The Malaysian public has just experienced a strange month. First, our fear for personal safety has been heightened due to the highlight of some brutal violence against women cases. Then our intent to do something proactive has been denied when the "March Against Violence" could not proceed due to permit problems. Next we found out that one of our beloved theatrical satires was never to be performed again. A few days later, everything seems to be back to normal. Our Minister offered a space to rally, the show can go on. Was the entire hullabaloo for nothing?

Although the two events appear to be different, the underlying principle remains the same. Can Malaysians freely think, safely gather and speak their point of view without the threat of being silenced through the strong arm of the law? The rights to freedom of thought, expression and peaceful assembly are sanctified under Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are held to be inherent and inalienable, which means that they are the freedoms guaranteed to everyone simply by being a human being. They are also regarded as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Taken simply, if everyone were not allowed to use their minds, form opinions, communicate them and seek like-minded company, we would have a world that is made up of isolated robots programmed to do the capricious bidding of whomever who is power, whether they be just leaders or megalomaniacs. Such a world is without doubt, unthinkable.

Then again, what happens when we live in a society made up of many different people with variegated and sometimes contradicting concerns? Should people then freely spew racist or sexist remarks and cause hurt to those who disagree, whether directly or indirectly?

This brings us to the delicate balance between rights and freedoms of one person versus another. Democracy steps in to limit the behaviour of individuals through laws and rules so that they do not infringe upon the rights of another person who is living within the same community. In example, my right to express should not infringe upon your right to privacy. Suitable persons are then elected to enforce the common values and beliefs through a democratic process.

But does this mean that we can only express what the majority thinks, and be static in our thoughts?

Such a state of affair would not be conducive to a developing society that is mature in all dimensions: "economically, politically, spiritually, psychologically and culturally" (to borrow our Prime Minister's Vision 2020). This is because norms are dynamic with the introduction of new knowledge, and what is deemed as acceptable now may not be so in the future. In example, slavery is no longer considered as tolerable in contemporary society although it was lucrative and widespread in the past.

As such, it is essential that we remain critical and exercise self-reflection to ensure that the system and values enforced by us still work, without it being detriment to our best interest. Ideas and opinions, although conflicting with current norms, must be given the room for articulation and discussion to ensure a fair, healthy and vibrant society that does not exclude any of its members. This is especially with regards to the sections of society who are most marginalised or least visible because of their minority in numbers or power.

There are many avenues and mediums to dialogue and vociferate these concerns. Citizens Against Rape chose a peaceful rally and Instant Café Theatre (ICT) chose art. However, both spaces were subjected to swift elimination through the denial of permits. Although we have given the power to the authorities to act as filters, the implementation of these filters must not be arbitrary without reflecting the concerns of the people. Otherwise, Malaysians will lose the safe space to offer ideas, opinions and debate on issues which are important to us.

In the case of the March Against Rape, despite the fact that violence against women were at the forefront of our collective consciousness, we were denied the freedom to voice our concerns. As for ICT's performance, art and theatre has a crucial role to play in challenging status quo which enables us to laugh, cry and re-think ourselves. Surely, one letter is sorely insufficient to infringe upon the rights of many others who welcomed and wanted this medium of critique?

Apparently, many people thought so, and more importantly, said so. Members of the public rose to the occasion this time by speaking out against such censorship. Letters to the editors were written and questions that demanded accountability were asked. The visible result was at both instances: the tide of voices by the people reclaimed the spaces. Perhaps these two incidents can help counter the sense of powerlessness many of us feel when we confine our opinions to the mamak stalls.

It is essential that we as citizens of a democratic nation demand that the powers we have conferred upon our leaders be exercised with due care and accountability. Otherwise, we may find that one day, more and more of our rights have been taken away from us without valid or sanctioned reasons. The next time you feel like your voice counts for nothing, think again. Unless we truly wish to live our lives as unthinking robots completely controlled by a few elected individuals, we have to exercise those vocal chords.

Jaclyn Kee
27th July 2003

Fortnightly Column by WAO on Sunday Mail (Reprinted with permission from Sunday Mail)