What is the right way, anyway ?
There are lots of claims from people about the “right way” to handle or look at current issues. People turn to these “right ways” and alas, all they get are lop-sided views of political conflicts, issues with youth, poverty, crime, war.
What happened to the maxim that there are two sides to the story ? And that we, the readers, are meant to discern for ourselves ?
I understand the risks that come along with my plea right here, but all I want to plead for is a balanced view towards things – press and people’s thoughts alike.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights advocates for free speech and freedom of the press. It’s a universal right, which is being denied us the world over.
The legal system presents a good view of the “two-sides-to-the-story” rule. In the adversarial system (practised by the UK and the Commonwealth countries), we have the prosecution (or, in civil cases, the claimant) bringing his plight forward, the defendant presenting his defences to exclude liability – or at least, to limit liability, and ultimately, the judge decides which is more convincing, or, which one abides most closely by the rule of law.
The inquisitorial system (practised by most countries in the European Union) demonstrates this “two-sides-to-the-story” rule better : the judge aids the prosecution/claimant and the defendant in presenting their cases and defences, and based on what he can gather, he comes to a conclusion.
But where the rule of law is apparently “not concerned” with the happenings of today, people – especially those who own the media – take a rather unruly, unlawful approach to things ! Come on ! We don’t have a speaker being ejected from the State Assembly from the throwaway effort of one party, utilisez la logique ! We can’t hide the facts when everyone’s talking about them ! We especially can’t hide the facts when there are eyewitnesses !
For me, free speech is the way to go because even if it exposes anyone to the risk of being spoken against, or being demoralised, free speech does not filter viewpoints which can be critical, hurtful, but correct. And once people know it’s a right, they will honour it and live it. Such is the case in the United States.
I’m not trying to be as idealistic as our brothers in the States are, but let me give you an example :
It’s a conference. I’m giving a speech on the role of youth in Malaysian society in a secondary school. My speech sounds more like political party propaganda. It’s so obvious that even my audience – youngsters aged 13 to 19 – can understand the hidden meaning behind it. They have a choice to accept it or reject it, surely ! They can either stand up and applaud from the bottom of their hearts, or they can gather ice blocks and hurl them at me. Either way, I know that they’re getting a point across, and that point is valuable to me – to improve myself, to improve the organisation I’m in. And if they hurl ice blocks at me, it could only spell one thing : I’m being too preachy and I’m trying to rule their minds, and they obviously don’t want their minds to be ruled. Even if some of them are at the age where they risk being thrown into jail, they aren't thrown into jail for getting a point across, and that's how it should be.
After all, allegiance to the country is allegiance to the country, and its people. Not the viewpoints that people carry. Seriously, what happened to the famous statement that “everyone is entitled to his opinion” ?
I don’t see the same thing happening in Malaysia, or in our neighbouring countries.
But seriously, here’s another thought : if controls are implemented to make the people of a certain nation more “responsible” in the way they speak, then aren’t the media irresponsible by promoting only one party and forgetting the many types of opposition and crises in the country ? Aren’t the media irresponsible by not properly reporting the facts ? Painting life as a bed of roses is downright irresponsible. We citizens may be nothing but underlings to any higher authority, but we can sense when something is amiss.
It’s time we let the people discern for themselves. It’s time we opened our minds to more than one viewpoint. No more bias, people. No more lop-sided stories. We’ve all had enough.
There are lots of claims from people about the “right way” to handle or look at current issues. People turn to these “right ways” and alas, all they get are lop-sided views of political conflicts, issues with youth, poverty, crime, war.
What happened to the maxim that there are two sides to the story ? And that we, the readers, are meant to discern for ourselves ?
I understand the risks that come along with my plea right here, but all I want to plead for is a balanced view towards things – press and people’s thoughts alike.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights advocates for free speech and freedom of the press. It’s a universal right, which is being denied us the world over.
The legal system presents a good view of the “two-sides-to-the-story” rule. In the adversarial system (practised by the UK and the Commonwealth countries), we have the prosecution (or, in civil cases, the claimant) bringing his plight forward, the defendant presenting his defences to exclude liability – or at least, to limit liability, and ultimately, the judge decides which is more convincing, or, which one abides most closely by the rule of law.
The inquisitorial system (practised by most countries in the European Union) demonstrates this “two-sides-to-the-story” rule better : the judge aids the prosecution/claimant and the defendant in presenting their cases and defences, and based on what he can gather, he comes to a conclusion.
But where the rule of law is apparently “not concerned” with the happenings of today, people – especially those who own the media – take a rather unruly, unlawful approach to things ! Come on ! We don’t have a speaker being ejected from the State Assembly from the throwaway effort of one party, utilisez la logique ! We can’t hide the facts when everyone’s talking about them ! We especially can’t hide the facts when there are eyewitnesses !
For me, free speech is the way to go because even if it exposes anyone to the risk of being spoken against, or being demoralised, free speech does not filter viewpoints which can be critical, hurtful, but correct. And once people know it’s a right, they will honour it and live it. Such is the case in the United States.
I’m not trying to be as idealistic as our brothers in the States are, but let me give you an example :
It’s a conference. I’m giving a speech on the role of youth in Malaysian society in a secondary school. My speech sounds more like political party propaganda. It’s so obvious that even my audience – youngsters aged 13 to 19 – can understand the hidden meaning behind it. They have a choice to accept it or reject it, surely ! They can either stand up and applaud from the bottom of their hearts, or they can gather ice blocks and hurl them at me. Either way, I know that they’re getting a point across, and that point is valuable to me – to improve myself, to improve the organisation I’m in. And if they hurl ice blocks at me, it could only spell one thing : I’m being too preachy and I’m trying to rule their minds, and they obviously don’t want their minds to be ruled. Even if some of them are at the age where they risk being thrown into jail, they aren't thrown into jail for getting a point across, and that's how it should be.
After all, allegiance to the country is allegiance to the country, and its people. Not the viewpoints that people carry. Seriously, what happened to the famous statement that “everyone is entitled to his opinion” ?
I don’t see the same thing happening in Malaysia, or in our neighbouring countries.
But seriously, here’s another thought : if controls are implemented to make the people of a certain nation more “responsible” in the way they speak, then aren’t the media irresponsible by promoting only one party and forgetting the many types of opposition and crises in the country ? Aren’t the media irresponsible by not properly reporting the facts ? Painting life as a bed of roses is downright irresponsible. We citizens may be nothing but underlings to any higher authority, but we can sense when something is amiss.
It’s time we let the people discern for themselves. It’s time we opened our minds to more than one viewpoint. No more bias, people. No more lop-sided stories. We’ve all had enough.
0 comments:
Post a Comment