Having An Opinion

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia
August 26, 2010

 

“Everything is relative” is a common phrase I kept hearing this past year. That’s what happens when you live with anthropologists.

“No, not everything is relative” would be the polite patient comeback. The discussion would ensue, pursue and die down and everyone would go back to their rooms with a differing opinion to think and mull over.

There was an underlying fondness that though we differed in thought, there was mutual respect of each other’s opinion and belief system. We could agree to disagree and still have a cup of tea together afterwards. The thrust was that we dispelled the opinion and not the person. It’s almost like the saying “Hate the sin, love the sinner”.

It’s a bit of a tricky one though; one is the idea that we are entitled to an opinion and the other about how we treat differing opinions.

On the onset if we were to follow America’s First Amendment stance, then we’d be all for the entitlement. What happens when the opinion is not “correct”?

Correct by whose definition though?

A few weeks ago American talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger used the N-word multiple times on air to describe double standards of the usage of the word. This sparked great dissent on so many levels - one reason was because she didn’t mask the word in a euphemism. There was an outrage, she apologised and will end her 30-year-old syndicated broadcast.

What was interesting about this is that her viewpoint was being censored; she did have a point, just not diplomatically packaged. Dr. Laura didn’t intend to hurt, she was trying to make a point. She then tried to evoke her First Amendment entitlement – among others her right to freedom of speech.

What came out of it was that more people were willing to blindly hate than to engage in her comment. There was no platform to exchange views, no platform to trade opinions perhaps, all they saw and heard was “different”.

So much so that they missed the point totally because it struck a nerve… Sometimes we’re really oversensitive about issues that we fail to see another view. I’ve been there before, many times.

Two weeks ago, I questioned the transparency of government spending citing extravagance versus the lack of funds in providing justice to the Penan women and children being raped.

I made a mistake in my article, something I must apologise for and was rightly corrected by Tourism Malaysia. The article questioned subsidies of housing the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board in Trafalgar Square which in fact needed no subsidies as it was a Commonwealth gift from Her Majesty the Queen of England.

The point of the article though remains. I stand by my opinion asking for transparency of public money, because there is extravagance on one hand, billions wasted and on the other, hardcore injustices not being addressed due to the lack of funds and good governance.

Perhaps there are some that disagree with my point and I welcome mature debate that does not include personal attacks. As you would like your opinion to be respected, so would I, even if its ‘correct-ness’ is relative.

The past few weeks, there have been differing opinions floating around, that of the 98.9fm crew and some school heads. If we are for the freedom of opinion, does that warrant school heads to say racists remarks since they have a right to an opinion? While if we are not for freedom of opinion, then what happens to being a thinking nation and freedom of the press?

Which begs the questions, do we really have the right to an opinion? What happens when you have a differing opinion? And who determines what is correct?

Albert Einstein once said “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

Freedom of speech should not be a passport to verbal diarrhoea and the right to spew hate rants. Freedom of speech is a privilege that comes with responsibility, contributes to discourse and possesses the element of mutual respect of another’s viewpoint regardless of age, race and creed.

Perhaps it could be summed up by what an anthropologist professor in the making smilingly said “It’s my opinion, respect it!” as he continued to sip his tea.

Natalie can’t reconcile everything being relative; there are some universal truths.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Who Foots the Bill?

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia
August 12, 2010

Standing in the heart of London, I stood admiring the massive lion sculptures that sit guarding Nelson’s very tall column. Looking up to the top of the column where Nelson stands, I imagined all the great things that took place in this space steeped in history from political demonstrations, World Cup victory celebrations, New Year festivities and not forgetting what it commemorates the Battle of Trafalgar.

As I looked further towards the buildings surrounding Trafalgar Square, the sky was peppered with flags of different countries.

Britain, Canada, EU, South Africa perhaps, the Emirates, even Uganda…and “Could it be?” I thought, “No way” I said.

Perhaps my eyes were getting things mixed up and I got my flags mixed up.

It was prime land, not only does it scream rich, it’s deafeningly vuvuzela expensive.

You’ve got to wonder what the price tag on real estate would be so close to Buckingham Palace. Not only was it exclusive, it was posh and yes it was the Malaysian flag, perched high up against the London sky backdrop.

Standing at the crossroads, I waited as the red double-decker buses passed by and right there in the middle of London on prime land is the Malaysia Tourism Promotion Board.

My heart just broke.

Do we really have that much money to spend?

Do we really need a tourism office right there in the centre of London when just last year, there wasn’t enough funds in the budget to investigate the rape accusations of the Penan women in Sarawak?

Or that there are so many living under the poverty line while things like bridges in poorer areas are inadequately maintained, killing school children when it collapsed.

Where are our priorities?

It seems to be that the idea of development means that we build big, we advertise large and we deck ourselves with great portrayals of monetary wealth to show the rest of the world that we are equals in the wealth game while we loose the very essence of what development really means.

Personally, development means a government that works for the people, a justice system that is truly blind, and a people who value each other as equals. Instead we move backwards every time Parliament is in session.

We spend too much dragging out cases that should not even be in court because a sin is mistaken as a crime while there is a foolish need to search for a pure, mighty race when we are all supposed to be one.

Instead of looking after our young, we amend marriage laws to allow teenagers to get married with the excuse of preventing teenage pregnancies, abortions and baby dumping. When the best solution would be to direct funds towards a better education system that includes sex education, and before I get any hate mail, it doesn’t mean advocating practises that go against religious beliefs. It’s about protecting our young not changing laws that advocate shot gun marriages and perhaps even a higher divorce rate in the future.

People are going to sin, that we cannot control. What we can do is to help them avoid committing a crime, committing murder.

Maybe the argument is that we need a tourism board in the heart of London to boost our economy especially since we have lost a huge chunk of our FDI, but surely the logic of putting your own oxygen mask on first before you help anyone else should be a reminder of how the people’s money is spent?

Take care of yourself before you can take care of others is taken too literally. There used to be a time when politicians fought for the country and not themselves. These days it seems the oxygen mask is only for themselves.

Natalie wonders what the subsidy bill looks like to set up house on prime real estate near Buckingham Palace.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

*NOTE: Tourism Malaysia has clarified that The Malaysia House at 57, Trafalgar Square (where Tourism Malaysia office stands today) is a gift by Her Majesty the Queen of England as the Head of Commonwealth to the Malaysian Government in 1957.