OPINION | A Gaza Forum, One Bad Question, and Too Much Outrage
18 Jan 2026 • 6:00 PM MYT
.png)
Fa Abdul
FA ABDUL is a former columnist of Malaysiakini & Free Malaysia Today (FMT)
Photo credit: Mohamad Sabu's Facebook
Recently, a question asked by a reporter at a public Gaza forum in Malaysia sparked controversy and conversation across social media and news outlets.
The event took place on January 12, 2026, during a forum titled “Gaza Exposes the Complicity of International Actors”, featuring British politician George Galloway as the guest speaker. The forum was meant to focus on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where civilians have endured prolonged conflict, displacement, and suffering.
During the question-and-answer session, a journalist identified as working for Free Malaysia Today (FMT) asked whether there were parallels between “the Palestine problem and the Chinese problem in Malaysia.” He also questioned why pro-Palestinian supporters reject certain right-wing views yet, in his words, might support others. The question was widely seen as misframed and insensitive given the context of the forum.
In response to the backlash, FMT issued an official statement saying that the organisation did not have prior knowledge of the reporter’s intent and did not approve the question. FMT explained that, after the issue spread on social media, it opened an internal investigation and took disciplinary action against the journalist for airing his personal opinions in a forum unrelated to FMT’s editorial stance. It also clarified that the reporter did not use the word “apartheid” - contrary to some online claims - but acknowledged that his comments were sensitive and regrettable.
Here’s why I think the question itself was wrong.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza involves large-scale violence, destruction of homes and infrastructure, and ongoing loss of life. It is a specific and devastating context that deserves focused discussion. While Malaysia, like many countries, continues to grapple with its own challenges around race, equality, and inclusion, comparing these very different experiences in a single breath risks trivialising the suffering of people living under siege. Different struggles deserve their own space and care in how we talk about them.
At the same time, I strongly support freedom of speech - including the right of a reporter or any individual to express their views. Speech that is wrong or poorly phrased should be challenged, not silenced. The forum chair, Mr George Galloway, exercised his right to respond and rejected the comparison during the event. That exchange - open, immediate and public - is precisely how freedom of speech functions in healthy debate.
We can say, without contradiction, that the question was misguided, and that the reporter still has the right to think and speak for himself. Calling out an unsound argument should not become an attack on the principle of open expression itself. Freedom of speech matters, but so does striving for thoughtful, respectful discussion.
In moments like this, we are reminded that words carry weight, especially when spoken in public spaces meant for serious reflection. We should aim to ask better questions, not louder ones. At the same time, we must protect the space for disagreement, correction, and learning. If every wrong question is met with outrage instead of reason, we risk shrinking the very conversations we claim to care about.
The goal should not be to silence voices, but to raise the quality of what we say - with care, context, and a sense of responsibility to one another.
Recently, a question asked by a reporter at a public Gaza forum in Malaysia sparked controversy and conversation across social media and news outlets.
The event took place on January 12, 2026, during a forum titled “Gaza Exposes the Complicity of International Actors”, featuring British politician George Galloway as the guest speaker. The forum was meant to focus on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where civilians have endured prolonged conflict, displacement, and suffering.
During the question-and-answer session, a journalist identified as working for Free Malaysia Today (FMT) asked whether there were parallels between “the Palestine problem and the Chinese problem in Malaysia.” He also questioned why pro-Palestinian supporters reject certain right-wing views yet, in his words, might support others. The question was widely seen as misframed and insensitive given the context of the forum.
In response to the backlash, FMT issued an official statement saying that the organisation did not have prior knowledge of the reporter’s intent and did not approve the question. FMT explained that, after the issue spread on social media, it opened an internal investigation and took disciplinary action against the journalist for airing his personal opinions in a forum unrelated to FMT’s editorial stance. It also clarified that the reporter did not use the word “apartheid” - contrary to some online claims - but acknowledged that his comments were sensitive and regrettable.
Here’s why I think the question itself was wrong.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza involves large-scale violence, destruction of homes and infrastructure, and ongoing loss of life. It is a specific and devastating context that deserves focused discussion. While Malaysia, like many countries, continues to grapple with its own challenges around race, equality, and inclusion, comparing these very different experiences in a single breath risks trivialising the suffering of people living under siege. Different struggles deserve their own space and care in how we talk about them.
At the same time, I strongly support freedom of speech - including the right of a reporter or any individual to express their views. Speech that is wrong or poorly phrased should be challenged, not silenced. The forum chair, Mr George Galloway, exercised his right to respond and rejected the comparison during the event. That exchange - open, immediate and public - is precisely how freedom of speech functions in healthy debate.
We can say, without contradiction, that the question was misguided, and that the reporter still has the right to think and speak for himself. Calling out an unsound argument should not become an attack on the principle of open expression itself. Freedom of speech matters, but so does striving for thoughtful, respectful discussion.
In moments like this, we are reminded that words carry weight, especially when spoken in public spaces meant for serious reflection. We should aim to ask better questions, not louder ones. At the same time, we must protect the space for disagreement, correction, and learning. If every wrong question is met with outrage instead of reason, we risk shrinking the very conversations we claim to care about.
The goal should not be to silence voices, but to raise the quality of what we say - with care, context, and a sense of responsibility to one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment