A Madman’s Confession

A Madman’s Confession

A Madman’s Confession

Douglas Teoh and Adelle Lim

I am a deluded person with a persecutory complex…… who thinks of our officials as – there is simply no delicate way to put this — cannibals. They devour their own kind, without mercy, without compassion, without shame. Greed controls their mind, gluttony dominates their appetites.

Doubtless, this is also true for the underlings who are content to eat from the crumbs of humanity that fall from the masters’ table in their hurried frenzy to consume all.

“Let there be abundance in our feasts! No matter if food runs out, there will always be more humans willing to sell their body to the hungry, and their souls to the corrupt. If not, may the force be with us!”

This conclusion, deranged though it may seem, was drawn after I read Lu Xun’s A Madman’s Diary. His ambiguous text initially makes it difficult for us to draw any sort of conclusion between the reality of the madman and the everybody else’s reality of normality – but really, the way things are at present, should we attempt to evoke the trope ‘truth is stranger than fiction’, we can take Lu Xun’s text to be literal and find that it is not so strange after all.

When only one politician obtains a scandal and reports truth, he may be lying in a blasé manner for the sake of power. Hence, we may be mad for believing his self-serving, manufactured lie.

When only one journalist goes undercover and appears to have discovered truth, he may have fabricated the data for the sake of sensationalism. Hence, we may be mad for believing his self-serving, manufactured news.

When only one academic conducts researches and finds truth, he may have chosen a biased methodology for the sake of promotion and recognition. Hence, we may be mad for believing his self-serving, manufactured findings.

But when the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, and the thousandth can see with their own eyes, hear with their own ears and deduce with their own minds the cannibalism that is going on, it must be insane of us not to speak with our own mouths!

The eponymous madman in Lu Xun’s story was one deranged, paranoid, psychotic soul against an entire society of sane cannibals. He was then converted back to ‘normal’ because of pressure and fear for his life.

“To live with cannibals, eat as the cannibals eat.”

But we are different.                                                                                                                                

If we are a gathering of fools trying to disrupt peace through protests, so be it!

If we are a bunch of deceptive, self-serving individuals who do not care about social harmony, so be it!

Even if we are deluded, so be it – since, we are also the majority.

———

I reiterate: Our officials are cannibals. But are we really mad for thinking so?

If yes, then we are a community of madmen who outnumber these cannibals.

Questioning Curiosity-driven Research

Questioning Curiosity-driven Research

In his article on The Malaysian Insider, Professor Krishnan rearticulated in contemporary form, the arguments of Flexner, who regards curiosity and “the freeing of the human spirit” as the crucial traits for researchers.

The entire premise hinges on one notion: that passionate, purely interest-driven research can lead to unexpected massively beneficial outcomes. As such, we need to encourage curiosity and creativity to the fullest!

Indeed, there were many citable research studies with purely unintended consequences; however, Professor Krishnan’s optimistic piece conveniently neglects a major issue, which I hope to elucidate through this short essay.

Creative research output as an end-in-itself

Perhaps the most troublesome idea which Krishnan talks about has to do with creative research output as an end-in-itself. This is similar to the idea advanced by aesthetes like Wilde, that art whose singular function – is to be art. Outside the realm of the arts, though, is it actually wise to advocate such a viewpoint?

In his debate against Foucault, Chomsky proposes that it is actually part of human nature to be creative. People have a genuine capacity, indeed, even genuine need to be creative. Perhaps we can even surmise here that to be creative is to be human.

But there’s something problematic about this notion which can be illustrated by using an example: Psychology graduates are taught the Stanford prison experiment as a permanent part of the course[1] . While one is drawn to the immense benefits of the research to the advancement of psychology, we are forced to reconsider how much creative licensce a researcher should be allowed to hold. Zimbardo’s purely curious expectations started the research, and his twisted fascination of its development permitted the abuse to continue for five days.

In short, the creative may become destructive if left unchecked. A good illustration would be the case of Victor Frankenstein, the scientist in the eponymous novel written by Mary Shelley. Victor’s zeal to learn the ‘secrets of heaven and earth’ led him to experiment and eventually create his monster. Horrified by what he felt he could not handle, his abandonment of his ‘project’ eventually led to the deaths of many.

