by Praba Ganesan - The Malaysian Insider
MARCH 15 — So Najib does not like to debate. But why not?
Some people don’t like to eat oranges, we let them be.
So I suppose if some have the right to not like round juicy objects which are hard-going — peeling with your hands and all (so prole!) — you can equally extend this right to Datuk Seri Najib Razak in other arbitrary matters, such as refusing to debate publicly about our country’s current path and how to raise the bar as a progressive society.
However, the prime minister has to keep some consistency, just so the historians characterise him right later.
He should start by closing down Parliament. This is an institution intended to encourage our finest political minds to have laborious, unyielding and rarely funny discussions about the country, mostly by disagreeing.
The idea was, I hope it still is, that by getting people to argue their own side or opinion or position and putting them up against others who do not quite agree with them, then more equitable, meaningful ideas are given life. That by talking about something with great discipline we discover better ways to do the things we already do or even things we should be doing. They debate, so our lives become better.
But this is dangerous, since debate is not part of Malaysian culture or Malaysians are not ready for it.
So since Parliament exists for debate, then the prime minister has to stop it. For eventually things like the Prime Minister’s Question Time will lead to, hold on, yes, oh yes, debate.
Second, he might want to explain if he does genuinely dislike debates, then why is it that he is talking through our TV sets everyday of our lives. More so, lining up with him there’s a whole bevy of people — his deputy and a motley crew of ministers — all nudging each other aside so they get more airtime on TV stations.
They clearly like to talk, and talk a lot, just like Najib. And it does seems, Najib has so much to say, all the time.
So what’s missing here, between these talking engagements and loathing this debate thing — where, surprise, surprise, people are also speaking.
This is most ponderous. Most mystifying. Almost worthy of hiring consultants with jargon guns.
Ah, they talk back. In this debate thing, people talk back to what the prime minister says. They would say in these debates “that will never happen while they are in power” other nasty things like enquire about Najib’s ideas and thoughts. Horror, grief, shame, people asking Najib about the contentious bits in his policies.
Najib must go awhirl at the mere mention of such a reality. Fleeting thoughts pass him, he wonders, what happened to those good old days when feudal lords spoke and the rest listened?
I say, you say
The deputy prime minister does point out that leaders don’t need to engage those in power, they just need to service the people.
On the face of it, it has some merit, but let’s take a step back and consider it. Why do we debate?
This is what I used to tell my students, pardon if it sounds patronising.
A long time ago, when human societies were shaping up — living in caves, clubbing animals and chasing their partners — might was right. Primacy was established by brute strength. Scoring on a date back then took a completely different dimension.
At this point, the students would look at me puzzled.
It dawned through trial and error, or more apt — hit and miss — that all the violence was starting to wear everyone down.
There must have been this enormously dramatic moment, when someone screamed, “Hey, can we stop? I’m tired of waking up sore. Why don’t we just talk about it and decide?”
Thus the first debate probably started. Two individuals or groups wanting the same thing having to talk about which or what should prevail, that reason should be the guiding light since interests are at odds.
Through a series of discourses, societies find their communal reason or purpose.
Communal reason or purpose is not inherited, it is conversed. Which is why great societies are associated with traditions of speech, debate and engagement. Conversely, when those societies forcibly remove speech, debate and engagement, decay sets in.
They derive their purpose from the intellectual stimuli produced by contrasting ideas.
Summary: A beating is not the only solution. Sometimes you can just talk about it.
But things don’t just resolve themselves because a different way has emerged. Human society, as advanced as it seemingly is, has without fail is confronted with the choice of reason or force.
Obviously, those with force, power, resource or whatever you may call it shudder when they face reason. Even if they fear not reason, they realise if reason is excluded their superior force will always the day.
They seek ways to reduce the need for discourse and increase the focus on force-resource. Relying on their monopoly over carrot and stick to douse our collective will to argue our case.
Hey, us on the other side of the track
I’ve known guys like Najib all my life. They like to win by not competing. Why compete when you can declare yourself the winner, over and over?
But do people like Najib know the rest of us? They think everything is about managing the masses. Sure, we want food on our tables and our healthy children having a place to sleep.
However we have ideas, just like the prime minister or even his personal driver. In a democracy where there is universal education, people without ideas will be scarce. In abundance are those who disagree, and here’s the news Tengku Adnan, if you are unwilling to deal with a Malaysia that disagrees with you more often than not, then your political viability has already expired years ago.
All that is denying a full-on, nationwide debate of everything is the state’s physical might. But every day that is becoming less and less relevant. The debate, this conscious discussion on this country’s conscience will continue on, general election or not.
A general election is not “the end all and be all” of a country, its people are.
I refuse to live in a country where the privileged shut me out of the discussion because we did not go to the same school or play hop-scotch in the same gated community.
This doggedness is not just in me, it is in many of my countryman, which is why by the day it is becoming far more uncomfortable for the elitist community always thinking their resources will keep them above the law, and certainly above any need to defend their positions.
Najib can choose to eat oranges but not debate, but the time to choose is slowly drawing to a close in Malaysia.
He must know that trying to win on his terms, without needing to intellectually defend his positions under pressure, is a fubar.
He may keep some votes and stop the bleeding by staying away from debates, but he must know the votes he loses from now on will never return.
So Najib, care to debate now?
