There is a growing hesitation to liberalism in Asian countries. That makes the philosophy have a harder time rooting its ground in the region. One of the main reasons why this political ideology is being disseminated widely with so much difficulty in instilling longer-lasting impressions is because liberalism is English in nature.
Not to say that liberalism belongs to Westerners, but when liberal ideas are being spoken or written, they are more likely than not to be done in the English language. Modern progressive media is almost always American. It is in the form of a “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” or an incredibly well done Instagram page of politics infographics, @soyouwanttotalkabout. This poses a barrier to expressly speaking on liberalism in a country where English is rarely spoken or not its national language.
There are two challenges when a person tries to discuss liberalism in an Asian country: 1) the perspectives attached to the term of how “un-local” and foreign it is which stipulates the thought that the idea may be invasive or even intruding into the way we do things; and 2) the long-running sentiment that a country albeit being governed in the same way for more than half a century since independence from colonial rule is better off than having its rules and systems change (in other words, stability means more than anything in Asia).
If anything, these two challenges are nothing but reasonable occurring thoughts of a typical Asian individual. The result is a post-colonial subconscious effect where we are built to crave stability over potential radical change even if logic dictates the latter to be overwhelmingly beneficial. On top of our conservative traditions and habits, stability is an important socio-economic need in the Asian community. Liberalism in its entirety can be very distressing towards any one individual who wishes for just some steady security in their lives.
When we look at people in the masses, most Asian countries are struggling to understand what liberalism means to them on a personal level. But quite a few of them are already expressing liberal ideas and concepts.
For a lot of us, we do not have a word to tell us that these ideas are liberal, left-wing or progressive. I say all these words but they are all in English. Overseas and private education is expensive. Good command of the English language is most often bred from young. Religion tells us progressive thoughts are repulsive to living a life without sin. Liberalism not only rolls off the native speaker’s tongue weirdly, but it is also a formidable idea for the legacy of colonial rule behind it.
Freedom of Speech
However, it does not mean people are strangers to liberal ideas and politics. In fact, most advocates for institutional reforms and grassroots movements are founded on left-wing ideologies. For example, freedom of speech which is one of the most basic principles of liberalism is something that many people champion without aforethought.
When asked whether the people should have full freedom of speech or having their speech restrained by their government, most people would choose freedom over restraint. But when asked on whether hate speech should be restrained, there is a starker difference in response: a hesitation to say that hate speech should be allowed between deciding the answer to restrict or not.
In Malaysia, a recent national survey conducted among thousands of its citizens revealed that citizens agree both that “Malaysia is ready for freedom of speech and a free media” and simultaneously “the government should keep the sedition act (an archaic law which punishes citizens for openly criticizing some of the country’s conceptual pillars to the formation of independence”.
Surprising! For a few of us, the two questions above felt as if they are essentially the same question in different disguises. In reality, freedom of speech is an all or nothing concept which is why people who are more liberally inclined are confident in saying hate speech should not be restricted for the thought of absolutely repressing any form of speech that can be in any slightest sense inflammatory to another is contradictory to the person who is said to believe in the freedom of speech regardless of whether the speech is good or harmful. There is no room for such inconsistency in ideals.
Believers of freedom of speech waver little when given the possibility of controlling other forms of speech that may be defamatory or discriminatory. However, it is not on the sole belief that liberty in saying whatever you want outweighs the negatives of controlling speech. S/he believes that hearing dissent is healthy. S/he believes for them to exist, their shadow must too. It is about tolerance. It is about diversity in thought. It is not about imposing views. It is about accepting that there is and will be difference. S/he believes everyone, including themselves are subject to the test of right and wrong.
Because of that, a healthy liberal ideology is hesitant at its core. For one, it knows that without any acknowledgement of opposing views, it is only a bundle of prejudices until the individual has understood and experienced conservatism. That hesitance is good and symbolic that there is proof of room for differences.
Whatever happens after hate speech is spoken is no longer a hate speech issue, but may be a criminal or society standards issue. Hate speech is terrible, but it is a vehicle for other misconducts and criminal acts. Let us punish and condemn hate speech not for the medium it was used, but for what it is instead. We condemn bullying for bullying, we do not specifically despise it because the bully practiced hate speech against the victim, right?
Merit
The Chinese in general are unkindly oblivious to the peculiarities of social welfare because a lot of them live relatively comfortable lives from others. Or at the very least, they live comfortably enough to believe that merit will get them anywhere in life. Whether that would be a track of great academic performance, a perfect-looking CV or accomplishments succeeded by accomplishments… The Chinese household is brought up with a dedicated focus on discipline and the viewpoint that ‘hard work makes the dream work’. To them, merit means more than anything.
To judge every qualification solely on merit is disheartening because the Chinese are generally not self-aware enough to realize they are but among the few people who can solely rely on the power of merit to earn them a decent life. For others, merit becomes a competition they have very little chance in winning against. The odds are and seem to always will be against them.
There was this one time I was catching up with a friend, both of us were very academically obsessed with our exam scores back in our school days and we were talking about how much we strived to obtain the most prestigious scholarship provided by the government to fund our tertiary studies. The discussion led on to how the government was using the quota system to primarily benefit its national race students (they also happen to be one of the most poverty-stricken groups in the country).
