Obey to disobey- The Malaysian Insider
December 19, 2011 — Why is it that while out-of-the-box thinking is the flavour of the month with all administrators and politicians, there is very little of it in evidence?
Whether it is the Peaceful Assembly Bill, the NFC controversy or Sodomy II, the responses from all sides are predictable. The opposition will send memorandums, organise token protests and hold press conferences, while outraged citizens will write articles and blogs. The accused parties will simply issue bare denials and then maintain a stony silence, certain in the knowledge that in a month’s time, all will be forgotten and it will be business as usual.
Instead, if there is genuine discontent over these and other shenanigans here are some other out-of-the-box solutions that could either show the ridiculousness of the official policy or in their absence show that there is simply very little public anger at these actions.
● If the majority of Malaysians are really that angry at the new provisions in the Peaceful Assembly Bill, all they need to do is bombard every district police station for a permit to meet with four other people to discuss politics at a date 10 days hence. Imagine the police trying to vet through thousands of applications every day from ordinary citizens wanting a bit of a political chat. Obey to disobey.
● If there is genuine anger at the alleged misuse of taxpayer money by a minister’s family in the NFC scandal, why not boycott their restaurants? Why not make life difficult for those wanting to patronise these outlets by glaring at patrons as they pass by. Imagine an everyday crowd of strangers just sauntering past these outlets looking angry every day, when every other place in the vicinity looks relatively empty? Obey to disobey.
● If the opposition genuinely thinks that Sodomy II is a political ploy to end the political career of their leader by invoking a rarely invoked provision of the penal code and one that is also designed to further marginalise the LGBT community, why not take on the law itself rather than this particular case? If every member of the LGBT community came out simultaneously on one fine day, confessing to having had intercourse against the order of nature, the only thing the police and the judiciary would be investigating for a very long time would be sodomy complaints. Obey to disobey.
By the way, none of these modes of action are actually original. The credit goes to a frail old man called Gandhi, who almost a century ago figured that genuine public anger, channelled creatively within the law without violence, could topple empires as mighty as the British Raj.
A real movement for civil liberties would demonstrate in a creative way the depth of public anger within the law without disturbing others. With sufficient public support, it can overwhelm. Otherwise accept the status quo and live with a once-in-five-years opportunity at the ballot box. This is, after all, the ideas century.
Whether it is the Peaceful Assembly Bill, the NFC controversy or Sodomy II, the responses from all sides are predictable. The opposition will send memorandums, organise token protests and hold press conferences, while outraged citizens will write articles and blogs. The accused parties will simply issue bare denials and then maintain a stony silence, certain in the knowledge that in a month’s time, all will be forgotten and it will be business as usual.
Instead, if there is genuine discontent over these and other shenanigans here are some other out-of-the-box solutions that could either show the ridiculousness of the official policy or in their absence show that there is simply very little public anger at these actions.
● If the majority of Malaysians are really that angry at the new provisions in the Peaceful Assembly Bill, all they need to do is bombard every district police station for a permit to meet with four other people to discuss politics at a date 10 days hence. Imagine the police trying to vet through thousands of applications every day from ordinary citizens wanting a bit of a political chat. Obey to disobey.
● If there is genuine anger at the alleged misuse of taxpayer money by a minister’s family in the NFC scandal, why not boycott their restaurants? Why not make life difficult for those wanting to patronise these outlets by glaring at patrons as they pass by. Imagine an everyday crowd of strangers just sauntering past these outlets looking angry every day, when every other place in the vicinity looks relatively empty? Obey to disobey.
● If the opposition genuinely thinks that Sodomy II is a political ploy to end the political career of their leader by invoking a rarely invoked provision of the penal code and one that is also designed to further marginalise the LGBT community, why not take on the law itself rather than this particular case? If every member of the LGBT community came out simultaneously on one fine day, confessing to having had intercourse against the order of nature, the only thing the police and the judiciary would be investigating for a very long time would be sodomy complaints. Obey to disobey.
By the way, none of these modes of action are actually original. The credit goes to a frail old man called Gandhi, who almost a century ago figured that genuine public anger, channelled creatively within the law without violence, could topple empires as mighty as the British Raj.
A real movement for civil liberties would demonstrate in a creative way the depth of public anger within the law without disturbing others. With sufficient public support, it can overwhelm. Otherwise accept the status quo and live with a once-in-five-years opportunity at the ballot box. This is, after all, the ideas century.
Comments
Post a Comment