Published by Malaysiakini, images from Malaysiakini.
In July of 2018, I wrote two articles about Islamic preacher Zakir Naik – taking a closer look at his actual teachings, and discussing some of the polemics surrounding him.
Today, Zakir is back in the news, as he has apparently been what we could term “soft banned” from speaking in Penang.
As coincidence would have it, we also recently saw that an event at which former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak was scheduled to speak at UKM was “postponed“.
These incidents provide something of a litmus test for the new Pakatan Harapan government. It is easy to talk about freedom of speech, but it is considerably harder to walk the talk.
Most reasonable people will agree that freedom of speech should come with a measure of responsibility and that we can conceive of cases wherein some restrictions should be placed on public speech. One clear example would be cases where a speaker is planning to incite violence.
Unless there is clear proof of such intent however, a vibrant democracy should place very few restrictions on free speech – indeed, perhaps none at all.
Let us see whether the cases of Zakir and Najib warrant such restrictions.
A closer look at Zakir
The debate surrounding Zakir and his place in Malaysia is not a new one. I remember vividly that the first article I wrote about Zakir was not the same article I thought I would write when I began my first draft.
Prior to writing the article, I had an impression of Zakir that was probably similar to many people of my background – that he was a bigot with tendencies towards incitement.
However, I believed that since every individual should be given a fair evaluation based objectively on facts, I felt obligated to do a little bit of assessment based on investigating primary sources.
By the time I had gone through a few of Zakir’s videos, my opinion had changed. The man is no saint and I certainly do not agree with many of his conclusions.
It became clear to me, however, that many of those who hated Zakir hated some sort of idea of him – one propagated by many people with rather anti-Muslim tendencies – rather than the man himself and his actual words.
Then we come to the case of Najib. So many of us spent years and years writing about his many sins and I don’t think many of us have changed our minds about the kind of person we believe him to be.
As to his crimes, it is incumbent on us to follow due process and hope that a transparent judiciary will bring to light everything he has and hasn’t done.
With regard to his current political activism and views however, there seems to be very little justification to restrict him in in any way. As we are all coming to learn, Najib is becoming very, very adept at annoying those in power.
This surely has something to do with the fact that being on the receiving end for so long surely teaches one a thing or two about how to hit the government and hit hard.
A lot of the time, however, the things that Najib brings up speak directly to the question of good governance and sound government policy. I’m not saying he’s right in his criticisms – not by a long shot. I am saying, however, that a lot of what he talks about should be considered fair game.
Roundabout censorship?
Next, we should examine exactly how the authorities are responding to individuals like Zakir and Najib.
The Penang authorities are remaining tight-lipped about the reasons why Zakir was not allowed to speak on the island recently with one anonymous source making vague and vaguely incredulous suggestions that it had to do with timing and availability.
UKM, meanwhile, made another vaguely incredulous suggestion that Najib’s event was “postponed” because the university was not able to provide sufficient security.
If security personnel are the issue, what difference could a postponement possibly make? Is UKM planning to hire more security guards in the next few weeks specifically for Najib?
I suppose a case can arguably be made that roundabout censorship is mildly better than direct censorship. That said, I don’t think the difference is either significant or substantial.
Censorship, ultimately, is still censorship. A soft ban is still a ban. Indeed, some would say that roundabout censorship is worse than direct censorship because the latter is at least honest.
Free market of ideas
One of the most pertinent political questions of the day is this, “Is Harapan just BN 2.0?”
It is through issues like these that we find the answer to this question.
Censorship, misleading answers and so on, these were the hallmarks of BN’s government and no one wants to return to those days.
Harapan, like any wise and responsive government, should never fear ideas. The more you try to repress ideas, the more they spread. Again, we speak from experience.
A diversity of views should always be welcome, and institutions like Harapan should always be willing to sell their own ideas in a free marketplace and in competition with all others.
This incentivises the government to produce ideas that are actually good and which are able to win hearts and minds based on their own merit – not based on artificial market manipulation, the likes of which Malaysia has had quite enough.
Nathaniel Tan is Director of Media & Communications at EMIR Research, an independent think-tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based upon rigorous research.
Diterbitkan oleh EMIR Research.
Pada Julai 2018, saya menulis dua artikel berkenaan pensyarah Zakir Naik – meneliti ajarannya dengan lebih rapi dan menilai perbincangan berkenaan beliau.
Kini, Zakir muncul lagi dalam berita nasional, kerana beliau tidak dibenarkan berucap di Pulau Pinang.
Kebetulan juga, baru-baru ini kita lihat satu acara di mana bekas perdana menteri Najib Razak dijadualkan akan berucap di Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia ‘ditunda’.
Insiden-insiden ini boleh dikira satu ujian untuk kerajaan Pakatan Harapan.
Agak senang untuk membuat janji-janji berkenaan kebebasan bersuara, tetapi lebih sukar untuk menunaikan janji-janji tersebut.
Pihak majoriti agaknya bersetuju bahawa kebebasan bersuara haruslah bertanggungjawab. Ada juga kes-kes di mana sedikit kesekatan adalah wajar – contohnya kes di mana seseorang ingin menghasut ke arah keganasan.
