Notes

We despise violence
Opinion 2012-03-27 13:32
By LIM SUE GOAN
Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE
Sin Chew Daily

Twenty-five years ago at the Kuala Lumpur Thean Hou Temple, the ruling and opposition party took the same stand and protested against the authority for allocating teachers who did not understand Chinese to hold high positions in Chinese primary schools. Twenty-five years later, how could there be an attempt violent at the rally intended to protest against the shortage of teachers in Chinese primary school?

People strongly condemned the violent incident during the Himpunan Hijau 2.0 rally on 26 February, but why didn't they severely condemn the violent attempt at the rally?

I can only say that the Malaysian political struggle has incandesced and the people's emotions have been stirred up. It is now an either you or I die battle.

Unfortunately, the attempt violence has shifted the focus which should be on the call to solve the serious shortage of Chinese vernacular school teachers. Who can still remember the four major motions passed by the rally? The incident has led to a war of words and more important works has been forgotten.

Violence used at any rallies can actually be studied from two angles.

Firstly, it is undeniable that politics has distorted the people's sense of right or wrong and judgement. It is common to see double-standard practices.

They condemn severely when supporters of the other party use violence but when supporters of their own party do the same, they claim that the victim has self-directed the incident or deserves the violent treatment. If the situation goes on like this, the Malaysian politics will not only become a joke, but as well continue to sink.

It is not the first time to see the act of violence. It is worrisome that people might become insensitive as it is increasingly common.

Politicians are busy staging shows and have completely ignored the act of violence, or even assault. It is indeed a connivance.

There is only one standard for right and wrong. No one should play with the law to achieve political purposes. If the ruling and opposition parties do not follow the established rules of the game, even a general election would not be able to resolve contradictions and the society will be in a state of unrest.

Most horribly, isolated act of violence might evolve into collective acts of violence, which could destroy the country.

Secondly, if grievances and emotions have been provoked continuously but no way to vent the anger is provided, it would become a violent force, resulting in the loss of control.

The accumulation of grievances might go on for decades, such as the unfair treatment received by Chinese education. However, it could also be an unexpected event, like the rare-earth refinery plant issue.

When grievances are accumulated, the confrontation will become increasingly fierce. Grievances would affect rationality and they take it as an act of justice to knock down the other party, no matter by what kind of means.

Stirring up emotions, including exposing scandals of the authorities, also has a strong vote gaining effect. When emotions become increasingly passionate, rationality will relatively abate. It will be useless no matter how well the ruling party does.

Therefore, those in power must listen to public opinion and adjust their policies to relieve social grievances and avoid emotional voting.

A society tolerating, or even advocating, violence must be a problematic society. We should despise violence or the acts of violence will destroy the rule of law and civilisation.