Natalie Shobana Ambrose (30th July, 2009 - theSun)
There was a little girl sitting on a high chair next to me. She was at that age where everything was meant to be in her mouth- the cup, fork, teddy bear, napkin were all meant to be eaten. As I watched in amusement, her mother quickly stops her hand from causing a glass of hot tea to spill all. Each time this girl got reprimanded, she frowned, wailed a little and picked up the nearest thing she could find. She didn’t take too kindly to the word ‘no’.
In a way I understood this little girl’s frustration. I myself am not fond of restraint or reprimand and I suspect a lot of us aren’t too. In the case of the little miss, it was important that she be taught what was good for her, what was wrong and what was acceptable. Though, she might not agree that teddy bears aren’t to be eaten, she will soon realise that there are far better tasting things then fluff.
But the word ‘no’ is a powerful reprimand and a huge part of our socialization. What we can do, what we should do and what we can’t do, we learn though observation, interpretation and many a time by a slap on the hand. Later we’re taught about boundaries and perhaps correlate a better society to why we have jails, set up anti-corruption agencies, have a police force, laws and so forth. After a while, we learn what is acceptable and what is not or in some cases we are closely monitored to ensure good behaviour. But are some of our country’s boundaries in place to limit or liberate and is there room to deliberate?
The United States is going though a season where its leaders are being scrutinized. A Supreme Court nominee was questioned about her racial bias because of words she uttered 8 years ago. Then a few days later their President chided the police force over a racial incident. His words were immediately scrutinized. What I admire about that society is that these two highly accomplished civil servants are not being given any special treatment. Negative news of their conduct has not been suppressed or forbidden and there is a maturity of openness with the ideal of reprimand no matter who you are.
We here in Malaysia have had our own share of politicians who in their outrage say the most damaging things. So much so that there are 2 volumes worth of faux pas in our bookstores of their darnest quotes compiled by Amir Muhammad. Yet there isn’t an ethics committee in place or the allowance of reprimand allocated for bad behivour.
In fact, quite the opposite happens and the news is suppressed and any mention that is deemed negative, banished and punished. So as a people we observe the prejudice , interpret the bias and probably self censor our thoughts, reprimanding any form of critical thinking going with the flow and become numb to the injustice allowed for the privilege of the powerful. I don’t need to spell out the injustices, you and I can see them for ourselves and if we aren’t outraged, we’re not paying attention.
Our ministers are now tied to their KPI report cards. Will it be open and transparent? Or will the numbers be fudged? We have many structures, and mechanisms to make Malaysia a better society but are we valuing privilege over principle?
Dwight D Eisenhower in his inaugural address in 1953 said ‘A people that values its privileges above its principles soon looses both’.
Natalie is sometimes quiet because she’s practicing the art of holding her tongue in light of being considered intelligent.