Walau bagaimanpaun, kecuali ada bukti kukuh niat seperti itu, demokrasi yang utuh sepatutnya jarang sekali menyekat kebebasan bersuara – mungkin tidak sama sekali.
Adakah sekatan wajar dalam kes Zakir dan Najib?
Meneliti kes Zakir
Perbincangan berkenaan Zakir dan tempat beliau di Malaysia bukan satu perkara baru.
Saya masih ingat bulan Julai tahun lepas, rencana yang saya asalnya bayangkan apabila saya bermula menulis bukannya rencana yang akhirnya ditulis.
Pada waktu itu, tanggapan saya terhadap Zakir mungkin agak sama dengan tanggapan yang dipegang oleh mereka yang sama latar belakang dengan saya – bahawa beliau itu bersikap chauvinis terhadap agama-agama lain, dan ada kencenderungan untuk menghasut.
Namun, saya percaya bahawa setiap individu harus diberi penilaian objektif berdasarkan fakta. Jadi, saya rasa terpanggil untuk lihat dan dengar dengan mata dan telinga saya sendiri, apakah hujah-hujah Zakir.
Selepas melihat beberapa video beliau, pandangan saya telah berubah sedikit.
Zakir ini bukan malaikat ke apa, dan saya tidak setuju dengan beberapa kesimpulan beliau.
Akan tetapi, agak jelas bahawa mereka yang bencikan Zakir bencikan satu bayangan atau idea ‘Zakir Naik’ – idea yang diwar-warkan oleh mereka yang kadang-kadang ada sentimen anti-Islam – dan bukannya Zakir Naik dan ajaran beliau sebenar.
Untuk melihat langkah demi langkah caranya saya mencapai kesimpulan ini, anda boleh meneliti balik rencana saya waktu itu.
Najib 2.0
Seterusnya, kes Najib.
Ramai antara kita yang bertahun-tahun bertungkus lumus menulis tentang betapa ramai ‘dosa’ Najib ini. Saya rasa tak ramai antara kita pula yang telah mengubah pandangan kita terhadap beliau.
Berkenaan kes-kes mahkamah beliau, harapnya proses betul akan diikuti, dan kita akan lihat kelak setiap benda yang beliau telah buat, dan tidak buat.
Bagi aktiviti-aktiviti politik Najib hari ini, agaknya kurang justifikasi untuk menyekat beliau.
Semakin jelas, bekas perdana menteri ini semakin pandai buat pihak berkuasa kurang selesa dan terganggu.
Kalau sudah rasa dan dikenakan begitu lama, sudah pasti akan memperolehi sedikit sebanyak kemahiran kenakan balik apabila sudah berada di sebelah yang lain.
Namun, hujah-hujah Najib memang sering berkait dengan soalan-soalan penting berkenaan dasar-dasar kerajaan dan prinsip tadbir urus baik.
Bukannya saya setuju dengan semua kritkian-kritikan beliau; tetapi, isu-isu yang dibincangkan beliau memang relevan.
Sekatan tidak langsung
Seterusnya, kita harus meneliti dasar pihak berkuasa terhadap individu-individu seperti Zakir dan Najib.
Pihak berkuasa di Penang memberi alasan stadium yang dipohon itu tengah mengalami ‘kerja-kerja penyelengaraan’.
UKM pula kata acara ditunda kerana isu-isu keselamatan.
Alasan UKM ini kurang masuk akal. Apakah pihak UKM ini berhasrat mengupah lebih ramai pegawai keselamatan dalam minggu-minggu akan datang supaya acara ini boleh dijalankan?
Sekatan langsung atau tidak langsung – hakikatnya, sekatan masih sekatan.
Mungkin ada yang berpendapat, sekurang-kurangnya sekatan langsung itu lebih jujur dan telus.
Pasaran terbuka idea-idea
Antara soalan politik yang paling penting hari ini adalah: Adakah Harapan merupakan BN 2.0?
Melalui isu-isu seperti inilah soalan tersebut akan mula dijawab.
Penyekatan hak bersuara, alasan-alasan lemah yang kurang masuk akal – ini adalah ciri-ciri kerajaan BN, dan tiada siapa yang ingin balik ke zaman itu.
Harapan tidak sepatutnya takut dengan idea-idea. Semakin tersekat sebuah idea, semakin luas idea itu akan tersebar. Kita bercakap berdasarkan pengalaman kita sendiri di bawah BN.
Kepelbagaian pendapat itu harusnya selalu dialu-alukan, dan Harapan patutnya sentiasa bersedia menjual idea-idea mereka di pasaran terbuka, bersaing dengan pihak-pihak lain.
Dengan ini, mereka ada insentif untuk memastikan bahawa idea-idea mereka ini sebenarnya adalah idea yang baik, yang mampu menangi hati dan minda rakyat atas merit mereka sendiri – bukannya atas manipulasi pasaran, sepertimana Malaysia sudah cukup rasa.
Nathaniel Tan merupakan Pengarah Media & Komunikasi di EMIR Research, sebuah organisasi pemikir bebas yang berfokuskan kepada pencernaan saranan-saranan dasar strategik berteraskan penyelidikan yang terperinci, konsisten dan menyeluruh.
