A New Beginning
posted by din merican—January 29, 2009
by Malik Imtiaz Sarvar
Political analysis is useful for providing the insights that flow from the more rounded appreciation of context such analysis allows for. Without context the significance of specific action will elude us. For instance, a statement by a politician could mean one thing in isolation but mean something completely different when considered against a backdrop of political intrigue. Anwar Ibrahim saying that he has six defectors from the Barisan Nasional is in itself suggestive of nothing more than an erosion of political support for the BN. However, when viewed against all else that Anwar Ibrahim has been involved in these past six months, the statement potentially takes on added resonance.
Post March-8, there has been a sharp increase of political analysis on the Malaysian socio-political scene. The alternative media and blogs provide a veritable feast of information on a daily basis on a diverse range of subjects in the field. This has been a good thing for in setting out context, Malaysians have been more able to appreciate the many other ways of looking at things. They have also been able to see that free expression is something that does not harm our society as much as it does the politicians who hide their deficiencies behind such fears. Freer access to a range of diverse opinion has allowed for a maturing of the viewpoint of the Malaysian on the street.
There is however a downside, the root of which lies in the self-perception of the analyst that he and what he says is important. In their enthusiasm, analysts sometimes tend to forget that their analysis is not so much about their being able to do so but rather the truth of a given matter.
In an interview in 1993, the late Edward Said reflected that his meditations on politics and life had “always been a matter of exploration, of self-criticism and constant change in trying to surprise myself as well as my readers.” His reflection was prompted by a sense that public intellectuals tended to allow themselves to become “prisoners of their own language” and to be more concerned with “producing more work in fidelity to what they’d done before” at the expense of a truer perspective.
A noteworthy observation, it cautions against the very thing that seems to have occurred as the state of play between the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat intensifies. Analysis in these heightened times could be likened in many ways to commentary on a football league cup with many commentators having picked their side. Governance is, however, not about picking a side and sadly, more has been obscured than revealed by the parade of viewpoints and assessments.
In the run-up to the Kuala Trengganu by-election and its aftermath, we have been told what it all means for the BN, Abdullah Badawi, Najib Razak, the Pakatan Rakyat and Anwar Ibrahim. There are permutations upon permutations. We are asked to consider whether there was vote rigging, whether it is Abdullah Badawi that the people rejected or Najib or even the BN, whether it was the Chinese vote that swung the result or whether, as the MCA claims, the Chinese remained loyal to the MCA. We are told so many things in one form or the other, that in the end we are told very little.
For all this, nothing has been made clear and the question uppermost in mind is whether it really matters at all anymore who does what and how.
Whatever the spin or counter-spin, it is glaringly apparent that things are not as they should be in this country. Just as it is obvious that things should have been far better and could have been. It would not be incorrect to say that there are Malaysians who feel that they have come to be held hostage by an administration that is more concerned with protecting its own interests than those of the nation.
The state of flux points to many Malaysians having woken up to the fact. They want change in the most fundamental of ways: independence from a mindset that has left them colonized by an elite for its own benefit.
They are not fastidious as to who it is that becomes the Prime Minister of this country or who it is that forms the government. All they want is a government made up of men and women who believe in the ideals that the founders of this nation thought were a solid basis for a glorious future for all Malaysians. They want those men and women to believe in these ideals enough to get on with what needs to be done as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They want the respect that each and every one of them is entitled to as a citizen.
In one of the several speeches that President Barack Obama gave on his historic journey into Washington for his inauguration, he said: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives.”
It is the same for us. We are in search of a new Malaysia. To find it, we must embrace the possibilities. To do that, our minds and hearts need to be liberated.
It is time for a new beginning.
(Malay Mail: January, 20, 2009)
There is no such thing as an accurate piece and for all that matter, a political analysis can only be as accurate as the analyst’s objectivity,impartiality,command of language to articulate his or her thoughts into words and least but not least, his or her mastery of the particular subject of analysis.
Otherwise, the outcome will be nothing but mere spins of the yarn or worse, reflections of the fanatical rantings of a football junkie !
However,regardless of whether an analysis is that of a “carma” or that of an ordinary concerned citizen like most of us, the common criteria ,where it counts, is the honesty of the analysis,critique,opinion ,etc.
At the end of the day, if you give a particular dish,poem,writing,etc, to ten different persons,you will arrive with ten different conclusions,opinions,etc because each opinion is subjected to relativity !
The objective of analysis is not the form of the analysis itself but the possibility for any form of analysis to take place at all, – freedom of expression !!!
