Fair for Whom Mr. Riri Riza?

OK, Background: due to her R-rated stage acts, Dewi persik -a 22 year old dangdut singer- (google up dangdut) is banned from performing in 4 cities (and counting) in Indonesia. Why banned? Local government believe that her stage acts are inappropriate in the public places of their city.

A few months ago, as I was just switching channels and getting ready to close my eyes and snore, I came across Dewi Persik interviewed. First and foremost, I laughed my ass off. It’s her way of answering questions dude, totally mind boggling, (the interviewer couldn’t help but raised her eyebrows and repressed a smile, which then manifested into a smirk). Without hesitation, I say it was worse than watching miss teen USA. But actually, this writing is not about me-laughing-at-dewi-persik’s-30 minutes-TV-interview. (I respectfully apologize Ms. Persik, if you happen to read this) It’s about the debate that followed…

The discussion following the interview included a moderator, The minister of youth and sport and Riri Riza (a movie director). Mr.Riza protested that banning, censorship, etc, impede creativity, violate Dewi Persik’s freedom of expression, and with an utmost certainty argued, that the banning of Dewi Persik in several cities is: not fair. He put forward his reason, “The public is smart enough to choose of what is appropriate and what is not. There must be other ways, like screening the audience” he said. To that, the minister argued, “Choose?” he said, “The kids watching are 11-14 year olds. Mothers are worried, wives are worried. It’s a freakin public area anyway, how were we suppose to prevent certain people from watching”. And then Mr. Riza argued back “The government still think that their people is stupid”. Minister replied “Not stupid, but look at the demographics, see the education level of the majority of Indonesian”. And the debate went on. And on…meeting no common ground.

Here’s what I have to ask (or else have an eternal headache) Not fair for whom Mr.Riza? Dewi Persik? Who’s creativity is restricted and whose job (and thus income) is reduced? Imagine an opposite scenario: say the ban is lifted, but then mothers and housewives carry out a protest , carrying signs that say “Beat it Persik!” or “Hey Mister Government, quit doing nothing and protect Out Kids Already!”, will you say then “The ban-lift is not fair for those mothers and wives”. What if, everytime Dewi Persik’s in town mothers worry that their kids might sneak out and watch her. What if, everytime Dewi Persik’s in Town, wives get anxious by the thought of their husband sneaking out too. Will you not say that those mothers’ right to freedom from fear and worry is violated?.

Of course Mr.Riza, we love democracy. Everybody wants to be free, happy, rich. Dewi persik wants to be accepted, as herself, and mothers want to be free from worries. Everybody would like to see a government policy that satisfies not only the majority. But hey, here’s the problem: I hear that in this life there’s hardly a condition that satisfies EVERYBODY. If you were an authority figure, of course you’d want to make policies that satisfies everybody too. May it be out of your benevolence, your conscience, or your passion to get re-elected, you’d want to make policies that satisfies minority, the poor, the middle class, the artists, business people, investors, the whole village. But again, that is sadly an utopia. No we’re not doomed, we have went along greatly in this life with alternatives, 2^nd best and 3^rd best solutions.

The alternative to “satisfying everyone” is you make policies that satisfies as much people as possible. Here’s what you’ll do: you’ll unconsciously make this simple calculations:

1. Dewi Persik’s value of satisfaction (could be fame or fortune) X 1

2. or Mr.Riza and other artists’ value of satisfaction X (say) 15

3. or Mothers’ value of feeling content X (say) 250

And then your great logic machine of a brain will add things up and compare. Tell me, who then will you prioritize.