MARCH 15 — So Najib does not like to debate. But why not?
Some people don’t like to eat oranges, we let them be.
So I suppose if some have the right to not like round juicy objects which are hard-going — peeling with your hands and all (so prole!) — you can equally extend this right to Datuk Seri Najib Razak in other arbitrary matters, such as refusing to debate publicly about our country’s current path and how to raise the bar as a progressive society.
However, the prime minister has to keep some consistency, just so the historians characterise him right later.
He should start by closing down Parliament. This is an institution intended to encourage our finest political minds to have laborious, unyielding and rarely funny discussions about the country, mostly by disagreeing.
The idea was, I hope it still is, that by getting people to argue their own side or opinion or position and putting them up against others who do not quite agree with them, then more equitable, meaningful ideas are given life. That by talking about something with great discipline we discover better ways to do the things we already do or even things we should be doing. They debate, so our lives become better.
But this is dangerous, since debate is not part of Malaysian culture or Malaysians are not ready for it.
So since Parliament exists for debate, then the prime minister has to stop it. For eventually things like the Prime Minister’s Question Time will lead to, hold on, yes, oh yes, debate.
Second, he might want to explain if he does genuinely dislike debates, then why is it that he is talking through our TV sets everyday of our lives. More so, lining up with him there’s a whole bevy of people — his deputy and a motley crew of ministers — all nudging each other aside so they get more airtime on TV stations.
They clearly like to talk, and talk a lot, just like Najib. And it does seems, Najib has so much to say, all the time.
So what’s missing here, between these talking engagements and loathing this debate thing — where, surprise, surprise, people are also speaking.
This is most ponderous. Most mystifying. Almost worthy of hiring consultants with jargon guns.
Ah, they talk back. In this debate thing, people talk back to what the prime minister says. They would say in these debates “that will never happen while they are in power” other nasty things like enquire about Najib’s ideas and thoughts. Horror, grief, shame, people asking Najib about the contentious bits in his policies.
Najib must go awhirl at the mere mention of such a reality. Fleeting thoughts pass him, he wonders, what happened to those good old days when feudal lords spoke and the rest listened?
I say, you say
The deputy prime minister does point out that leaders don’t need to engage those in power, they just need to service the people.
On the face of it, it has some merit, but let’s take a step back and consider it. Why do we debate?
This is what I used to tell my students, pardon if it sounds patronising.
A long time ago, when human societies were shaping up — living in caves, clubbing animals and chasing their partners — might was right. Primacy was established by brute strength. Scoring on a date back then took a completely different dimension.
At this point, the students would look at me puzzled.
It dawned through trial and error, or more apt — hit and miss — that all the violence was starting to wear everyone down.
There must have been this enormously dramatic moment, when someone screamed, “Hey, can we stop? I’m tired of waking up sore. Why don’t we just talk about it and decide?”
Thus the first debate probably started. Two individuals or groups wanting the same thing having to talk about which or what should prevail, that reason should be the guiding light since interests are at odds.
Through a series of discourses, societies find their communal reason or purpose.
Communal reason or purpose is not inherited, it is conversed. Which is why great societies are associated with traditions of speech, debate and engagement. Conversely, when those societies forcibly remove speech, debate and engagement, decay sets in.
They derive their purpose from the intellectual stimuli produced by contrasting ideas.
Summary: A beating is not the only solution. Sometimes you can just talk about it.
But things don’t just resolve themselves because a different way has emerged. Human society, as advanced as it seemingly is, has without fail is confronted with the choice of reason or force.
Obviously, those with force, power, resource or whatever you may call it shudder when they face reason. Even if they fear not reason, they realise if reason is excluded their superior force will always the day.
They seek ways to reduce the need for discourse and increase the focus on force-resource. Relying on their monopoly over carrot and stick to douse our collective will to argue our case.
Hey, us on the other side of the track
I’ve known guys like Najib all my life. They like to win by not competing. Why compete when you can declare yourself the winner, over and over?
But do people like Najib know the rest of us? They think everything is about managing the masses. Sure, we want food on our tables and our healthy children having a place to sleep.
However we have ideas, just like the prime minister or even his personal driver. In a democracy where there is universal education, people without ideas will be scarce. In abundance are those who disagree, and here’s the news Tengku Adnan, if you are unwilling to deal with a Malaysia that disagrees with you more often than not, then your political viability has already expired years ago.
All that is denying a full-on, nationwide debate of everything is the state’s physical might. But every day that is becoming less and less relevant. The debate, this conscious discussion on this country’s conscience will continue on, general election or not.
A general election is not “the end all and be all” of a country, its people are.
I refuse to live in a country where the privileged shut me out of the discussion because we did not go to the same school or play hop-scotch in the same gated community.
This doggedness is not just in me, it is in many of my countryman, which is why by the day it is becoming far more uncomfortable for the elitist community always thinking their resources will keep them above the law, and certainly above any need to defend their positions.
Najib can choose to eat oranges but not debate, but the time to choose is slowly drawing to a close in Malaysia.
He must know that trying to win on his terms, without needing to intellectually defend his positions under pressure, is a fubar.
He may keep some votes and stop the bleeding by staying away from debates, but he must know the votes he loses from now on will never return.
So Najib, care to debate now?
No comments:
Post a Comment