Ethics and morality as a guidance framework

As a psychology graduate, ethical considerations in research are especially salient to me – we are taught to consider potential outcomes (pros versus cons) of doing a certain research, as we involve actual human beings. If we are fascinated about the effects of rape on victims, we cannot subject someone to a rape simply so we can study it.

Neither can we approach victims and ask how they felt about being raped – especially since traumatic wounds may reopen. Thus we’re constantly forced to weigh: is the benefit of knowing how rape affects human beings enough to justify hurting these people again?

Perhaps the counterargument here may be that of the hard sciences – most of what was cited by Flexner and Krishnan are those who made breakthroughs in physics, chemistry and biology. Surely the hard sciences do not need to follow such stringent ethical rules? I beg to differ – if it is true that unexpected findings in the hard sciences can have unintended good benefits, surely it must logically follow that the unexpected findings can also have unintended negative consequences.

In an attempt to transmute creativity into something more productive then, we need to necessarily impose some restrictions. In this case, Chomsky’s proposition makes sense. We need to be guided by some fundamental moral principles as a framework, for example, of Justice and Beneficence. Doing research for the sake of research may have destructive consequences, and thinking about the practical implications (thinking about how research can help humanity) is a crucial part of the process to ensure this does not happen.

Thus, researchers and students (whom I consider to be researchers-in-training) have to be trained with morality in mind. In any attempted research, the university is obliged to help them reconsider what type of results they hope to achieve, and what implications there might be. It would be better if they can also surmise what negative implications can arise and how best they can avoid misuse of their theories/findings in an exploitative manner.

In fact, this is by no means a difficult problem. In addition to the necessary parts of a research process, a researcher need only ask these two questions: “What benefits can I bring to society with this knowledge I discovered?” and “What are the negative effects that might arise from my release of this knowledge?”

Asking the two questions above is, I believe, a moral imperative for creative researchers. We always hear a cliché quote when we tell people to study hard, and that applies strongly here: “Knowledge is power”. But, to quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: “With great power comes great responsibility.” To isolate knowledge from responsibility, then, would be a great misuse of power.

Note: The Stanford prison experiment, where 24 bright university students (mentally sound and physically healthy with no criminal records) were selected to role-play a prison situation, either as a prisoner or a guard. The results were shocking: the prisoner and the guards completely internalised and settled into their roles, and role-play ceased being a “play”.

The guards took their responsibilities very seriously and prisoners were degraded – forced to undress and having “rights” removed upon disobedience (i.e. mattresses, the use of sanitation bucket, their own cell). Indeed, in a more twisted manner, these methods of punishing can also be said to be a “creative” exploration of the prison guards in pushing boundaries.

What feeds the thirst for revenge?

What feeds the thirst for revenge?

I KILL YOU!

I refer to two news articles (5 August) I find particularly alarming, namely “Why question me for my son’s action, asks sex blogger’s mom”, and “Student ostracised after mother’s exposé”.

The issue (as many have identified) is of racism, unfair treatment, and questionable practices of authority. However, not many have pointed out one crucial underlying aspect – that many Malaysians seem to feel the need for revenge for beliefs they deem belittled.

What makes people vengeful?

There are many psychological explanations for revenge. One study by social psychologist Ian McKee illustrates the link between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance and tendencies for vengeance. The vengeful, in short, are those who need power, authority and status in their lives.

I’m sure we can all think of plenty of examples; otherwise, a brief glance through the news easily provides many anecdotes that demonstrate the theory beautifully.

The problem is compounded when those who have tremendous influence also come from a relatively collectivistic culture, like Malaysia. According to Michele Gelfand and her colleagues, in such cultures, revenge is fuelled by shame, and is significantly more contagious than in individualistic perceptions. In other words, losing “face” (on behalf of the group) is reason enough for others to want to ensure that an individual gets what he or she deserves.

The “detergen jenama Pakatan/BN” incident not too long ago is testament to this theory – the person supporting the BN agenda was very unfortunately a Chinese and is seen as a disgrace to their own race. Suffice to say, threats of violence, rape, burning of houses ensued.

With that knowledge, we can now make sense of what’s driving the vengeful tendencies of a particular Malay NGO group we’re all so familiar with. In which case, the question we need to ask is an ethical question – “What good does vengeance do?”

What good does vengeance do?

Some psychologists argue that it is an evolutionary way to ensure that ‘normalcy’ is maintained – we can’t have sexually deviant couples publicly airing their lewd shenanigans or Muslim dog trainers ruining our Asian society built on moral values of tradition, can we?

