FREEDOM WITHOUT REAL EXPRESSIONS

Contrary to some opinions, I sincerely believe the freedom of expressions in this country is more than adequate. In fact, I think it is under-utilised.

When it comes to public expressions, there is really no such thing as freedom without limit. There must always be limit. The disagreement, very often, is really about where the limit ought to be – and it should not be a global one-size-fits-all application. The answer should be where it provides the most benefit to the country allowing for healthy and meaningful majority feedback but not too liberal giving unnecessary space for creation of wasteful distractions. In other words, the limit at any point of time should be where it can best serve the interest of the majority and the nation.

In a sense it is quite analogous to managing a meeting – ensuring enough opportunity for everyone to contribute and generate ideas while effectively managing those who overly dwell on issues beyond what is necessary. The meeting must have constructive and meaningful input but not unnecessary distractions.

Sticking with this analogy, this is how our meeting goes – a large number are dutifully nodding and agreeing with everything said by the Chairman; another group actively and energetically muttering issues under their breath among themselves but not putting them on the table; and a small group saying anything and everything all too passionately while insisting they should even be allowed “to dance on the table”.

Clearly we are not managing our meeting well at all.

Those dutifully nodding should be asked what exactly they were vigourously nodding their heads for, what exactly they were agreeing with, why, and what further added-value ideas they can contribute. Those muttering under their breath should be asked what they were busy muttering about and have their views or ideas openly discussed. Those saying anything and everything and still insisting on being allowed to “dance on the table” should be quickly put in their place and “made to be more reasonable” – clearly their conduct had become too much of a distraction undermining whatever good ideas they might have tried to put forth.

How would they view their “freedom to express themselves” at this table?

Those dutifully nodding their heads most likely felt they had complete and total freedom – to agree with anything and everything the Chairman said. Those muttering under their breath had something to say but did not (probably unsure or had not adequately thought through the issues and were consequently hesitant) but grudgingly felt the Chairman was to blame for not being more encouraging. Those saying anything and everything and insisting they even be allowed to “dance on the table” felt they had no freedom to express themselves (their views, thoughts, feelings, emotions, personal interests – and dance skills).

I said at the beginning that freedom of expressions in this country is “under-utilised”. I say so because I think the majority of us in this country fall under the first two categories at the table. We have not really become fully engaged – contributing only, at best, to a modest and still unclear majority views (although many quarters claim their views are the majority views). The extent of running space and limit on freedom of expressions in this country has thus never been fully tested by a truly responsible majority voice.

To a certain extent, this situation can be blamed on the haughtiness and dismissive stance of those in authority and their limited tolerance for differing viewpoints, and the very partisan nature of our communication media. But these are only derivative causes and minor ones – the real reason, I sincerely believe, is that the majority of us have chosen to adopt the more convenient role of “cheerleaders”.

We pick sides on practically every issue based on emotions, self interests, and affiliations – and on immediate or short term considerations. Whichever side has our support (the many interest groups, agitators, opposition, disgruntled politicians, those in authority, the government) we readily and energetically cheer them on – and often also skillfully add our own spin to make the cheering more colourful. The much needed value-add step (thorough, impartial, and sincere scrutiny of their ideas, actions, and conduct; and equally sincere and constructive feedback) is seldom, if ever, carried out.

Freedom of expressions must support the majority interest and must be exercised by a thinking and responsible majority. Until we learn to become fully and constructively engaged in the interest of the nation on a non-partisan basis, a meaningful majority voice cannot emerge. And our freedom of expressions will remain “freedom without real expressions”.