leaders.
Was it a sincere wish to see public discourse on current issues or pure baloney to give the impression that diverse views are acceptable?
It was accepted as the government of the day knew it had enough numbers in Parliament to make it law. But on record, it was unacceptable and rushed through to prevent the truth from emerging on the 1MDB scandal.
It is academic now as the law has been repealed, but it is a reminder of what can be expected when parties have a majority and their allies remain silent.
But as a citizen, can I express similar views if the government intends to introduce policies that I find unpalatable?
Why do politicians link such views with religion? Do they lack common sense? Or as I have often asked myself if they are doing it deliberately to score political points.
Isn’t there a thick line between opinion on a public policy or an impending promulgation of the law and the right to express an opinion?
Why have police reports become tools for destroying reputation, character, and charisma? Why have such documents been allowed to become part of some politicians’ arsenal of weapons?
Recent brouhaha
Just three weeks ago, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim urged young Malaysians to have the courage to address critical issues such as humanity, corruption, poverty gaps, and environmental concerns, guided by solid principles and values.
“We need energetic young people with ideas, ideals, and principles who believe in freedom, justice, and humanity to drive change,” he was quoted as saying at the Summit of Young Leaders.
Was it a sincere wish to see public discourse on current issues or pure baloney to give the impression that diverse views are acceptable?
Were similar words and thoughts expressed by politicians in the run-up to the general election two years ago just a gimmick to garner votes, or was there a sincere desire to allow the citizenry to participate in what is deemed part of the democratic process?
The recent brouhaha in response to a public policy resulted in multiple police reports, unnecessary hassle, and a waste of time, effort, and labour.
However, we must prepare for more from their quivers if they can use six out of 18,000 pairs of socks to bring the country to its tethering edge for political expediency, standing, and status.
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment