Perception and relativism

ARCHIVES 2012

By MT Webmaster On Oct 25, 2012

Now, before we embark upon this part of our discussion, let us first be clear about the difference between needs and wants. The NEP is supposed to satisfy our needs. It is not about pandering to our wants. Needs are necessities. Wants is greed. We have to understand the difference or else we can never come to a consensus as to whether the NEP has succeeded or has failed.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Great Hudud Debate is still raging. And it will continue to burn right into the next general election and beyond mainly because we are standing on different platforms to debate this issue. In short, we are not on the same page and unless we get onto the same page it is impossible to come to any consensus.

The proponents of Hudud are using the religious/theological platform to forward their views. The opponents are using the legal/constitutional platform. How can any consensus ever be reached unless the proponents and opponents first come to an agreement as to whether they want to debate Hudud as a religious/theological issue or as a legal/constitutional issue?

This is the first bridge we need to cross and unless we can cross that first bridge there is no way we can hope to cross the second bridge — that is reach a consensus on Hudud itself.

Are the politicians from both sides of the political fence really that stupid? Or are they actually very clever and that is why they are able to confuse Malaysians by debating an issue using different ‘wavelengths’ knowing that the debate will continue indefinitely with no resolution possible?

It could be that the politicians are not stupid but are very clever. They are not really seeking a resolution. They just want this debate to go on forever as a convenient political weapon that can be resurrected every time a general election comes along. If they come to a consensus then the issue would be resolved and it can no longer be used as a political weapon. Hence better that they continue this debate as it is and keep using it again and again.

If we use the religious/theological platform to debate Hudud then the proponents of Hudud are right. If we use the legal/constitutional platform then the opponents of Hudud are right. In other words, both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

In other words, also, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong. Right and wrong are mere perceptions and relative to the comparison you are using. It all depends on what you are comparing it to. But when we use absolution we will always see right as wrong or wrong as right, a mere perception we have created in our minds.

I know at this point I may have ‘lost’ some of you, especially those who admit that they read only part of my articles and then start posting a comment as if they fully understand my message. Yes, there are a lot of those types of readers in Malaysia Today. They read just the heading or just a few paragraphs and then come to a conclusion as to what they think I am trying to say and then start posting comments.

We have to grasp the fundamentals of the concept I am talking about — perception and relativism — if we want to comprehend what I am saying. I am not sure how to demonstrate how this concept works to make you better understand it but allow me to try.

A few nights ago, I looked up to the sky and told my wife how beautiful the moon looked. It was so round and so bright. The moon also appeared so much bigger here in Manchester than back in Kuala Lumpur. A couple of weeks ago, if I had looked up to the sky, I would have told my wife, “There is no moon tonight.”

Actually, a couple of weeks ago, if I had looked up to the sky and told my wife, ‘There is no moon tonight,” I would have been wrong. There was a moon. The only thing is I could not see it. Hence my correct statement should have been, “The moon is there but we can’t see it.”

The moon is always there. It is never not there. Sometimes we can’t see it. Sometimes we see it as a half moon. And sometimes we see it as a full moon. But how we see the moon is subject to how the sun’s light is reflected onto the moon.

The ‘existence’ of the moon, therefore, is subject to the sun. Without the sun there would not be a moon the way we perceive it. The moon looks beautiful/romantic only because the sun makes it look beautiful/romantic. So the moon is very dependent upon the sun for its beauty. On its own the moon is ‘powerless’ to radiate its beauty.

Hence the moon cannot exist in isolation. The moon can only exist if the sun exists or else it will be ‘invisible’ and therefore ‘non-existent’. Without the sun no lovers can walk in the romantic moonlight. In fact, they are not even walking in the romantic moonlight. They are walking in the romantic sunlight reflected onto the moon and bounced back to earth.

My point in this moonlight example is: how do you see things? Do you see things as you want to see them or in relation to something else? Even the so-called moonlight is not what you think it is. But are you able to see it for what it is (meaning sunlight) or do you see it for what you think it is (meaning moonlight)?

Okay, next example.

You may have noticed over the last few days the Malay Chamber of Commerce, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, etc., were all talking about the economic situation of the Bumiputeras. I will not go into the details because I think you know what I am referring to. So maybe I can use that as my second example.

The consensus of the Malay businessmen and the Malay politicians is that the Bumiputeras have not quite succeeded as the government and the Malay Chamber of Commerce had hoped they would since the launch of the New Economic Policy (NEP) 42 years ago in 1970. This statement is both right and wrong. Again, as in the Hudud debate, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong.