Secondly, revenge seems like a fantastic cathartic method to relieve pent up emotions of rage – especially when you know you won’t get caught. It makes you feel better about personally contributing to the restoration of the group’s pride. Nothing like some rage-fuelled action to make one feel accomplished.

The funny thing is, the mechanism behind revenge is strange, if not paradoxical. It is when we manage to take revenge (engaging in cyber bullying, threatening families, etc.) that we never get proper closure, because we begin to see the issue and our actions as crucially personal.

And when we don’t take revenge, we instead manage to take the issue lightly enough that we move on with life. Gandhi was far ahead of his time when he realised that people are more powerful when they don’t think of retaliating against threats.

No action, talk only…. And please, no action against families, relatives and friends

In short, there really is no good reason to take revenge on another. No action, talk only (colloquially known as Nato) seems to be the best policy – although threats, whether anonymous through online sites or letters to the house aren’t simply “Talk only”, because of the potential harm to the threatened. As a counsellor friend of mine would say – only “attack” the issue, but never the person.

More disgusting is the need to ostracise the relatives of the person targeted. This is in no way justifiable: No one should be made to suffer the “sins” (a highly questionable term in itself) of others in the first place. The act itself carries shades of the ancient practice of executing the condemned person’s entire family tree alongside them. Is this mentality to be the legacy of collectivistic culture? Kill one, kill all?

I do not believe that it should be so. In the same way that no Malay, Chinese and Indian should be stereotyped and discriminated on the basis of their skin colour, no individual should be ostracised, especially because of a purely coincidental link to a certain person.

The cited studies are part of the report “Monitor on Psychology (June, 2009)”, and can be found here.

Sense and Sensitivity (TMI)

Sense and Sensitivity (TMI)

“We urge Malaysians of all various religions to be more sensitive about sensitivity to other religions.”

Let us all be frank enough to attempt a serious, open discussion: I think that there exists a thin line between being tolerant (or as Chua Soi Lek puts it, “sensitive”) and being submissive.

The position of religious tolerance is one that accepts and understands the needs of the other faiths. That includes being “sensitive” to the difficulties of other people – the punished resort manager being the best recent personification of such ideals.

Clearly, some politicians do not understand that the resort manager is already “sensitive about sensitivity to other religions”.

Why else would someone freely lend (albeit temporarily) their own place of worship to people who require it urgently? Isn’t this an example of sensitivity at its purest?

To make matters worse – Chua also adds: “… the Islamic leaders should be referred to and respected before everyone gives comments”. Nonsense!

 With all due respect to all honourable Muslims and their leaders, this sort of belief only serves to perpetuate the dominance of the LOUD touchy politico-religious groups. For in this way, their voices become far more important and powerful than everyone else’s.

The laypeople have to be particularly careful so as to  not offend these touchy vocal groups who want to assert their power and authority (over an atypical member who does not conform to their elitist ideals and “other” religious practises). There is, after all, a limit to their benevolence.

What a way of saying that some people are just made to submit to the dominance of another.

By saying that “MCA asks all quarters to respect Islam as the official religion and at the same time, all citizens have freedom of religion”, Chua is insinuating that “we are all (questionably) free to choose our religion, but please understand that Islam is at a superior position, and we need to make way for the one that is above even those who are equal”.

It strongly reminds me of a line in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the ruling powers decree that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

I don’t proclaim to know the truth of this world and I remain open to the possibility that either (or neither) one of us is right. This is precisely why we need to engage and discuss.

If the LOUD touchy politico-religious individuals (e.g. Irwan Fahmi) do feel that allowing the Buddhists to use the surau is indeed “something that is unacceptable”, please, feel free to illustrate why using theology and reason. If the people are convinced, you would be able to obtain the support that you need.

Perhaps it would be fine if we left it at the NATO stage.

Unfortunately, these LOUD undemocratic fellows detained the owner of the resort for four days. Instead of being rewarded, the generous and religiously righteous has had to suffer retribution.

An equal share of responsibility has to be taken by the silent ones, that is, the Buddhists. The Buddhist association has expressed regret over its members’ transgressions, but this is in no way adequate. It has to speak up and call for mercy and justice towards the Muslim who was kind towards others.

 The olive branch for multi-faith reconciliation (in Umno-BN terms) was already extended by the resort manager. Silence is akin to shoving the kind gesture back into his face.

