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.

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.

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.