In todays Globlalised world, cultural diversity has become the norm. And in Malaysia even before Globalisation, we have been racially, culturally and religiously diverse.

So how does one manage diversity where diversity of norms rather than shred norms is the general rule than exception?

There are but two approaches, and which approach defines how we live….

First approach is to be guarded and responsible in what one says in his exercise of freedom of speech. You say the wrong thing you suffer the wrath of the ones offended. The full weight of the law – from sedition to libel & defamation if not ISA will be brought down to bear on you. This approach protects others from being offended and injured as to emotional feelings. Malaysia sets this benchmark.

The Second Approach is high degree of tolerance for the offender who causes distress to those who listen to what he says. This approach does not mollycoddle the listeners. They are expected to be tolerant even if the speaker makes what is perceived sensitive remarks touching on race and religion. If one one does not like what he says, one is at liberty to contradict him and discredit wjhat he says. If one feels insulted by him, one is at liberty to insult him back tit for tat. This approach goes to the heart of free expression: the ability to tolerate being offended. It is the cornerstone of freedom of expression, the bedrock of democracy that tolerates sensitivities.

The First Approach protecting “sensitivities” of those with thin skin has the following major disadvantages as compared to the Second Approach encouraging “insensitivity” and promoting being thick skin.

The first disadvantage of the First Approach is that it nurtures a culture of cry-babies. Over the slightest, they complain about how their sensitivities have been violated. They make police reports. They hope the police will investigate leading to the offender being charged and punished. At minimum, the offender is harrassed by police investigations.

This is very dangerous for it opens the way to abuse by authorities. The authorities have the legal enforcement power, and he who has such power is at vantage point to define what is an offence and what is not. Worse still the authorities allies with the political forces of the day and selectively enforce the laws against those perceive underclass, of no power, and not identified or connected with the proper privileged racial or religious group holding power.

When the Prime Minister says that Malaysians under his 1 Malaysia ought to embrace pluralism it is more consistent to take the Second Approach than the First that has been a norm in the country, now increasingly open to abuse.

The last few months have been some extraordinary events when certain people are privileged to say whatever they want about others being pendatangs, dogs or prostitutes and yet kept harmless whilst others outside the circle of privilege and power have been held to account for the slightest infractions, often distorted by those who claim they were offended, just to keep them down from challenging the established order of privilege established.

If the Opposition wants to encourage the Second Approach they should do first by example and not tit for tat lodge reports against those on the other side talking nonsense. It then resist and fight those from the other side using such scare tactics against those like Wee Meng Chee.

//Will we C self-strangulation or self-levitation n dropping down?//- #12 by boh-liao

//Mr wee..better write your suicide letter now or someone will write it for you.// – #22 by undertaker888

No fear or need. NameWee has already preempted that risk and covered that angle.

“I am mentally healthy I have no injuries and I will not commit suicide”, he already told reporters just before he entered the Taman Tun Dr Ismail police station for the interview with the police. (See The MalaysianInsider’s report by By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani of August 31, 2010).

In the US, before the police arrest or take any one into custody for interrogation they must read them their constitutional Miranda Rights – the advice that “you have the right to remain silent but anything you say could be used against you in a Court of Law.”

Here there must some corresponding right – but from the suspect or person helping investigation to the authorities (of their rights) instead ie something like what NameWee said, “You have the right to interrogate but be advised that I am mentally healthy, I have no injuries and I will not commit suicide, and this has been told to reporters and my lawyer”. (Preferably give copies of this advice to reporters and one’s lawyer just before entering police custody).

Had TBH done this, there is a chance that he might be alive today.

If this were the case, it implies certain class of people have the constitutional right to be racist, and therefore their racist remarks, no matter how much incitement of racial tension, are not in law seditious. In other words there’s such a thing as qualified privilege to be racist for certain people.

However there are other people outside this class/group of the privileged who are not only not entitled to make racist remarks on their own but they cannot even react angrily against and challenge those who enjoy privilege to be racist… For if they do so, their angered reaction is itself branded as racist in seditious sense.

Soon to advocate meritocracy will be construed as creating and inciting racial tension, and hence seditious – because meritocracy or equality of opportunity and its advocacy is deemed offensive and an anathema to those who enjoy qualified privilege to be racist.

This is a country in which every one is racial sensitive. Everything is viewed through racial prism. It is ironical that the government has “zero tolerance” against people who make racial remarks or fuel racism in the country, when Malaysian politics itself is racial, with the main political parties – UMNO, MCA and MIC- being communal based, their politicians canvass for votes based on racial appeal of their racial constituency…

So we can stop the bull sh*t and hypocrisy that we are not racial and tending towards a racist outlook, thanks to this communal politicking of last 50 years.

The fact is that it is the sensitive accusers of others’ racist remarks who generally create more racial tension in wider Malaysian society than the accused who actually makes the racist remarks.

Which is the reason why when we try learn to embrace pluralism we should learn to be not offended by another’s racist remarks.

This is of course not to be taken as a license to deliberately and wantonly make racist remarks. Those who make them should be reprimanded but in terms of proportionality not the extent of invoking a criminal charge of sedition by lodging police reports.

However we are better united by nurturing a common tolerance and indifference to another’s racist remarks than we could ever be united in punishing these offenders.

For when we try punish someone of another race making an alleged racist against our own racial community (offended) we are basically perceived as pitching our racial community against the other community in a test of which is the dominant community, has better rights and deserve greater respect – and there lies the main problem precipitating even more racial tension….

Ironically being offended by another racist remarks is causing more racial tension and harm to unity than even the one making racist remarks.

Whereas as Malaysians, if we were working towards being united as one people, and not just different sub-sets of people, then we should learn not be so sensitive cry babies as to create a situation as described in the preceding paragraph.

I am sick of this subject, and am resolved to not comment anything more on it. Suffice to conclude that the whole thing about punishing this young man by a criminal charge and destroying his future – who may well be the future and promise of the Democratic Action Party and who sometimes get carried away by youthful exuberance in expressing his political consciousness and idealism, not fully bothered how the way he expresses it will be politically capitalized by others – smacks of something very sick within our society.