This silence amidst loud oppression is cause enough for me to speak in an “ignorant” manner and out of line.

To not speak up against this injustice, my friends (Muslims and non-Muslims alike), is to insult the individual who has done his utmost to uphold a basic tenet – to love his neighbour, regardless of their perceived differences.

The ability to empathise with another is an admirable quality, and certainly a principle worth upholding, regardless of your religious background.

I pose just one question to my readers: Will you be sensitive to the needs of a person unjustly arrested, or to the “touchy-sensitivity” of other religious individuals? You decide which seems to be the more sensible answer. – August 17, 2013.

 

Reconciling religion and politics in Malaysia

Reconciling religion and politics in Malaysia

In the light of an upsurge of religious-related issues in the headlines, whether it was about the one-parent conversion law, the school canteen incident, the outright rejection of the archbishop Joseph Marino, I was struck by a fact, which I had taken for granted – that Malaysian politics is inseparable from religion.

The question that consequently arose from this was a troubling one: “How much should religion influence our government, and vice versa?” After some thought on the matter, my answer would have to be a pluralist one, where all parties regardless of their political leanings have to be included in the debate.

Secular vs religious forms of government

The very nature of this debate is driven by the perceived superiority of a person’s perspective.

On the one hand for the “secularist”, one draws on reason, objective arguments and evidence to show that the spiritual should not be even considered in governmental affairs.

On the other hand, the “religious” draws from historical, biblical and ethical knowledge to support a religious city-state.

What’s inherent in such a debate is a prejudicial position that effectively excludes the Other from any opinion of government and religiosity. In other words, both view the Other as extremists, in an almost ironic sense.

My response to that would be, there is no clear notion of right and wrong, especially not in politics. The people decide what they deem is right and wrong with their diverse cultural settings and rationalities.

To me, what is more important is to place such conflictual views in the public sphere. Democratic debate is a battle of opinions, and any possible positions in any discussed issue cannot be neglected. To admit otherwise is to adopt a paradoxical form of pluralist democracy.

So what needs to be done?

The secularists (one who advocates separation of religion from state e.g. no Shariah law) need to be mindful that being rational may also mean admitting a non-secularist government and to prepare to conduct dialogue and discussions.

I think that many liberalist scholars made the mistake of promoting discourse in a “moderate” fashion, where all arguments made by fundamentalists are dismissed as being extreme and harmful to civil discussion; thus they should act in “moderation.”

But some political thinkers like Joel Olson have pointed out that “extremism is neither a vice nor virtue but an approach to politics that emerges in times of profound social and political tension. Democratic theory has to speak to these times.” It is a question of context sensitivity.

For the religious, in its simplest philosophy, it is not “reason” (in the scientific sense of the term) that is particularly important. After all, a spiritual government may be effective in its own right – the constitution of Medina drafted out by Prophet Muhammad himself is such an illustration.

But Olson also makes clear that the moral aim of the fundamentalist and the secular is one and the same – not “to destroy” or “condemn”, but rather, “to convert”.

If the religious parties in Malaysia can approach the debate with such a mindset, I would say that certain sectors of civil society in the public opinion would be appreciative of and reflective on the essence of religion, perhaps in politics. It is when action is taken without convincing the rest that fundamentalism and radical politics turns into an ugly brawl between fanatics and the “sane”.

Arguing from a philosophical sense, what needs to be acknowledged by parties concerned is the very process of democracy itself. The notion of acceptance and tolerance is misdirected and oft-times overused: if we make ourselves see sense in someone else’s point of view, we do so at the risk of jeopardising our own beliefs, and possibly our sense of self.

If the people acting as a collective decide a certain issue in a democratic manner, we need to respect the decision – for a true democracy provides room for alternate and counter-discourse to take place in due course.

Hacktivism: A dilemma for the masses

“Haters gonna hate. Hackers gonna hack.”

This attitude is reflective of the hacktivist who defaced several “.my” sites to demand that Malaysians show Bangladeshis the respect they deserve.

In his message on the defaced sites, the hacker in question, Tiger-M@te, implied some serious issues which warrant a serious look at the issue of foreign-local relations in Malaysia: the fact that many Malaysians are prejudiced against Bangladeshi workers and do not consider them equals. Tiger-M@te’s defacing of the sites is also used as evidence that Malaysians are not, in fact, “more advanced” than Bangladeshis.

