Sunday, August 06, 2006
everybody knows best
It is no secret that I am not a religious person. Therefore, anybody who thought the last article on God's paradox was something preachy, you are sorely mistaken. The story, while I would like to believe makes sense for preachers who wish to spread the word of their God, translates for me in another way. Labels: awesome theories
This is where you go back and read it again, only this time, you replace the word God with 'government' or 'leader'. Of course I am not suggesting that the government or any particular leader is God-like, but the same anology applies. I do not for one instant believe that any government or leader out there sets out with a deliberate objective of screwing people over. They do what they can, and while that may not be enough sometimes, I don't think anybody can blame them for the effort put in.
I say that because if there wasn't any effort in trying to better this country, then they surely would not change any policies which would then anger people so much. You see, the problem with implementing policies is that everybody thinks they know best. Like the story of the man, his son, and the donkey, everybody looking at a particular situation think they have the best solution. While I am sure they mean well, everybody has a different opinion on how best to tackle a problem. And because of that, when the enablers do not follow their suggestions, these people seem to get angry.
For instance, the latest hoo-hah about the government controlling the Internet seemed to rile up a lot of bloggers who are upset that their so-called freedom of speech is suddenly taken away from them. I digress, though. I think ALL BLOGS should be monitored by the government. I believe that a lot of people out there do not know how to spread information responsibly. Funnily enough, the people who seem to be making all the noise are the people who do not hessitate to delete your comments if you disagree with them, or heck, call them names.
Hey, so what if I called you a socialist? I thought you were interested in an unmoderated Internet?
Or how about the genius out there who suggested that we could improve the state of Malaysian football by disbanding the league and holding many competitions similar to MyTeam to pick our national squad? That idiot probably thought it was a brilliant idea - brilliant enough to write in to a national newspaper. Personally, I would throw a fit if they ever followed through in such a stupid idea, but hey, that's because we all have our own ideas on how to fix things.
Key point here is there are always people who would agree with a certain policy, and there will always be people who disagree. I know I keep saying that some ideas are too stupid to contemplate....but we all forget that somewhere down the road, there is a guy sitting there who thinks it is a bloody awesome idea and thinks that we are the idiots because we disagree with him.
Like God's dilemma of whether to rid the world of disease, sometimes decisions are made by leaders for what they perceive to be the greater good. Maybe God believes that without diseases and natural disasters, the world would be over populated and we would die of starvation. He probably believes that he is making the best decision he can, but a 15 year old kid with terminal cancer would call him an unmerciful God.
The point is, most of the time, difficult decisions have to be made. These decisions may not be popular, yet they might be the most neccesary course of action. It is easy for everyone of us to sit back on our highback leather chairs, read the Internet, and then critisize every Tom, Dick and Harry for supposedly messing up our lives.
But ask yourself this.
Who the hell are you? A student? A journalist-wannabe? A clerk?
What the fuck do you know about being a leader and making difficult decisions?
Never mind 24 million people...when was the last time you made a decision that would affect the lives of 24 people?
Labels: awesome theories
I normally call these ppl, Mr/Ms. Know-all-a-lil-bit
"You can't bloody well please everyone."
People from their armchairs think it's so easy to run a fucking country.
Put them in any leadership role and i bet you the majority of them will sink.
i believe the majority of the people who read blogs are civilised enough to have a proper argument instead of running around town burning and breaking things. they should worry more about harakah and other such newspapers causing problems.
on another note, you brought up a very interesting point about the hypocrites who are the big-boys in the malaysian blogosphere. i once posted a very valid comment criticising teresa kok's view on her blog and my comment got deleted. i guess the comment page is there for you to kiss ass rather than analyze.
vincent: I liked that story about God's paradox. Would have commented in that post but I'd like to cut down the redundancy level.
I think that there's nothing preachy about it, but rather, it helps to put matters into a more objective perspective. Lessen the blaming game humans are so fond of.
The state would always be looking out for the people. It's most concerned about harmony because harmony is what would keep it alive and running.
Yet people are fundamentally selfish. We all look out for ourselves, deep down. Hence, like you said, people like to think that they have the best solution. If you were to look deeper into the matter, the proposed solution benefits themselves, more often than not, one way or another.
We're often not happy when we don't get what we want.
Hence, pertaining to the matter of having a gatekeeper for blogs, we have to consider the type of people who would do the job. Can we still make fun of religion and race for pure fun? We might remain objective while reading criticisms on sensitive issues like that but would the same criticism be seen as constructive or derogatory by the gatekeeper?
It's not easy for many to draw a firm line between objectivity and subjectivity. And stick to it.
I do not trust the state to be objective about the content of blogs.
Just look at the amount of controversy stirred by our Tun Mahathir for his book called The Malay's Dilemma. And Amir Muhammad's state-banned (Not by the Malaysian Film Censorship Board (LPF)) Lelaki Komunis Terakhir. This clearly showed the narrow-mindedness of the Malays leaders who happen to rule the state.
Yes, you have a point about not many people spreading information responsibly therefore they should be monitored by the state, but what would you suggest to protect those who are responsible yet are in danger from personal dislikes of the state?
Sure, we can't please everyone but the issue about monitoring the Internet is still in the grey.
A: Blogs don't make any kind of sound, unless the blogger has one of those fooking auto-play music plug-ins.
Bodicea: I agree with you on one point - TuckerMax definitely deserves to be protected from "the state". I'm not so sure about the rest though.
You could have said, "This clearly showed the narrow-mindedness of the leaders who happen to rule the state."
Instead, you chose to say Malay leaders.
tiger : You forgot Maddox.
Perhaps it's a mistake to state the race. Nevertheless, the point is that after all that has been done and said, you can't really trust the current state. They're just humans, after all.
tiger: Yeah, you forgot Maddox.
I like that quote very much. Those fucking human beings can be very untrustworthy, indeed. Perhaps we should put our trust in animals instead. Or aliens from outer space.
Oh no, have I just made an anti-humanist remark?
I think what humans need is a really good (at heart and mind) leader with strong principles.
Define "good"? For the state, I think it's someone who's not easily swayed by power at all.
We need another Gandhi.
Unless I'm supposed to believe that Mahatma Gandhi was from Mars.
Not completely worthy of trust, but at least we'd feel safer with him around.
He's an example I proposed. Do you have a better suggestion?
I wonder who will be the ones who monitor the blogs; who will say what is truth or what is just opinions? =) It would be funny to see JeffOoi closed down for his 'uninformed' comments, don't you think? Perhaps you'll get your laugh from it then Vincent.
BUT, there should be a distinction, as to whether citizens who criticise their leaders simply because they disagree with certain policies or behaviour, or they criticise because they believe that the leaders are out for all they can get, fuck the rakyat.
And I'm quite sure there are a lot (of bloggers) who belong in the latter category.
I like this blog. You sometimes bring in points of view that on a quick glance seemed to support the opposite view to what the average person would agree with, but on closer reading are arguments in moderation and in depth.