Resolving social conflicts — Tay Tian Yan
JAN 28 — There seems to be a sort of contradictory relationship between the government and the people.
From two cases, we can actually see how two different approaches are used to deal with such a contradiction and they might also result in two different outcomes.
The first case is the mysterious death of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock.
The case has been politicised ever since his death.
It is not just simply an “open verdict” as ruled by the coroner’s court. Instead, various political meanings have been embedded in it, including the lack of trust between the government and the people, the confrontation between those in power and those in the anti-establishment, and the pressure of bureaucracy on the vulnerable groups.
The death of Beng Hock has detonated the accumulated contradictions and spread them to become a social demand.
It cannot be classified as merely an “open verdict” as the people want to know the truth, and also a thorough examination and evaluation of the government and the bureaucracy system.
Setting up a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) is perhaps a good channel to resolve the conflict.
The objective of the government to make such a decision was to find out the truth and in terms of political purposes, it was meant to respond to the demand of the society, avoiding the expansion of opinion differences with the people and increasing social friction.
Allowing a high-level independent commission to conduct an impartial investigation is indeed a responsible move and it can also rebuild the tarnished relationship between the government and civil society.
It is certainly a positive approach.
The second case is an overseas incident involving the alleged suicide of Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi.
Bouazizi, 26, was a university graduate. There is an extreme disparity between the rich and the poor in his country Tunisia, which is ruled by a corrupt government. Bouazizi, just like many other educated young people, could not find a suitable position and therefore he had to work as a street vendor to make a living.
However, local police officers confiscated his vegetables and fruits, claiming that he did not have a vendor’s permit. It was a further crackdown on civilians from the outrageous bureaucratic organisations.
Out of fury, Bouazizi set himself alight and died 18 days later.
His tragic aspirations ignited the discontentment of the poor people. They held street demonstrations to protest against the corruption of the autocratic government.
Tunisian police opened fired on the protestors and caused more than 20 people to die. A larger protest was triggered and eventually the strongman dictatorship was ousted.
A street vendor’s suicide could be the fuse of a national revolution as the government had ignored the problems in its social context and even tried to suppress its tragic aspiration.
The government was arrogant and refused to address the people’s aspirations. It did not want to resolve the contradictions with civil society and gradually the bilateral differences were intensified and a greater friction was resulted.
It is a vain and foolish approach.
Back to the Beng Hock case, of course, some people still have doubts about it and there are also various criticisms against the RCI. However, setting up the commission is indeed a common demand of all parties, including Beng Hock’s family.
Let’s just leave the two parties to find out the truth through an honest investigation in the court of justice and assume their deserved responsibilities.
It is also a way to resolve social conflicts. — mysinchew.com
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
Comments