My article will not touch on the treatment of migrant workers, as this has been discussed in great depth by Linda Lumayag and Angeline Loh. Instead, I’d like to focus on another equally pressing issue – that of hacktivism itself.

The question I initially hoped to answer is this: Is hacktivism good or bad? What I find, however, is that the question of hacktivism is really an ethical dilemma, and that it isn’t possible to paste a black or white label on it.

The nature of hacktivism and its intended consequences

The word “hacktivism” is a portmanteau of the words hack and activism. Hacking, in this sense, is used by hackers as a tool (not dissimilar to demonstrations and protests) to achieve a political end. In short, hacktivists are people working to better society in some way – and they do so by raising awareness, boosting morale and influencing emotions in order to disrupt bureaucratic processes and inflict fear upon the misguided ruling class. These anonymous hacktivists are perfectly capable of pranking, damaging sites, and compromising confidential information; this is played very well to their advantage.

Of course, this is a representation of the people’s power on the net: when push comes to shove, the people will respond in kind and give the ruling class hell. It is an effort to reclaim power in a counter-movement.

But I find this too simplified a definition which does not truly represent the multifaceted and complex nature of hacktivism. The word activism evokes a sense of sympathy and the idea of making the world a better place, but it is in fact, somewhat misleading. The nature of hacktivism itself is equivalent to that of an equally contentious issue, that of civil disobedience.

Hacktivism as civil disobedience

In his classic essay, “Civil disobedience”, Thoreau states that it is the duty of the people to go against the rule of a morally corrupt government, even when that means violating the law. After all, “it is not too soon for honest man to rebel and revolutionise”. Thoreau himself was imprisoned as a result of his unwillingness to pay taxes. He justifies it with simple logic: if you oppose slavery, you cannot pay taxes (which are an indirect form of funds and support) to the government that condones it. People have a duty to go against unjust laws, even if it means getting incarcerated.

In equating hacktivism to civil disobedience, we can now better appreciate the problem of hacktivism. More often than not, hacktivism is illegal, and can have widespread consequences (often negative).

During his interview in 2011 about Anonymous’ Operation Malaysia, the then Minister of Information, Communication and Culture, Rais Yatim, managed to point out some accurate facts – that hacktivism is “strange” (perhaps chaotic may be a more accurate term), politically motivated, and of course, disruptive.

From the point of view of a conservative who wants everything in smooth, working order – hacktivism is terrorism. After all, the consequences can be severe. For example, the disruption of banking services may halt transactions and potentially cause large losses.

One familiar with Gandhi’s methods of resistance might initially be tempted to draw a parallel between his tactics and the hacktivists’. But the core difference lies in the activity.

Hacktivism is by no means passive, and usually is an “eye-for-an-eye” response. Hacktivists take an active stance in creating chaos and inflicting fear, which is the complete opposite of Gandhi’s and Shelley’s passive resistance methods of shaming, love and pride. This is especially notable in anarchist coalition Anonymous’s slogan: “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.”

Should we support hacktivists?

My own observations note that hacktivism is by nature neither right nor wrong. In considering the merits of hacktivism, we must look into each movement as unique, isolated cases (unless, of course a similar hacker team claims responsibility). What many observers tend to do is to lump all hacktivist movements under one umbrella, usually Anonymous. But the individuals responsible are likely to be different people who come from different backgrounds and with different backing philosophies.

That aside, regardless of the intended consequences and its moral position, hacktivism is still a crime. In the US, hacktivist Aaron Swartz was faced with upwards of 30 years of prison and US$1m in fines because he downloaded millions of academic journals from pay-to-view database JSTOR in order to make them open access. Even after he had returned all the downloaded files to JSTOR and the settlement was made between both parties, the US federal government continued to press charges – and Aaron Swartz eventually committed suicide.

One has to wonder, then, is the consequence really worth the legal trouble?

Hacktivists: Heroes, anti-heroes or villains?

In another instance, hacktivists hacked into Sarah Palin’s email to obtain and disclose any potentially illegal or scandalous content. Is this justifiable disobedience? Dissatisfaction towards Sarah Palin is really because of people’s negative impression towards her perceived lack of intelligence. Those who read Mill may identify this as none other than “the tyranny of the masses”, where the public (through the control of opinion and emotions) creates a form of hegemony where people who are not part of the in-group are punished socially or even physically.

