Critique on “Do We Want Peace Or Unity”

The article do we want peace of unity is written by a columnist, Wan Saiful Wan Jan who worked as Chairman at Istanbul Network for Liberty since Mac 2014 until now. He also worked as Director at CfBT Education Malaysia and as a Chairman at IDEAS Autism Centre for 3 years 8 months. The article is published on 12^th of Mac 2016 on The Star Online. The target audiences of this article is diversified and not confined to one scope of age, social status or specific group.

The writer’s intention is to persuade readers to consider the possibility that the attempt to create unity and integration, or the imposition of a “national” identity, is actually one of the causes of discord and disharmony. Then, the writer emphasize that he convince that the grouping and division will result in the peace among the citizens rather than detrimental to the country. Next, the writer insists that the authorities should intervene only when physical harm is caused. The writer also asserts that the Government’s role is not promotes integration but to maintain peace.

Fact and argument put forward by the writer is to raise awareness among Malaysian that people live in separate grouping will result in peace among citizens instead of detrimental to country. The writer has successfully presents an accurate and relevant data in a logical manner. Looking at the points present by the writer, he has provides multi-dimensional evidences, a few example of real life situation to support his stance. The example given was reliable in which every of it from his own view as a professional columnist.

The writer states that the Government’s role is not to promote integration but to maintain peace. Peace is not necessarily achieved through unity.  I think live in separate grouping is a good idea reveals by the writer as long as they do not harm others. Intervene of authorities to create unity will only brings a negative outcome, discord and disharmony to Malaysia. Peace is the important element that we should care about in order to produced a better environment for our country.

The tone and choice of words used by the author indicated his professionalism, with no biasness in term of language style. No notes of sarcasm are used throughout this article, and it has been delivered straightforward and honestly. There are no fear appeals or provoking words had been used throughout this article. Thus, the method of delivering points could be said neutral without playing of emotions on the readers.

Overall, looking at the points presented, the writer emphasize that he did not see live separately among people of different identities will brings detrimental to the country if it result in peace among the citizens. This article is not one-sided article as the writer already expressed a good and fair opinion for all parties. However, the writer had successfully delivered his points through the arguments laid out by him and making his stance clear.

Written by: Nur Shahazira Izzati Binti Shaharizan (A156968)

                           

Critique on “Do We Want Peace Or Unity”

            “Do We Want peace or Unity is an article published in The Star Online on 14^th April 2016. It is written by Wan Saiful Wan Jan, one of the regular columnist of The Star Online. Currently, he is the Chairman of Istanbul Network for Liberty, Director of CFBT Education Malaysia, Chairman of IDEA Autism Centre and Chief Executive of Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS). Therefore, his credibility as a writer cannot be doubt anymore. As a people with a lot of responsibilities, he tends to write based on his experiences and knowledge rather than just based on his emotion.

            Basically, the main point of this article is about the idea that peace is more important to be promoted instead of integration or unity. The writer feels that unity and integration will create peace and harmony is a problematic assumption behind many of our current policies. He also shares his thought that if liberalism is about choice, then it is detrimental to unity when people choose to live separately based on their own ethnic group. He adds that we should respect other people’s choice as long as it does not harm anyone.

            As for the introduction, the writer shares his experience in Tasik Chini, Pahang with other 10 Ideas National Unity Youth Fellows. This story helps to convince the audiences that his writing is based on his real experiences and is an important issue when they discuss about it in the programme with other people with great ideas and personalities. His writing is more effective when he makes the audiences think when he questions some issues in the article. Therefore, instead of being a passive reader, they turn out to become an active reader as they start thinking spontaneously about the issue. He also seems strict in defending his idea when he said that he is not convinced by the assumption that the groupings and divisions are detrimental to the country. In addition, he supports his idea by giving parable that helps his audience to understand better.

            I am fully agreed with his opinion. As he said, the general assumption that divisions and groupings may bring harm to our country is not really convincing. I am also agreed that we should respect people’s choice if we talk about liberalism because somehow, that is what liberalism is about. For me, we cannot force people to live in other people’s identity when they already have one. It is enough when people respect each other’s. Like Wan Raja, I do not think something is wrong when it do not bring harm to anything. Besides that, how can we let people live in peace when at the same time, we force them to do something that they are not willing to?. We should leave them alone as long as they do not affect our country’s peace because peace should be our ultimate goal rather than just unity or integration.

            Overall, this article is about peace as the one that we should be focussing about than just unity or integration. The writer’s credibility and confidence in his writing make this article more convincing. He also successfully delivered his points in a way that people understand and his stance is clear. Thus, I become agree with him instantaneously.

