As you've probably known by now, I'm a libertarian. It means I don't like it when other people tell me what to do especially under the pretext that it's good for me. I even take objections to unsolicited advice from those who have my best interests at heart. This by the way, is not a recent trait brought on by advancing age that gives one an edge over life's experience. I have always been like this since a very young age and this was often a source of exasperation to my poor mother whose words of wisdom would invariably fall flat on the very deaf ears of her know-it-all daughter.
But then I was brought up in an argumentative surrounding where everybody thought their ideas and opinions worthier than anybody else's and one literally had to shout one's way through a discussion in order to be heard. Seniority in this family dynamics did not count for much. If anything, the older you are, the more you're seen as being somewhat out of touch and ignorant of the ways of the world. Claims on the lines of 'I am your parent and you should listen to me and do as I say' would be met with derisive laughter, not out of disrespect but rather, because this type of reasoning was not valid in discussions requiring even the smallest amount of intelligence.
As for me, a lot of the time, being the youngest I would lose the argument on technical grounds, such as lacking the necessary loudness of voice or energetic persistence. In order to survive and maintain my grounds I would have to resort to some potent tools that I had cultivated specifically for getting one's point across in an argument - namely, the art of sarcasm, the timely raising of the eyebrow and, if things really got tough, feigning indifference or just acting plain deaf.
Allowing oneself to be ruled or led by the opinion of others is after all, an affront to one's intelligence especially if the method is coercion. It is also a blow to one's pride if the others could come up with a more convincing argument. However, I would be more than happy to be influenced by someone whose argument is cogent and whose views have a depth and credibility that override any of my poorly formed and hazy judgment.
Some of my good teachers earned their respect in this way. But my favourite teachers were those that gave me the time and freedom to express my views while at the same time ensuring those opinions were based on some process of thinking, analysis, intellectual cogitation and reflection. In other words, not based on emotional reaction, narrow prejudices and fear of being told off or going to hell.
The point is, each one of us is equipped with the software that enables us to think for ourselves. Unless one is a sociopath, the chances are we use this intelligence to make our lives easier and more pleasant, which often demands us to be nice to each other. It is an intelligence that can only be fostered through constant discussions, exchanges of ideas and tolerance of divergent views in an atmosphere devoid of threats and intimidation.
After all a good argument is only as good as its reasoning and how well it could withstand criticisms. That is, if we still want to claim ourselves as a democratic country.
Democracy is a healthy environment in which to nurture this ability. The rule of the people is not an end in itself but a means through which the human family could interact freely in order to allow for the evolution of society's consciousness to a higher level and attain that ideal state we refer to as civilisation.
The fact that there are bound to be views that are rubbish, opinions that have no logic or expressions that are rude, are besides the point. One does not close down a kindergarten because the toddlers are noisy and unruly. Puppies that tumble and play learn faster than ones kept apart from the sibling.
Ethical behaviour I agree is an important element in social interaction. However, ethics cannot be forced by the state nor can good manners be imposed through ministerial regulations that threaten the existence of the very medium for this social interaction.
When my older sister felt she was running out of words and losing the argument, she would put an end to it by pinching or giving me a chinese burn on my arm. It did not solve the argument but ended it with fisticuffs or me in tears.
An ethical society cannot develop just because the Minister of Information decides to control the content of information crowding the cyberspace or taking away the license of the operators. Imposing a culture of fear is not the way to control a culture of low brow freedom of expression. Minister Tifatul Sembiring is more effective in communicating when he tweets pithy words of wisdom on Twitter that inspire rather than coming up with regulations that are met with stiff resistance, difficult to impose and fan a lot of negative reactions.
Surely the days of banning books and censoring the media are truly and well behind us. It is time for us to evolve to a society that has the intelligence, intellectual capacity and confidence to express ourselves as thinking individuals. And where this capacity is still lacking, shutting it down and arresting its development is not the answer.
As Minister of Information and Communication ideally he should know this better than the ordinary person. One cannot teach people by pushing them about and preaching to them what to do or not to do, as so many those with a bit of power among us like to do.
Power lies not in the ability to shut people up but in allowing them to speak.
(Desi Anwar: First Published in The Jakarta Globe)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Tutik
said:
 |
... Can't agree more. The minister, being a government official, have two tools in their hand. Policy and budget. This particular Minister choose to resolve the cyberspace 'problem' by imposing a ban regulation which he probably thought as fast, easy and effective. Yes it's fast and easy. Whether it's effective, remain to be seen. |
Show/hide comment form