Thus, we need to reconsider our ethical and philosophical positions. Where do we draw the line between being merely civilly disobedient and a terrorist? How far should we go in advocating radical views and acts?

As technology advances and our reliance on it increases, hacktivism’s effectiveness (in pushing a message across) and its accompanying disasters will become more apparent. Before that happens, we need to question our own sense of morality and judge each issue more rationally.

But a point to keep in mind is that, while the rational citizen is often considered the ideal citizen, as hacktivists may say, sometimes, an emotional answer can also work as a perfectly rational solution.

*This article was first published in Aliran:
http://aliran.com/14544.html

PSM and Socialism in Malaysia

There seems to be a hike in interest over PSM due to recent ambiguous news with regards to its application to join Pakatan. This gave rise to a whole host of other discussions and questions, as can be observed by interviews with scholars and also with Arul himself. I would like to answer two of these questions: 1) Is socialism still relevant in Malaysia and 2) Should PSM merge with Pakatan?

Is Socialism still relevant in Malaysia?

This question appears to be a simple closed-ended question which can be answered in a Yes/No fashion. However, I think that such a question actually hints at some deep-rooted Malaysian concerns i.e. the historical association between socialism and communism, as well as the recent “poor performance” of the PSM in GE13. In other words, the question is representative of a doubt to the legitimacy and indeed, need to have a socialist agenda in Malaysia. By introducing the basic idea of socialism, I hope to be able to dispel some of these doubts.

The failure of capitalism

Regardless of the different factions of socialisms, it is safe to say that they all agree on one basic, unifying premise: that capitalism, in actual fact, is an entity which allows for power and wealth to be unfairly dominated by a very small segment of people – this in turn causes a highly unequal societal structure and an ever widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

The Bosses of the Senate

In addressing this problem of economic inequality and income disparity, Occupy Wall Street has come up with a slogan that aptly explains the capitalist failures so adamantly repeated by socialists: “We are the 99%”. The slogan helps us put things into Malaysian context: power (in the loose sense of the term) is being held by the rich and politically-able BN leaders; in other words, corrupt officials.

The perceived issues with PSM

Perhaps the point of contention which would be raised by concerned citizens is the seemingly radical thoughts and methods employed by that of a socialist (after all, it gave rise to communism). In a largely moderate and centrist Malaysia, such radical ideologies might seem impractical and even harmful. Taken at face value, Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim’s answer to an interview may sound like a terrorist attempt: “we don’t just want to fine-tune the system; we want to overhaul the system”. To read it in such a way, of course, is to take it out of context. PSM is typical of democratic socialism – one that advances socialist agendas, minus the authoritarian characteristics which transforms it to communism.

With that, my answer to the question is: “Yes, it is still relevant”. As long as there remains an unequal distribution of income between classes, and a majority of the wealth is in the hands of the powerful and corrupt, then socialism remains an antithetical existence that opposes such powers.

Should Parti Sosialis Malaysia merge with Pakatan?

While Arul attributes the decrease in results to some PAS members being disagreeable to PSM contending under Pakatan and the three-cornered fight in some areas it were contending in, I think these are factors that skirt around the actual issue. The main issue is the perception of voters towards PSM; as of now, the public simply can’t view PSM as a viable force in the wider scheme of governance. After all, PSM remains a grass-roots based organization which works in a very bottom-up manner.

It seems then, that PSM is put in a very precarious position, of having to conform and appeal to the mainstream public or to be resolute as a “principled party” as Arul would put it. To gain mainstream appeal and a wider recognition, perhaps it may make more sense to merge with Pakatan; it’s always easier for people to pick between two coalitions in a contest. It becomes slightly more difficult when one has to consider multiple issues – in addition to the initial “should I kick or keep the government?”, the voter has to consider also “which party is better at kicking the government? And how else is everyone else going to vote? What if I vote for PSM and someone else votes for Keadilan and the votes gets split?” This is a classic case of the prisoners’ dilemma in real life; and more often than not, situations like this create more losers than winners. If avoiding such situations, having assured seats and mainstream appeal is what PSM is chasing after, then perhaps it may make more sense to join Pakatan.

On the other hand, we also need to consider the perceived methodological differences which may separate PSM from the rest of the opposition parties. Arul’s contention that PSM is ideologically similar to various factions of PKR and PAS is really an understatement – it only seems so on the surface. This is really only because of the largely centrist outcomes which are populist and also class-based.

