Asking for donations is not easy, even if the reason behind it is justified. I have experienced it first hand when trying to help out.
Giving a donation is also not easy. To many of us, it is not a “natural thing” to do. It takes away our time and resources. Sometimes we prefer that others do it on our behalf.
What then can we deduce from Rafizi Ramli’s RM1.5 million “donation breeze” in just 10 days?
Have Malaysians become more generous?
Have Malaysians become angrier?
Are Malaysians becoming more concerned with our future?
Are Malaysians becoming more aware of the prevailing injustice in our midst?
Under normal circumstances, who would want to help or show sympathy to one who was found liable in a libel suit?
Rafizi’s case clearly shows Malaysians are living in interesting times and abnormal circumstances.
There are many inferences we can draw from this episode.
While the court of law will continue to perform as the arbiter of justice, the people now are harbouring their own notions of it – the justice of public opinion.
The spontaneous reaction to the donation appeal seems to suggest that many are very sympathetic to Rafizi’s cause. The court of public opinion is with Rafizi despite him being judged the “guilty” party by the court.
There was a sense of urgency to respond to Rafizi’s appeal. There was willingness to sacrifice.
I think there was also a feeling of guilt among many Malaysians. Many feel they have not done enough to help out. Many feel they have abandoned Rafizi and others who have sacrificed disproportionately to the cause.
Hence, we want to make up by being spontaneous and generous and at the same time defiant.
Malaysians want to inform all and sundry that there is wider justice and fair play out there, which are undeniable and inalienable. This sense of justice cannot be blinded by the parochial interests some of us have, neither can it be distracted by a treacherous few.
Truth and justice must prevail eventually.
TK Chua is an FMT reader
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.