Thinking in black or white

COMMENT The phrase ‘you’re either with us or against us’ has been creeping into the Malaysian public domain in a big way in recent days.

Last Sunday Wong Chun Wai (right in photo), group chief editor of The Star has used it to describe the politically polarised Malaysian political arena. Under the headline ‘Of angry birds and angry Malaysians (Sunday Star July 24)’ he stated “If you support the opposition, you risk being labelled a traitor, communist, socialist, Jew or at leastremotely Jewish-linked.” That’s the ‘with us’ side of the divide.

“On the other hand, if you back the government, or are simply being neutral, you are called a running dog, coward, corrupt or a spineless person and your next three generations will be duly cursed. Of course, you would also be labelled a traitor”, he said, further thus demonstrating the ‘against us’ element.

So in Parliament (he noted further) MPs are suddenly transformed into verbal monsters with childish tantrums who, as they lunge at each other, call others by animal names.

So where has the renowned Malaysian gentle spirit and commendable etiquette gone? he lamented.   

As though on cue, the next day Chandra Muzzafar (left) issued a press statement (Political polarisation July 25) voicing almost exactly the same thing: that Malaysia has been deeply divided by this ‘with us or against us’ syndrome. But additionally Chandra hinted that this cleavage is racist in tone, the result of the perceived Umno (i.e Malay)-run Barisan Nasional government on one side and the perceived DAP (i.e. Chinese)-controlled Pakatan opposition on the other.  

Syndrome known as a fallacy

Either way, this syndrome is known as a fallacy or false dilemma.

Why a fallacy? Because life does not consists simply of two ‘with us’ or ‘against us’ categorisations. Like in the case of black and white, there can be millions of shades of colour in between them.

Why false dilemma? Because in between ‘for’ and ‘against’ there can be a myriad of possibilities and that the human mind should be aware of them.

More importantly these possibilities should not ever be ignored as though they do not exist at all!
Indeed it would be totally wrong to ignore them. Look at the case of

Wong’s postulation. In between the ruling coalition on the one side and the opposition on the other there can and does exists a fairly good number of apolitical citizenry, who could even be in the majority, who care little for the actions or inactions of the ruling and opposing coalitions. They care more for other principles of life like truth and justice that they face day by day.

Indeed, one citizen Tan Seng Hai has been so riled by the Wong-Chandra fallacy and false dilemma that he wrote a most suitable response in Malaysia Today (27 July). I do not know Tan personally but by the tone and content of his response he seems to be one of the thoroughly apolitical middle-of- the-road and long suffering Malaysian citizen.

“Allow me to give Wong 10 good reasons why Malaysians are angry... in fact Malaysians are very, very angry” he said and listed ten solid reason why this is so.

“We are angry that we have been denied our constitutional and democratic rights to a peaceful gathering. We are angry at the police brutality on a frail, tender 65 year old auntie who was sprayed with chemically laced water and tear gassed for exercising her democratic rights when she was walking alone to demonstrate peacefully what she believes in”, he writes, referring to the recent Bersih 2.0 rally that had taken place on July 9.  

“We are angry at the lies, the bias reporting and the cover-ups by mainstream media (The Star included) to serve their political masters,” he continued. “We are angry at the way the mainstream media demonise Bersih 2.0”.

Let me not repeat the remaining eight complaints. They all refer to issues faced by the ordinary citizen where the ruling government seems to do a lot of indoctrination, threats, harassment and intimidation, to subjugate and control the population.  

More ‘we are angry’ points

I am of course altogether in agreement with Tan’s 10 refrains. And I’d like to add some more ‘we are angry’ points.

1. We are angry because Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak says that after 54 years of Independence, the country is still under the threats of colonialism. To us, the people, the only element of colonialism in existence is not in the form of political or economic varieties, but psychological.
2. We are angry because this psychological colonialism comes in the form of the Ketuanan Melayu polity devising mind-control over the rest of the population. The government determines what books we can or can’t read, what comics we can or can’t laugh over.
3. We are angry because corruption is at an all-time high, with the worse revelations yet to come, according to some knowledgeable sources.
4. We are angry because the people are still fragmented, with the government not doing much to build the bridge to put the people together.
5. We are angry because the government would encourage people like Ibrahim Ali to promote and nurture racism and religious bigotry, instead of rounding up people like him and putting them into the cooler.
6. We are angry because the ulama are given free rein to project and promote Malaysia as an Islamic state, when the founding fathers say (and supported by the constitition) that the country is secular.  

There can be many more ‘we are angry’ notions, but let me just stop here.

To conclude (and to follow Tan Seng Hai’s example) I’d recollect the fact that Wong Choon Wai asked “Can we stop being angry people and try to make sense of the issues affecting the nation?”

This is a moot question, and I’d ask him in turn, “How can we not be angry when the government operates on the basis of fallacy, false or perceived dilemma, indoctrination, intimidation and parochialism?”

And ‘we’, dear Wong and Chandra, in the main do not belong to either the Barisan Nasional or the Pakatan Rakyat. We are the independent and free-spirited Malaysian public waiting for the day when we can exercise our individual human rights without any undue interference from any quarter.  

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.