Writing is said to be the primary vehicle for the advancement of civilisation, allowing the experience of one generation to be preserved intact for the next. The writer is the agent of civilisation. An implied responsibility rides with the writer to get the facts right. The writer must correctly record what was done, what was the consequence of action taken, and what was learned. Marking mistakes made is a major manumit for the writer.

The enemy of the writer, and by extension the advance of civilisation, is the invocation of a principle against writing itself. Usually it is couched in an innocent way, a gentle reproach that a writer errs, deserves punishment, and as penance cannot write again.

By a logical fault, the personal proscription is then elevated from a penalty against a person to a proclamation pointing to all writers. It is further extended to the subject matter itself, so that not only is the present writer found objectionable, but also all writers are in future forbidden to write on any fragment of that fanatically favored fountain of fulfillment. No one agrees to that.

Who would presume authority to issue such an edict against writing? The arrogant authority is generally internally generated, supported by a tacit assumption of infallibility. If the authority is double-edged, as when political authority is allied with religious authority, it can operate to stifle and constipate creativity and communication.

History is replete with examples of authority that extinguishes competition in order to perpetuate itself. By decree, none may read and interpret the sacred book but the anointed agent, and the agent must obey the official line. All who disagree are dead. All must join. All must swear allegiance. Once joined, to leave is death, real or virtual.

Authority is stolen from the fame, and done in the name, of the founder or founding fathers, yet such misuse defiles the founder(s) and defames the beauty of the creation. Authority takes human form when a willing personality becomes a powerful python. Much of mankind wakes up one morning to find the coils of illegal executive authority wrapped about its neck. Writers make visible the valiant struggle of men to free themselves from the stranglehold.

The attack against writing acts to stop the advance of mankind's search for successful spiritual development and political freedom. As such, it is misplaced. Anyone who argues for a limitation of writing by disparaging writers, restricting their subjects, or harassing the publications which disseminate their views, is at once in an indefensible position; one which is guaranteed to lose simultaneously both respect and public approval.

In Malaysia much is written, and printed, that cannot stand close inspection, either as logic or literature. The politically connected businessman, taking time from robbing the public purse, shares the podium with the prime minister's man in calling for ethical behaviour from the younger generation.

There is a call for the hard work required to attain technical expertise, with a promised reward for excellence and initiative. There is no mention of the perquisites provided by party membership or family connection. All this purple prose is first poured on the prospects, then prominently printed in the politically owned newspapers as proof of personal purity, as though printing purifies prevarication.

For the writers there is public shame, acting as purchased editors of the pinpricked press who write and publish to protect the pretense of the pious panderers at the podium preaching. That is their right. None can be denied the opportunity to draw disdain and disrespect. There is an inherent right to do so.

A science writer, for example, may produce an amateurish attempt to popularise a subtle but complicated argument, one that cannot be understood or appreciated without extensive preparation as a prerequisite. The reading public, in awe of a writer's academic credentials, may accept without question a statement of fact that not only conflicts with common sense, but also cannot be supported by the evidence given. The failure of a writer to adhere to established standards does not disqualify that writer from writing about science generally, scientific observation, or the scientific method. This is true whether the article offers refreshing insight or nonsense. There is a right to write nonsense.

Everyone has a right to write about science, whether what is written is worth the wax of the candle or not. The same is true of political theory, economics or religion. The writer is entitled to a view, whether informed or drawn from the depths to meet a deadline, and that view has an inherent right of expression. The views expressed may not accurately reflect the facts of the matter, and there is a danger of harm that the ignorant may be misled into financial loss if they act on a columnist's economic views as though it were free financial advice. While it is true that the ignorant may be misled, still, the right to write is inviolate. Let the reader beware.

A writer may assume an air of authority or knowledge that is independent of academic attainment or natural talent, and if the flights of fancy are fictional or faulty, the gullible who depend on this source of information may suffer. Such is the way of the word. Allowance must be made. Skepticism is a form is wisdom acquired by following too closely the sweet sounds of the self-acclaimed seer. Such wisdom, gained at a price, is worth the bitter tuition, and the teacher is worth the fee.

Much that is written about Christianity and Judaism is written by Muslims, and much that is written about Islam and Christianity is written by Jews. Christians write much that is written about Islam and Judaism. Is there anyone who denies any of these writers the freedom to so write? It is almost certain that a Christian will resent whatever is written about Christianity by a Muslim or a Jew, and there will be protestations that what is written is neither accurate nor a fair representation.

The same is true of a Christian writer, who invariably offends the Muslim and the Jew when writing of their creeds. A Jewish writer who takes Islam or Christianity for a subject does so at some peril of being misunderstood or sharply rebuked. Yet there are courageous and motivated writers who regularly enter these turbulent and treacherous waters. No one seriously questions their right to write, though many may question their wiring for wisdom.

It is accepted that a non-member of a clan can write about the clan, although there is generally some objection. Why then cannot a member of the clan voice an opinion? Is there a fear of falseness? Is there a fear of truth? Fairness demands the freedom to air the views of all, and let the false fall before the true. It is the fear of confrontation that draws suspicion. Where there is error let that be pointed out, with supporting argument.

Where there is allegation of perversion and prevarication, let that be openly aired. A fresh breeze clears away the stench of putrefaction. In politics, a strong opposition is the best guarantee that the public business will be transacted honestly and fairly. Monopoly is the father of monsters. The writer points to the huge bribes paid for contracts, to the crass manipulation of the economy using public pension funds and the income from natural resources. The writer reveals the internecine political infighting, where billions are at stake between rival factions. There are billions of ringgit in private hands that rightly belong to the state. The country badly needs them back. Let the writer write of this.

A writer can point out that Capitalism calls for open competition, not party cronies with favored contracts, or politicians' children with a hundred directorships. Today the incumbents in a northern state ask for another chance. A writer can ask, another chance for what? More secrecy? More arrests? A vote for the opposition is a vote for honest auditing. A change of office holders offers a change for an overdue housecleaning. A new broom sweeps clean. Vote for a new broom. A writer free of restraint or intimidation can write that; we must encourage it.

The right to write extends to all subjects. Capitalism is fair game, along with communism. Whalers waltzing forth as researchers are the willing targets of the writer's harpoon, and politics is a field full of fodder. Economics is the sea upon which optimists and pessimists sail their salty stories of sinkings and salvage, storm and safe passage, often paid by a politician or poltroon at the helm.

The economic optimist shouts, "Ahoy! Clear sailing just two quarters ahead," while the pessimist points to the water spilling through the porous planks of poor planning, the pumps plugged with political pollution, and the paint peeling because profits were purloined before preventive protection was provided. The optimist writes to point a proposed path of profit for new passengers; the pessimist writes for the same audience, with added admonition that the captain and crew are busy putting the ship's coins into a whaleboat.

There are those who write of an Islamic State to say it exists, and others who write to say it does not, but could. Others write that it does not, and must not. Some feel a duty to write, to prevent diminution of the state through a desultory desuetude. Whether a writer is dogged by duty or desire, all have a right to write.

There are those who write that there is no absolute right to write. For them too there is a right to write. Writing is the mother of us all. It nurtures us. What is not allowed is to kill Mother.

back to list of articles