About a year and a half ago, I brought forth a proposition:
Peaceful demonstrations are part and parcel of democracy. Our
Federal Constitution through Article 10 grants us the right to freedom of
speech, expression and assembly. It is an excellent avenue for the government
to get direct feedback from the rakyat. It is a check-and-balance mechanism, a
safety valve for the rakyat to vent out their frustrations openly.
If this direct feedback from the very people they are elected to
serve will help our government play its role better, then we should provide
avenues for the rakyat to be better heard. We
need support systems and processes to allow for peaceful demonstrations —
one that expresses the rakyat’s aspirations while minimising disruptions.
About two weeks later, in another piece,
I elaborated my point.
I would be happier if the government
allocates space and provisions for people to march, because it is within
the rights of the people – and
it will be more fun. In the Klang Valley, I have suggested Putrajaya. In that
situation, PDRM would be able to work
together with the marchers to ensure a smooth journey. They could work together
with the organisers to designate a route and provide safe passage for all. We
could take care of the wellbeing of the people, even prepare water in case
people are dehydrated and ambulances in case people are unwell. Allocate space
for temporary stalls, selling all kinds of fun stuff like merchandise, ice
kacang, cendol, souvenirs, etc. We need to chill out a little, and disagree
with each other without hatred.
I do not expect a wholesale and widespread acceptance of my
proposition. It’s only natural to expect opposing views. In particular, an
anonymous writer – who goes by the moniker ‘Pak Sako’ – challenges
my proposition. He posits that:
This false compromise either signals a weakness of resolve that
misses the whole point of a situation, or masks a sly strategy that claims
“moderation” to blunt progressive action (painted falsely as extreme) so that
the conservative status quo prevails.
Pak Sako also goes on to describe the ‘third alternative’ as I had
proposed to be “neutering”.
In light of recent events – the recent Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat,
otherwise known as #KL112; which actually transpired (for the most part) as
what I have proposed; I’m glad to know that my supposed “false compromise” did
not “blunt progressive action”. It most definitely did not “neuter” any
movements. In fact, to claim the middle path alternative as neutering progress is
to neuter peaceful means and promote extreme ideas and behaviours. Fortunately,
it would appear that the rakyat is more sensible these days.
I feel vindicated that my proposition and call for action is en vogue. I feel vindicated that the
taunts and disparaging comments hurled my way have been proven wrong. I feel vindicated that Pak Sako, whoever he
(or she) might be, and his words now lack authority.
However, as much as I’m delighted by the feeling of vindication, I
feel a greater joy in knowing that the middle path way has been given a chance by
our local politicians as well as the rakyat. Perhaps the merits of the middle
path as the way of the future; and that it is responsible, just, realistic, and
smart – are sitting more and more comfortably with the greater, more mature
Malaysians.
Congratulations to all Malaysians who, consciously or not, are
following in the middle path route. Congratulations to the Home Ministry, PDRM,
and Stadium Merdeka’s management for co-operating by providing safe passage and
not resorting to underhanded and reckless manoeuvres. Congratulations also to
PAS and Mat Sabu for being a gracious host and their willingness to work
together with all relevant parties to ensure a smooth-sailing event.
In this regards, PAS has shown their maturity and leadership that is
neither obnoxious nor self-serving. And they chose to not be offensively assertive
like what had happened in previous Bersih rallies. Insistence on details like
venue shows a constraint of artificial boundaries that is set within the
framework of one’s own mind. Once again, kudos to the organisers and fellow
Malaysians who chose not to be bound by that limitation this time around. Both
Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, it seems, have made it a point to learn
from their own follies in the past.
Allow me to conclude by reiterating a point I made in 2011, which is
also included in my book, The Middle Path:
The goal is to get the point across, not to see who can shout the
loudest. We must always look for the third alternative, the middle path.
No comments:
Post a Comment