When it really matters most, however – the center-dwellers are proponents of a pragmatic politicking, one that views outcome and consensus among the people as the most important (hence, the populist tag). The centrists can view an issue from a variety of standpoints ranging from centre left to centre right; a Marxist can only attribute issues to an economic imbalance between classes.  As a consequence, the method employed in countering such issues would also be largely different than that of Pakatan.

To summarize, the issues that tie the two questions above is really linked to a dwindling of socialist thought throughout the world. In a Malaysian context, my suggestion would probably be to have PSM as a separate party from Pakatan altogether. Socialist votes are dwindling in many places around the world, but in terms of politicking, PSM is an admirable party which places importance on the grassroots (which is uncommon among the mainstream parties who are currently advocating wider change as a whole).

It is also a symbol of a surviving socialist thought which can still have considerable impact. We wouldn’t want such impacts to be dulled by a moderate “governing body” over a critical leftist agenda. Mainstream appeal has to be secondary to the philosophies that bind a political party – if not, PSM members may as well join PKR or DAP.

In my view, PSM is the spokesperson for the 99% of the population subject to oppression, and it can’t be buying into any remotely capitalist agendas to advocate change. In the words of Oscar Wilde from The Soul of Man under Socialism: “It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.”

Accepting criticism with an open mind

 

Churchill on criticism

http://aliran.com/14234.html

I have little difficulty in confessing that I am a Pakatan supporter.

After weighing the pros and cons of either coalition, the answer that emerges seems rather intuitive in nature. The current BN is corrupt, greedy, and tyrannical – the worst kind of democratic government possible. Compare that to Pakatan – freedom fighters, typical wage-earning leaders, who also happen to be the electoral underdog.

In this battle, Pakatan occupies the moral high-ground, strengthening their discourse with populism and calls for social justice. Consequentially, any attack on Pakatan’s “character” by BN supporters seems ludicrous and invalid.

So what’s the issue here? Some might say that this is after all a classic good-versus-evil political narrative. Our sentiments (as with any good story) often lie with the struggling underdog who champions a good cause.

But there’s a catch. The trouble with this kind of dichotomous division of political parties is that we over-sympathise with and to some extent even victimise our party of choice.

Indeed, the sacrifices of some Pakatan leaders are awe-inspiring. To say that Tian Chua is less than a hero for lying in front of the FRU is “obviously” ethically wrong. I respect Pakatan leaders and what they have done for the country.

But their contributions do not absolve them of responsibility and legitimate criticism. This is based on my observations of comments in various news portals, with regards to criticism of Pakatan. A good example would be the proposition by the Penang Malay Congress to delay the salary increment of state representatives. This is an instance where perfectly sound criticism is met with unreasonable responses by some pro-Pakatan supporters, who view it as an attack to gain ‘infamy points’.

Why should a populist coalition be immune to populist considerations in the first place? In essence, some Pakatan supporters may be subscribing to heuristics in order to make simplified judgments – BN is always wrong, and Pakatan, standing on the other side of the divide, is always right.

It results in the downplaying of criticism of the coalition we support. This is a negative outcome; after all, we would no longer be able to judge actions and policies in a constructive manner.

My suggestion is simple. The people have to be open about dialogue directed towards their chosen representatives. We should give credit where it is well deserved, and criticism where necessary. It is only with such a mindset that people can truly begin to regain ownership of their country and help to chart its future instead of relying on “heroes” (who are not immune to mistakes), in order to oppose the villains (who may not always be completely wrong).

Malaysia needs heroes for a revolution – but its development has to be driven by a synergy comprising a good leader and a sound public.

The Illusion of Hierarchy and Power-over-Others

The perception of hierarchy is created only by like-minded individuals who serve the capitalist dream. This is, ultimately an illusion – for no one, in actual fact, is more powerful than another.

Pyramid of Capitalist System

Status, power and money are merely “labels” – they don’t mean anything but are so widely used that they become pervasive in our lives. I see this as the problem with the entrepreneurial (capitalist) spirit; it is a celebration of the selfish desire to win over others, entice and eventually normalize people from “below” to play the same game they do. Just like a direct selling game, once you’re in it – you ARE IT.

