A columnist does enjoy a great deal of liberty on the choice of subjects on which he cares to spring his doubtful wisdom upon an unsuspecting world. The trouble is trying to find a subject for which he has passionate feelings, and to which he has given some thought.

Writing for malaysiakini weekly for over five years now, I have been spoilt rotten. They have given me free rein in my weekly column articles. Why, they even upload my every copy in its entirety, spelling and grammatical mistakes and the odd Malapropism and all. I do feel the editors there have too much faith in my own editing.

But first, one has to have an intuitive knack for knowing what not to write about.

The topics that I keep at ten arms’ length are love and sex. These scintillating and sizzling domains would certainly interest young readers greatly, and celebrating my 60th birthday this weekend, I certainly have made enough mistakes in matters of the heart and the libido to offer a few interesting tips on the folly of men and women. Then again, though it is easy to be wise after the event, there is no fool like an old fool. So that takes care of that.

The trouble also is with the liberal use of the pronoun “I” in writing for a column. You use it to add immediacy to the personal interest by providing what in literature is called the ‘point of view’ in telling a story. In this way, a column piece is sharply distinguished from the cold factual objectivity of a news story.

The trouble is that many columnists mistake this “I” - as a literary device - for an extension of their ego. They blabber and ramble on what goes on in their private life and the endless mundane things that happen to them. I notice this practice has also pervaded many blogs on the Internet. I dare say they overestimate the curiosity of the reading public in their person.

Volatile minefield

We do generally hold that writing is an act of self-expression, but first, we ought to make sure the self is worthy of expression. Frankly, I am very doubtful anybody would be interested in my private life, unless the recounting of a personal experience is to validate a point of argument, or the story is a particular instance that can illustrate the general.

I have very strong views about religious beliefs and practices of course, like the rest of Malaysians. But religious matters are a volatile minefield in Malaysia where angels fear to tread while fools rush in.

On those few occasions when I commented on the latest religious issues, the response of readers through e-mails almost made me want to weep. One reader missed my sense of sarcasm and took my words at their literal sense, while another accused me of something of which I am not, no matter how I protested. So I avoid stepping into this arena, not out of fear, but out of respect for the holy act of authentic communication.

In authentic communication, writing or saying anything in the public sphere is like throwing a stone in a pool of still water. You watch closely what the ripples hit, and what counter ripples will come back to you. The purpose is to expand the common understanding that will enrich both the writer and the reader. You hope to gain some kind of consensus, but even if you do not, the final common understanding ought to be larger than the sum of its parts. Then, there would have been a dialogue and genuine communication.

Unfortunately, in Malaysia, the act of speaking and listening has been corrupted by extreme subjectivity, where the will to power in order to win an argument dominates all acts of attempted communication. The end result is a zero-sum game, a general assembly among chickens and ducks, and public opinion is nothing but a cacophony of private prejudices.

No wonder no inter-faith dialogue has been possible in Malaysia 50 years after independence. We have not yet learned to take the will to power from the equation of inter-faith conversation.

Take away love and sex, and religion as well, what is there to write about? Well, there is always politics of course, and given the current period of uncertainty and intense intrigues, one can write a column a day even, if one wants to. That in fact is what many commentators do in the name of commenting on current affairs.

For instance, the announcement by SAPP president Yong Teck Lee that his party has lost confidence in the prime minister is the sort of fare with which political commentators can paint the town red. In both the mainstream and the alternative media, front pages and the op-ed section are saturated with all sorts of analysis and speculation on this latest turn of events..

Of course, if the event is important enough, every columnist worth his salt must contribute his views, in the hope that his input can add a fresh perspective or a new understanding in usually confusing political development. He may even start a meaningful debate or an authentic dialogue. That is his social responsibility.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be original as a voice among a tsunami of public commentaries. The trouble with so many columnists in our media is that they are so predictable. You read the first paragraphs, and you can guess pretty accurately the main thrust of their theme and their conclusions. So I just skip their huge pages of personal prejudices. Fearing that to be done to me in turn, I try to be original, and if I cannot be so, it is better I do not comment at all.

Swarm mentality

Then again, our public sphere is dominated by Malaysians’ swarm mentality (I hate the word “mindset”). When a sensational event bursts on the scene, the consciousness of both writers and readers are mesmerised by the latest issue, and pursue it ad nausium. They follow the day’s headlines like a swarm of bees.

The regrettable consequence of this mentality is that today's news is tomorrow’s fish-and-chips, as the saying went at the time when fish-and-chips were still wrapped in yesterday’s newspapers in London. What the swarm mentality engenders is a short memory span among the public, while real deep-seated issues continue to fester with great injustice to the people who are greatly affected. Until today, nobody cares much about the problem among Sarawak natives over their land tenure, simply because their problem is not sexy or sensational enough.

It all goes to show that politics is all about perception, and not necessarily and not often enough. about reality. That unfortunately is the price of living with modern-day media of mass communication

I suppose that, given my long and active involvement in active party politics long ago, I am expected to comment on the latest political development. But one gets fatigued beyond measure with the sandi wara and the wayang kulit that politicians and political parties keep parading on the national stage. They have nothing much to do with anybody really. All that business of plots and counter-plots within MCA in anticipation of their forthcoming general election is not worth any commentary, for example.

So what else is there is to write about?

That depends on how you define the job of a columnist. This is an area where few authoritative views have been asserted. The late Hugo Young of the Guardian saw himself as a journalist of sort. There is certainly that journalistic element in column writing as an act of testimony to on-going history. But for the purpose of objectivity, the columnist will have to struggle with the question as to whether to get close to the star political players in order to get a scoop. Hugo Young rejected this approach, and so do I.

In the end, I remind myself every week that there is much more to the rich and diversified tapestry of Malaysian life apart from religion, politics and sex. The most poignant elements of this tapestry are seldom covered by the press. Perhaps literature is a better medium for these stories, but unfortunately both the space and interest in literature in our country remain dim. The column can partially fill that vacuum.

Then there is no limit to the number and variety on themes and subjects which the columnist can write about, as long as he thinks it will entertain, inform, and perhaps educate. In fact, he is spoiled for choice.

With this freedom to wander and explore the Malaysian ethos, you would think the columnist’ job is a breeze. Surely he will never run out of things to say. But the impossible will happen at times, when the columnist plunges into an abyss of mental block!

Then, once in a while, he will have to write about having nothing to write about, as I have just done. An interlude of self-critical reflection ought to keep one fresh.