photo from here
There's a stark difference between freedom of expression and the contents of the expression. Differences of opinions is a blessing. Yes, only if it is of level playing field. Yes, if it is meant for reform and betterment.Yes, if it does not begin with these words "memang padan muka budak tu kena tembak!""mak bapak dia pon patut kena tembak".
And to plead "you are too emotional" in response to people who react to these diabolic words particularly in issues concerning human life, dignity, humanity and justice couldn't be any more lame than that. People died for these principles in the past.
And why are we too emotional about the teen shooting case? Because the existing system is failing miserably. Why the conscientious public is furious over the shooting and they consequently expressed their feelings in public domain? Because they can't afford to wait for another life to be lost, without justification as we speak.
Yes, it's easy to say "go to court", but can we afford to wait for another life to be lost while the authorities are adamant in opposing reform and while the case is ongoing in court? We can't afford to wait to lose another life and later resolve everything in court can we?
Why reform is deemed as if it's such a curse? Are we being executed for being too idealistic about reform that is viably possible? If other civilized countries can implement such reform, why can't we? Why do we only emulate them when it comes to material development and not when it comes to human development?
Emotional?
And if you ask me, I'd rather be emotional than heartless, if that's what it takes for me to realize the fact that I'm still human.
No comments:
Post a Comment