(551 words)

Written by : Nurul Syuhaida binti Md Rawi (A156279)

Thinking Liberally

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Do we want peace or unity?

BY WAN SAIFUL WAN JAN

 

Popular Now in Opinion

• Work together for better care
• A vision of peace that’s laudable
• Extra charge for using Touch&Go
• Changing how Malaysia (and the world) educates
• Tragic loss of a visionary civil servant

It is possible that the attempt to create unity and integration, or the imposition of a ‘national’ identity, is actually one of the causes of discord and disharmony.

LAST weekend my team and I were at Tasik Chini, Pahang with the 10 Ideas National Unity Youth Fellows who were selected for this year’s programme just a few weeks ago.

We arrived at Tasik Chini Resort on Friday afternoon.

On Saturday morning we visited Kampung Gumum, an Orang Asal village, to meet with the local community there in order to get a better glimpse of their lives and the challenges they face.

I am most grateful to Tok Batin Awang and the Rukun Tetangga Club for their hospitality. We had a good time mingling with the locals and they certainly made us feel at home.

The rest of the time was spent in workshops and discussions with the Youth Fellows. We covered quite a lot of topics, ranging from understanding the Federal Constitution to planning and running a media campaign.

I conducted a session on understanding classical liberal ideas. Interestingly, one of the Youth Fellows asked me a question that was also asked by last year’s group of Youth Fellows.

The question was, if liberalism is about choice, then what if people choose to live their lives separately from others and just among their own ethnic groups? If people liberally choose to live in separate groupings, wouldn’t that be detrimental to unity?

The issue of national identity is not an easy one to address, especially in the context of multicultural and multireligious Malaysia. That question is certainly a valid one. And it is also one that I myself am still thinking about. So let me now think aloud.

The general assumption that we make when formulating policies on national unity seems to be that the groupings and divisions are detrimental to the country. I am not convinced by this assumption.

Is it really wrong for people of different identities to live separately from each other? For example, if I am Malay, is it wrong if I go to Malay schools, attend a Malay university, live in a Malay village, work for a Malay firm, and have only Malay friends?

It would mean I live a life that is separate from non-Malay Malay­sians. But, if that is my choice and I do not harm anyone with that choice, what is wrong with it?

It may be detrimental to the traditional conception of unity, but I do not see how it is detrimental to the country if it results in peace among the citizens.

If we envision a liberal society for Malaysia, then we must consider the possibility of respecting the choices made by those who want to live lives parallel to others rather than with them.

This means, if birds of a feather choose to flock together, then so be it, as long as they do no harm to others. It may result in a Malaysia with multiple identities and groups of people living parallel lives. Yet it will be a peaceful coexistence and no one gets harmed. Surely that is a good outcome.

In fact, it would be better than having a Government that intervenes to create a national identity. Usually, it is the intervention that divides. The imposed intervention becomes the problem rather than solution.

We should really ask ourselves what is it that we actually want for Malaysia? Do we want unity? Do we want integration? Do we want harmony? Or peace?

The assumption behind many of our current policies seems to be that unity and integration will create peace and harmony. This is a problematic assumption. I am not sure if peace and harmony naturally come hand in hand with unity and integration.

Perhaps it is time we consider the possibility that the attempt to create unity and integration, or the imposition of a “national” identity, is actually one of the causes of discord and disharmony. The intervention is the problem, not segregation.

Wouldn’t it be more peaceful if people are simply allowed to live their lives the way they want to, including parallel to each other if they prefer, as long as they do not physically harm others?

Just look at the various interventions to create unity that we have seen up to now. For example, forcing people to speak a particular language, giving a legal definition of ethnicity, imposing an official understanding of religion, calling for the halting of diversity in the education system, and more. Have any of these really produced a better environment for our country today?

More important than that, why exactly do we see “unity” as the end game? Shouldn’t we put peace as the ultimate target instead?

If peace is our final destination, then perhaps unity is not really as important as we initially thought. Even if people choose to live segregated parallel lives, as long as they do no harm to each other, we can still get peace. Isn’t that is what matters the most?

In such a situation, the Govern­ment’s role is not to promote integration but to maintain peace. Authorities should intervene only when physical harm is caused. At all other times, we should be allowed to live peacefully in any way we want and the authorities should leave us alone.

Would that be too radical to envision for this country?

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

TAGS / KEYWORDS:Wan Saiful Wan Jan , columnist