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.

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.”

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

Learning from J. S. Mill: An appeal to moral courage

Democracy must be tossing and turning in its grave right now.

BN has already effectively buried our “democratic nation” following the 13th GE, but their tyranny is just beginning. Learning from the past, they have adopted the most effective means tried and tested ‘historically’, to ensure the people do not insist on reviving our dead democracy – by silencing dissidence.

What we observe now is a reenactment of the games BN play best – not unlike a child who insists on playing the only game he can win (and cheats to make sure he continues to emerge victorious). After all, they’ve been losing everything else – the popular votes, credibility in the eyes of the international community, and certainly, faith in their capabilities.

This is a return to the politics of old, made popular by petty old scoundrels: read, Mahathir. I was told by many to lie low and keep my writings down; after all, prominent figures (beginning with Adam Adli) have been arrested, and there are rumors that bloggers (and other innocent protesters) who were also invited to have a cup of coffee in the police station!

However, as was reiterated over and over again by those who were arrested – I will not back down. In fact, there is no valid reason to do so. Public security is not a legitimate reason to keep dissidents under a dictatorial rule – it is merely an excuse devised by those desperate to cling to power.

I want to encourage Malaysians to not be disheartened by – or worse, be fearful of this government. Yes, they can contain our bodies, but we cannot allow them to restrain our minds, our opinions. Following J. S. Mill’s crucial inferences of liberty, if we choose to shut up for now out of fear, and think about talking later ‘when it’s safer’, our opinions would merely “smoulder in the narrow circles of thoughtful and studious people among whom they originate, without every spreading any light – whether true or deceptive – on the general affairs of mankind”. My worried conservative friends and family would say that that’s precisely the point; we don’t need to get injured and locked up for our ideas (which are invincible), no? We can always gossip about it when the entire fiasco dies down.

That is in fact, a gross misunderstanding of liberty, and I quote Mill again: “The price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind”.

BN, for its coalition of less-than-intelligent/sensible people, demonstrates their final, somewhat more “sophisticated” understanding of politics with this move of trying to quash us all by scaring us into grudgingly accepting their rule out of fear.

But the rakyat will not be fooled again. We cannot afford to be. Shall we conform to an already dated dictatorial rule and jeopardize the New Politics we’re painstakingly sculpting out of our many resistances and movements? No!

The necessary requirement, as with all mature democracies, is deliberation and criticism. Drawing from Mill yet again, we can only be truly “right” when we have the confidence to respond to arguments that contradict and disprove our beliefs. This is why, Mill further argues, that opinion, regardless of how it deviates from the majority or the ruling class, is a liberty that people own.

Put another way, BN knows that their positions are weakening considerably. If they were confident enough to win over our minds, they wouldn’t resort to capturing our bodies.

BN is already nearing their end days. If we give it a final push, we can finally resurrect democracy in its purest form it by the next GE. If we’re fortunate enough, we might even be able to do something even before the 5 years are up.

This is why, fellow Malaysians, I’ll keep writing and criticizing even when I may be arrested for doing so. I humbly appeal to your moral sentiments and hope that you will do the same.

May the people’s voices never be drowned in fear, but continue to lift and inspire others, until we take back what is rightfully ours.

Seriously, we need jokes more than ever now that we’ve lost GE13 to corruption!

Seriously, we need jokes more than ever now that we’ve lost GE13 to corruption!

From 6.00pm to 2.00am on 5 May 2013, I was caught in the midst of the ‘Mother of all battles’ on Facebook, and one new Facebook update caught my attention – “Official: Rosmah is still Najib’s wife”. In an intense, stress-inducing, rapid-refresh Facebook environment, I burst out laughing.

These jokes were a much-needed relief, and indeed have helped me to press on (literally, on F5) to update myself and spread information. We are all mourning the death of democracy; however, I hope to urge all of you to reclaim one thing that’s been lost in the war against corruption – our humour.

So the question I anticipate (maybe not from you, but from the people around you) is, “How can you be joking at a time when our election has been allegedly hijacked by the 3Bs*: BN, Bangladeshis, and Black-magic Ballot Boxes?” Two main reasons come to mind, and I hope that these arguments will convince you to reclaim humour as part of our battle plan in the (political) ‘war’ to come.

Impact of laughter on your physical and psychological health
Laughter is the best medicine …. unless you have asthma. Well, not necessarily. It’s a valid enough point that with medical conditions, you probably wouldn’t want to risk substituting your medication with laughter as a form of therapy – but humour, it seems, does have some positive effects on asthma. A researcher claimed that asthma participants who viewed a humorous film had reduced responsiveness towards house dust-mites. Laughter is good for your health, and you need good physical health to fight a five-year war against the 3Bs, no?

In terms of psychological health, an entire field is devoted to having an optimistic outlook on situations, called positive psychology. It’s really just as simple as laughing, feeling happy, and having better psychological health as a result. Optimism keeps us going, and this translates to how well we fight our battles – and this of course, includes political battles.

Reclaiming our political weapons: Joking about political issues
While we can “sing the song of angry men” and take our frustrations to the street, my opinion is that there are also alternative forms of civic engagement that we can participate in every day. The most crucial one, of course, is social media. People familiar with the utility of social media will realise that it is not just a space for information sharing – it’s also a sphere for criticism (and entertainment, when it becomes ‘fun’ criticism). Jokes are a legit and fun way of sociopolitical criticism, which has been evolving with technology, and is likely to remain so in the far future.

I see jokes as a form of political resistance that provides us a strong justification that can help us get away from repercussions – “all in good humor”. It is also the ridiculous incredulousness of the situation exaggerated by our jokes that emphasise the sociopolitical issues and contexts that lie beneath it. What better way to highlight the dangers of our looming corrupt days than using a picture of a certain MP’s wife with the caption “The Shopping Spree Continues”?* In the gag, we can gain some insights, such as:

1) the fact that a certain politician’s wife has been spending a lot of money to shop;
2) that with the win of GE13, she would continue to spend, and perhaps in a more far-reaching manner;
3) that corruption will still continue to feed politicians, cronies (and their wives).

Disguised as funny and harmless entertainment, jokes are in fact sociopolitical criticisms injected with an often-lethal dose of sarcasm and/or irony. By sharing jokes, we are indirectly participating in a democracy that deliberates and discusses social issues that warrant our attention, particularly for its ridiculous nature.

The use, spread and if you can, creation of humorous messages are likely to make a difference in some ways. Of course, the effects of humour are not well documented in terms of their reach and influence on politics; however, the fact that humour promotes civic engagement, a sense of community and improved well-being as a whole reminds us that it is our means of resisting the evils of corruption in Malaysia.

*Details censored to protect the individuals in question (and more importantly, myself) from any harm.
**Credits to Politicalgags for allowing me to use their published gag.

 

An Actual Effort to Change Malaysian Politics (Positively)

I had never been much of a blogger/writer, until I’ve started discussing politics on a much deeper level due to the recent GE and also my postgraduate studies. This is my personal attempt at resisting hegemony in Malaysia – by means of criticism, jests and some intellectual consideration of Malaysian politics.

It is my humble wish that my writings will encourage the rakyat to be more interested in politics, and generate a more deliberative atmosphere among my circle of readers.

I’m still but a newbie in politics myself; so do forgive me for any errors made and if possible, please point them out. Criticism is the means for people to improve (and I’d like to think that I’m open minded enough to accept some criticism).

Thanks for reading this first post – and I look forward to have you guys around =)

P.S. A Shout-Out to those who gathered in PJ earlier tonight – Happy People’s Gathering!