The conversation looked something like this:
A: “I wish they would award scholarships based on how good we performed.”
J: “You mean, you want them to award based on merit?”
A: “Exactly. Do you know how many great people would have gotten the scholarship if it wasn’t for that darn quota system? Even you and I would stand a better chance at getting it!”
J: “You’re missing the point, man.”
A: “What point?”
J: “If everything was based on merit, all the scholarship recipients would look like us, speak like us and be celebrating Chinese New Year along with us.”
A: “You’re saying all the people awarded would be Chinese?”
J: “No, I’m saying 90% of the people would be Chinese if that was done.”
A: “And what’s wrong with that? They will be going through the same selection process and if they made it out of there with a scholarship, that would mean they deserve it!”
J: “Yes, they would deserve it. But other people need it more, other people who don’t look and live like us. Other people whose family did not have the chance to advance to university and if they were awarded, they would be the first of their family’s generation to break the cycle. Other people whose test scores proved their worth but come from impoverished communities. Other people who’ve never tasted a McFlurry Oreo before because their parents literally cannot afford it but in the future, will afford it for them and their children if they’re given this exact opportunity.”
If we were to use merit in providing assistance to people, we will always be only helping a certain kind of people, a specific kind of community. Merit is a cornerstone of the Chinese community to proving excellence and attainment. However, the community has over the years made merit to be incredibly selfish and arrogant of other great qualities and virtues.
Religion
People tend to think liberal Asians are secular thinking and betraying their traditions they were raised in. The truth is that most mature liberals are brought up in a religious upbringing. Religion helps them differently than a conservative in terms of spirituality. I cannot speak for every religion, but growing up in church has developed my self-identity in terms of my empathy for forgiveness, compassion in doing and not doing as well as respect for individuality. Christianity has taught virtues to me which people cannot. Christianity taught me the power of the community albeit how bigoted they may be. Christianity taught me to make my own happiness.
To the liberal thinking person who grew up with people from religious institutions telling them to “do this and don’t do that”, their center of gravity moves away from the region of religion to a region where religion has no power. But s/he does not discard, forget or burn bridges. Instead, s/he looks for a law common to both regions, binding on people from both. S/he uses motives admitted by unbelief. To them, religion which is conventionally treated as something that cannot be questioned, has to plead its cause just as much as the disbeliever has to, in some cases maybe even more as they make way to shift balance.
Liberalism does not mean one forgets their roots or forsake their faith. Liberalism is the ‘progress’ in ‘progress-ive’. It is change. For a person of religion, it will be the culmination of their personal relationship with God. For most, the liberal individual lets God work instead of examining His every action with fixed barriers. Instead of questioning God, God becomes unquestionable. It takes a certain depth and a lot of time for the believer to develop their relationship with God to be able to surrender their humane rebellious inquisitiveness. Nonetheless, the light within is still God’s voice over man’s.
Puzzle
The soul is the end. All else is the means. ~Lord Acton
Most of all, s/he believes that whatever happens cannot be an ends but only as a means. Because liberty itself is the end which liberals are seeking, everything else can only be a piece to the bigger puzzle picture at hand. It explains why advocates rarely ever advocate for one thing in their entire life and when they look like they are, they actually are calling for a multitude of missions which go hand-in-hand with each other.
In Malaysia, freedom of speech supporters will ask for the sedition act to be done away with. However, people who have embraced liberalism as an ideology in their lives will say:
“Yes the archaic law needs to be rid of but that’s not nearly enough. Journalism needs to have proper ethics enforced and regulated in media reporting, parents need to teach children how to handle themselves on the internet, there needs to be some leniency in censoring, there’s need to be more community space and stimulation for artistic expression…”
And so on. Then and only then, can speech and expression be free and enjoyable.
Progressive ideas are the most successful when they admit they alone cannot stand by themselves. A champion of decentralization of government will be a champion of many things as more power given to lower levels of government, such as town and city councils will mean more of the central power to the community, the people themselves. That means more power to do more things, things that the community want and need which will be a myriad of wishes and factors.
In Asian countries, expressive progressives are often the most tolerant and celebrates the most in diversity. However, they are still faced with the dilemma of compromising the most among others while coexisting with so many different people who think their words are too ahead of the current time. As much as the liberal believes in individuality and the idea that everyone is a different person, his individuality is frown upon and sensationalized the most.
In a society where loyalty, authority, tradition and customs are respected and decisive in how things are run, the Asian liberal cannot openly show up to the tea party. Because the first quality of a liberal to claim the same thing for others and for oneself, s/he bears the burden of being constantly challenged for his “unreligious” and “idealistic” principle by their people while still continuous shouting on behalf of them for the government to stop punishing minority and vulnerable groups.
The way forward is to give meaning to liberalism to the Asian community. That in itself is a challenge as the meaning to what liberalism means will change from time to time and needs to be adapted to the local context with rigorous care. Unlike its counterpart, conservatism which could mean something as simple as being content with how things are currently operating, as long as liberalism is in English, it will always be perceived as the intimidating, unreasonably alliterative political term in the Asia region.
