The recent media controversies in Malaysia began with the \’nude squats\’ incident and moved into the infamous and imported international controversy over carricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by Danish cartoonists.

That issue has now become the subject of an international debate over the right to expression versus bad faith in insulting Islam.

As stated earlier , I would view it as anthropomorphisation versus the \’limits of faith\’ debate. In our case, both the media controversies relate to the issue of rights to expression versus what is \’right\’.

To me, the ultimate answer does not lie with either the editors, journalists or regulators but within the hearts of men and women as consumers of published information or knowledge. So, whether editors resign or not, the core issue relates fundamentally to our shared concept of human dignity, and what it means to live a life of destiny.

In both cases, we have editors accepting responsibility for their errors of judgment in printing what they did. My professor, Jerry Harvey, would call this \’Organisational Grace\’; that the newspaper is allowed to apologise for their not-so-conscious mistakes without losing its licence.

In the \’nude squats\’ case, it may have been truly the error of wrongly judging the nationality of the victim. In the international case, the error of judgment was in reproducing the forbidden caricatures, although only to report on it, and not to sensationalise it.

One was the absence of \’factual evidence and the other was the absence of local wisdom and sensitivity regarding the sacredness of this issue of faith and its expression.

Globally, editors who reprinted the cartoon (and other \’artists\’, including Muslim ones) continue to argue their right to freedom of expression, although even their formal media organs have expressed regret after the fact. Locally, the regulators decided for the majority regarding the forbidden nature of such \’immoral anthromorphisation\’.

Question of choice

But this is my real question: is there then no freedom of real expression in Malaysia? I believe that we all have such freedoms; in our own hearts, but such freedom of expression also stops where the nose of the majority begins.

It is not that there is no such freedom but that we have to apply our God-given judgment and wisdom in making wise choices in a given situation whether we choose to publish, regardless of the form of expression.

After all, even the Muslim writer Salman Rushdie, who used the word form for artistic expression, was chastised for reasons of \’immorality\’. I did not agree with curtailing his right to express himself but we must understand and accept that it did upset almost the same group even then.

So, can or should editors use art to express themselves on some deeper truth? I suppose the real big word then is not \’anthropomorphisation\’ but rather the \’truth form\’ of what is considered the Truth by the majority of the reading public. And, rather unfortunately, that is the truth of public opinion in the media world – that it is decided not just by journalists and editors but also by governments and the public.

Such public opinion may belong mainly to the noisy minority, but they too have the freedom of expression and are often willing to risk lives and break laws to express their ardent views.

I suppose anyone\’s absolute freedom ends where the majority\’s freedom starts. There is never an absolute majority. One can only pray that we all learn to speak the truth in love full of grace and hope; or with civility and courtesy.

Courtesy and civility

How then did we define or decide what is the truth of public opinion in the two Malaysian cases? In the \’nude squats\’ case, a Royal Commission of Inquiry verified the nationality of the detainee concerned.

In the \’sacrilegious cartoons\’ case, it was an across-the-board recognition that the lines of decency and courtesy had been crossed, based on faith sensitivities of one global community of religious adherents. And particularly in Malaysia, where such adherents form the majority, one could argue that the editors should have known better.

But, coming back to truth, journalism and public space morality, is this common rule of civil courtesy and tolerance of expression applied across the board even in Malaysia?

\"\"

Let me now take the equally publicised case of the \’Botak 11\’ that involved members of the Chinese Malaysian community. They belonged to a not very small community, although not the majority. What is the truth of the matter in their case? Or, is their \’truth\’ any less important? Why were these Chinese gentlemen abused of their dignity and subjected to loss of face by a very junior police officer?

Should not the police officer in charge of the station be told to resign as well, by the same standards of judgment? Here I truly respect and appreciate the Inspector-General of Police for singling him out for public reprimand. That was punishment enough.

But, more critically, should not the deputy internal security minister have been made to resign for making the equally false assumption over the \’nude squats\’ detainee\’s nationality, as did the editor of the Chinese-language daily? In fact, the deputy minister made far more disparaging remarks about Chinese nationals. It even became an international case.

If we are truly global in our standards of public justice, then I believe that the deputy minister should also have also resigned. All public officials must face the same music.

The questions of courtesy and civility cut both ways. Shame and honour are from within the same paradigm of thinking. So are Truth and Falsity, Sin and Forgiveness, and Truth, Beauty and Art.

At all times, as my teacher of philosophy, science and religion at the George Washington University, Prof Sayeed Hossein Nasr, put it, \”a veil reveals more than it hides\”.

God-given human dignity and destiny gives mankind as much freedom as it limits doubts. Both finally become choices for the individual to exercise and no one can dictate these. Like beauty, art and truth these are sometimes realised only in their expression; that is what makes humans real. People do value their existential roles, choices and freedoms.

The ultimate choice is always one\’s own to make and cannot be forced upon anyone. But, in that expression one also has always to be careful to be wise and use judgment so that we all maintain courtesy and civility. Courtesy and civility is required of all of us.

System-level integrity

Malaysia is a truly multi-racial country which is both 48 and 42 years independent. Forty years ago, Singapore left us as its leadership believed that it could not agree to disagree agreeably with the rest of the federation. Today, we still cannot agree on how to build a new bridge. That is understandable.

The Federation of Malaysia, the constitutional nation-state, is experiencing and undergoing the pains of a maturing process. To reach the envisoned 2020 developed or civilised status, we need to fully develop our common sense of courtesy and civility of values as a nation.

\"\"

If such independence requires a crooked bridge sometimes, that too is necessary. Regardless, we must always learn to do it with courtesy and civility.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi calls this the software we desperately need. But, our current software appears to also have some built-in viruses or wrong logic systems, such that it lacks system-level integrity. These too need to be addressed.

Thanks to the new-found freedom within our judicial system, no one appears to be above the law. But, whose job is it, if not that of the media as the fifth estate, to highlight all this and bring them to our knowledge?

How can we also moderate the role of the media without curtailing their development and maturing role as the voice of the conscience of the nation? We sometimes call it \’responsible\’ journalism. But we also need responsible public servants and equally responsible politicians.

My concern is that we must apply the same standards of judgment in all cases; whether to politicians, public servants or journalists.

Otherwise, we would lack system integrity and it will show up in yet other crevices. Let us all choose to live responsibly but also within our contradictions and tolerances.