If you chose to be powerful in the capitalist sense, it is easy to do so. You merely need to follow a bureaucratic, capitalist framework and immerse yourself in the system. With experience, you will eventually have power over other people, bearing in mind that you will still be overshadowed by some other powerful figures. Why I say this is an illusion is precisely because of this – in an effort to be more dominant than others, one forgets that their ultimate adversary is themselves. This is why, my friends, I am against a capitalist world.

The world of capitalism is made up of systems which destroy whatever remains of our unique selves. The race to the top of the hierarchy is one where we try to become an embodiment of an illusory ideal commonly contributed to by everyone else.

But doesn’t this become a fulfilment of other people’s expectations of power?

Power, in this case is nothing but a social construction. It can never exist if there are none willing to be subservient to another. What we have to do is understand that we have self-worth, and that there are always acts of resistance that we can exemplify in any situation where we’re oppressed. If there are none willing to be slaves, there can be no lords.

Accidentally catch wrong ghost…. but whose fault is it, really?

Chua Lai Fatt’s IC (Taken from TheStar)

A lot of fuss has been raised regarding the mistaken “arrest” of Chua Lai Fatt, a Malaysian Indian who was adopted into a Chinese family. The misunderstanding arising from the mismatch between his skin colour and Chinese name was used by the Electoral Commission as a means to accuse a Dr Ong Kian Ming and bring to light his “irresponsibility”. I admit, I have little knowledge of the legal aspects of this issue, but through this short essay, I would like to argue that this allegation (that Ong is wrong) – is completely unfounded, and that the true culprit is one we’re all familiar with.

I would like to begin by addressing one key aspect that the EC has in fact neglected, when hurling it’s accusations at Ong; that is, the role of civil societies in GE13. Borrowing from John Keane, we can define civil society as “…non-governmental institutions that tend to be nonviolent, self-organizing, self-reflexive, and permanently in tension, both with each other and with the governmental institutions that ’frame’, constrict and enable their activities”. To summarize, Keane was pointing to two major characteristics of a civil society: the voluntary nature of participation, as well as its limited capabilities.

With that understanding, let’s try to revisit GE13. There was already a ruckus over immigrants being transported days before GE13 itself (video footages in KLIA, as well as snapshots of these migrant workers are well documented evidence). In response to a possible hijacking of the elections (which was highly possible by then), civil societies such as ABU as well as a “loose coalition” of social media users (also voters) began sharing information regarding countermeasures to engage and stop these political migrants.

Some of these include stopping them in their tracks, asking them in Bahasa Malaysia their place of birth, education and more importantly, requesting them to recite the Rukun Negara and sing Negaraku. Should a “detained” person blunder in any way, it was taken as a sign that he may indeed be a political migrant and was told to leave the polling center immediately.

Indeed, the election commission has attempted to use the scenario described to their advantage by making this an issue of skin color. Basically, the accusation is that we are “discriminating” people based on what colour they are – just because they are a certain colour does not necessarily mean that belong to only a particular race. Furthermore, their argument goes on to say that in acting this way, the masses (led by Ong) has effectively denied one person’s rights to vote and decide for him/herself the future of this country. On this account, the civil society seems guilty of both charges.

What a convincing argument posed by the EC! However, before buying into it, we need to remember again the fact that civil societies are voluntary movements which are limited in in both resources and scope of activity, due to its non-violent and non-formal natures. Despite that, they are still a group of citizens united in struggling for a cause, regardless of the structural constraints placed on them.

Having little to no formal political means of stopping phantom voters, civil society has by itself devised methods to identify and stop the hijacking of Malaysia’s elections. Sure these are not foolproof, but this remains the one thing Malaysians can afford to do without resorting to fear mongering and violence. Malaysians may have wronged Chua Lai Fatt, but we now need to ask a more fundamental question – why has this occurred in the first place?

The answer is simple: because the EC is corrupt to its core, and is merely a tool ready to bow to manipulation of the ruling coalition. Had the EC been trusted to carry out fair elections, there would have been no need for the citizens to take to such measures. After all, a social movement works in a manner similar to Newtonian physics: always in reaction to something. In this case, it is unfair elections.

To illustrate that, I’ll pose a question quoted directly from ABU’s pamphlet:

“If you and your friends do not protect your polling center, then who will?”

The answer to that – No one.

The fact still remains that Chua Lai Fatt was wronged, but who is to be blamed? I leave that thought to you.

*The edited and published version of this article can be found at http://aliran.com/14165.html