When you talk about the economic success of the Bumiputeras what are you comparing it to? If you are comparing the current economic success of the Malays to what it used to be in the 1950s, or pre-Merdeka, then the Malays have certainly come a long way. They have improved in leaps and bounds. But if you are comparing the economic success of the Malays to that of the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese, then the Malays are definitely being left far behind.

Now, when the NEP was launched, what was the objective of that policy? The policy had dual objectives. One was to reduce the gap between the haves and the haves-not. The other was to reduce the differential between the various races. So, in that sense, it is not a ‘Malay’ policy.

But the NEP was not only about the creation of wealth. It also included many other issues or targets such as housing, financial security, employment, education, health, etc. In short, the NEP was not just about more money in the pockets but about a better quality of life, and not just for the Malays.

We need clothes on our back. We need a roof over our head. We need food on the table. We do not need a Porsche. We do not need a RM10 million mansion on a hill. We do not need USD150,000 Birkin handbags. Those are what we want, not what we need.

Okay, so have the Malays improved economically since 55 years ago? Are more Malays educated and receive better health care now compared to 55 years ago? If you are comparing the Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago then certainly the Malays have benefited from the NEP and have a better quality of life now than they did 55 years ago.

But then the Malay Chamber of Commerce and the Malay politicians are not comparing the Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago. If they did then Umno/Barisan Nasional has succeeded in improving the lot of the Malays. They are comparing the Malays of today to the non-Malays of today, in particular the Chinese. And if you use that comparison then the Malays are definitely still left far behind.

So which comparison is a fair comparison then? Should we compare Malays to Malays — Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago? Or should we compare Malays to non-Malays — Malays of today to the Chinese of today? This is the same argument as: do we talk about Hudud as a religious/theological issue or as a legal/constitutional issue?

Hence my first example regarding the moon. Do we look at the moon in isolation and gauge its beauty by the light, roundness and size? Or do we look at the moon in relation to the sun and understand that its beauty is subject to the reflection of the sun? And would lovers no longer find it romantic to walk in the moonlight once they understand that the moonlight is actually the sunlight and not the moonlight because the moon has no light?

We Malaysians love to quarrel and argue. And we pretend that all these quarrels and arguments are actually intelligent and intellectual debates. But we never get to resolve these conflicts because we are arguing about the opposite sides of the same coin but think we are both seeing the same side of the coin.

Hence debates related to race, religion, politics, development, the economy, etc., would go unresolved. And the politicians know this. It is not that they don’t. For example, Umno and Barisan Nasional will compare Malaysia of 55 years ago to Malaysia today to argue that the government has succeeded in bringing development and prosperity to Malaysians.

Okay, if you compare Malaysia 55 years ago to Malaysia today then I have no disagreement with that argument. Certainly Malaysia has improved in leaps and bounds. But what if I use another comparison? What if I compare Malaysia today to what Malaysia could have been had the country been better managed these last 55 years, or even just these last 30 years? Using that scenario would we see a highly successful Malaysia or a less successful Malaysia?

Note I have not used the phrase ‘a successful Malaysia’ to ‘a not successful (meaning failed) Malaysia’. Instead, I have used the phrase ‘a highly successful Malaysia’ to ‘a less successful Malaysia’. In the first comparison I would be comparing success to failure. In the second comparison I am saying that both are successes, only that one is more successful than the other.

Hence, even if I want to agree with the government that Malaysia is a success and not a failure, I can still argue about the degree of success — and ‘less successful’ compared to ‘more successful’ can be interpreted as failure.

The government is right in that Malaysia today is successful if compared to Malaysia 55 years ago. I am also right when I say that Malaysia today could have been better had it been better run so in that sense it is not successful.

The government is both right and wrong while I am also both right and wrong. What makes right become wrong and wrong become right all depends on what comparisons we are using and what yardstick we use to measure success and failure.

So, are the Malays successful or unsuccessful? Did the government do a good job or a bad job? Is Hudud a religious/theological issue or a legal/constitutional issue? Is the moonlight beautiful and romantic or is it merely the sunlight reflected on the moon that gives an appearance/impression it is beautiful and romantic?

Yes, I know, this article is already so cheong hei. Actually I can write another 20 pages if I want to but I know most of you have no time for proper discussions. You only want to read articles that whack people and call people all sort of nasty names.

So I will stop here and conclude this article by saying: don’t waste your time arguing about Hudud or the NEP or whatever. This argument has no ending unless we first agree what platform we are using in debating these issues. Unless the platform is resolved then the debate is a non-starter. How to resolve anything when one talks about the cruelty to the dog while the other talks about the colour of the dog collar?