Having said that,it cannot be over emphasized, the importance of reading the fine print or the relevance of being able to read in between the lines when the reader is faced with a political spin as far as political analysis is concerned !!!
ocho-onda - January 30, 2009 at 11:01 am
Ocho-onda,
You are my blog philosopher and I enjoy your comments and observations.
Yes, how true. We need to read what is intended than what is written by the author. Words mean different things to different people. In Malaysian politics, the UMNO message is usually glib. Take the case of Badawi: high sounding messages are read by him, but he does not mean a word of what he says. That is why I think it is important for us to know the author’s background, track record, and political and/or philosophical orientation. I agree we need to read in between the lines and watch what they do. Generally, I have no time for UMNO political bull!!—Din Merican
dinobeano - January 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Din,
I am no philosopher but thanks for the kind remark, just the same.
I am just a blogger albeit without a cause or shall I say still an aspiring one for I have been guilty of procrastination in creating one !
However, my mission, if there is one, is to see that the fate of Malaysia and that of fellow Malaysians, is in capable hands.
I impart with my 2 cents worth of opinion with an earnest hope that it will help change the mind sets of fellow Malaysians in a positive manner.
We need to change ourselves, as a nation first, before we can hope to change our country. But not only that, we are also in desperate need of capable people to run the country ,to lead the nation, to bring about positive changes.
I am apolitical by persuasion but my bet is on the PR to bring about that change because it is apparent that the incumbent leadership is not only inept but is also incapable of even changing itself for the better. Cheers.
ocho-onda - January 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm
And the BN is in serious need to change its dirty underwear ! Phew! It really stinks ! I can even smell it all the way across the big pond !!!
ocho-onda - January 30, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’m reminded of a theory of communication and cognition which I was privileged to study many dreams ago – the theory of RELEVANCE (1986), Sperber and Wilson.
In essence the theory says that the purpose of linguistic communication is to send a message which has semantic content as well pragmatic effects and implications. In using a particular word or phrase and in choosing a particular way of expressing it, the speaker/writer expects the message to have optimal meaning/ effects.
At the cognition end, the hearer/reader will process whatever is relevant to him/her against his/her context, which includes not only his language repertoire and processing skills, but the whole of his sensory inputs and encyclopeadic knowledge.
This supports the claim that each person will have his/her own interpretation and deduce meanings and pragmatic effects which are relevant to him/her.
If more Malaysians are able to analyse things more objectively by selecting the most relevant context to deduce the most relevant meanings, we are on our way to becoming more credible communicators.
Another thing – the logic that we choose to process linguistic information is crucial in determining how close we remain to the “truth”.
And of course Din, you can confirm that there are many kinds of logic out there from mathematical logic to analogy to syllogism to…
An example of syllogism which I learned when I was a child is that from the premise JOHN HAS A BLACK DOG, the conclusion can be advertently or inadvertently deduced to be JOHN IS A BLACK DOG!
ninitalk - January 31, 2009 at 11:27 am
“If more Malaysians are able to analyse things more objectively by selecting the most relevant context to deduce the most relevant meanings, we are on our way to becoming more credible communicators.” – ninitalk
That will only put the demagogues and the spin doctors out of business. It is the more sinister elements of effective coomuication that we also have to watch out for.
“On 21 October 1949, Adous Huxley(the original hippie but one of the greatest thinkers of the early 20th Century) wrote to George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, congratulating Orwell on “how fine and how profoundly important the book is.” In his letter to Orwell, he predicted that “Within the next generation I believe that the world’s leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience.”
ocho-onda - January 31, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Another way of interpreting it is that the pen can be mightier than the sword ?
ocho-onda - January 31, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Oooops! “Aldous Leonard Huxley”
ocho-onda - January 31, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Don’t know about the pen being mightier than the sword, but I am sure I’m not the only one who would like to know if Din Merican’s pen-is longer than the sword.
Mr Bean - January 31, 2009 at 11:28 pm
ocho-onda – in political communication and discourse, the intention is more often than not to exaggerate and achieve maximum pragmatic effects and implications. Sometimes to deceive too!
A good orator/ writer can “flog them and kick them into obedience” with well chosen words and phrases articulated in the most persuasive ways.
Looking at our political leaders, we can see why some are drop dead effective and some drop off to sleep!!!
ninitalk - February 1, 2009 at 8:25 am
“A good orator/ writer can “flog them and kick them into obedience” with well chosen words and phrases articulated in the most persuasive ways.
Looking at our political leaders, we can see why some are drop dead effective and some drop off to sleep!!! ” – ninitalk
Totally agree with you. Where would Hitler and Soekarno be without their oratory skills !?! Skills which they had used with DETRIMENTAL effect !
ocho-onda - February 1, 2009 at 4:03 pm