For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. [Atlas Shrugged. Part 3. Chapter VII: “This is John Galt Speaking.” Ayn Rand. 1957]
Tag: Ayn Rand
He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kitten to hunt, the birds who spend such strident effort on teaching their fledglings to fly—yet man, whose tool of survival is the mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child’s education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think.
From the first catch-phrases flung at a child to the last, it is like a series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his consciousness. “Don’t ask so many questions, children should be seen and not heard!”—”Who are you to think? It’s so, because I say so!”—”Don’t argue, obey!”—”Don’t try to understand, believe!”—”Don’t struggle, compromise!”—”Your heart is more important than your mind!”—”Who are you to know? Your parents know best!”—”Who are you to know? The bureaucrats know best!”—”Who are you to object? All values are relative!”—”Who are you to want to escape a thug’s bullet? That’s only a personal prejudice!”
Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young, then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival—yet that was what they did to their children. [Atlas Shrugged. Part 3. Chapter VI: The Concerto of Deliverance. Ayn Rand. 1957]
Some ideas are vague for a reason. In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the majority is afraid of commitment and responsibilities. It is simply impractical to have clear opinions or positions. Consistency arising from those opinions and positions is a barrier to success. One has to be pragmatic to be successful. Vagueness allows such pragmatism. To put it bluntly, it creates contradictions.
That is not too far off from the truth in our world. That is not too far off from the political culture in Malaysia. There are vague positions and from those ambiguities, contradictions.
1Malaysia is an example. Despite all efforts to explain it by far too many sides, 1Malaysia is still an ambiguous concept. It appeals to the idea of inclusiveness and equality, yet those with distaste for these very liberal ideas are the ones promoting it. There are of course true blue egalitarians within Barisan Nasional who are also promoting 1Malaysia but when both racialists and egalitarians are able to appeal to 1Malaysia in contradictory terms, the concept itself cannot escape the accusation of being ambiguous.
In the early stage of 1Malaysia, one particular idea was floated around to justify its vagueness. It was ”strategic ambiguity.” It stated 1Malaysia was made ambiguous on purpose so that it could be used to appease all sides. All sides can take ownership of 1Malaysia by applying to it their own definition.
That and its vagueness mean 1Malaysia is both everything and nothing, neither here nor there. Its ambiguity means it is not opposable. Given the feudalistic culture that prevails in Malaysia, in BN and in UMNO in particular, there is an imperative to support it just because it came from the top.
With nothing to oppose and everything to accept, it was good for BN and UMNO in a time when both are just emerging from a relatively disastrous infighting. They needed a rallying call. A vague call seemed fine.
Perhaps in its pretension that BN is a perfect replica of Malaysian society, they might have thought that what works for BN might work for Malaysia. The Malaysian society is more diverse than BN however. And because many Malaysians are outsiders to BN and are less enamored with feudalistic culture, they are more demanding in knowing why they should be on board with 1Malaysia. At least, for those who care, anyway.
After persistent ambiguity, many have become disinterested in defining 1Malaysia. They have moved on. At the same time, 1Malaysia sees relegation from a grand ambition contributing to national identity to a mere economic programme troubled by inconsistency.
Today, in fact, 1Malaysia is all about the Economic Transformation Programs and nothing else. It is about projects. It is about buildings and infrastructure. It is about cold hard cash.
But because the programmes are ultimately derived from the vague 1Malaysia, it suffers from contradiction. The ETP are market-driven but both embrace government intervention; price controls are everywhere. The ETP is privately sector-driven but these drivers are government-linked companies: Menara Warisan comes to mind. The best epitome of inconsistency is the term ”market-friendly affirmative action.”
Again, 1Malaysia in the end is about projects and cold hard cash. There is no principle governing it. Anything goes.
To prove that this is really a prevailing political culture rather than merely one belonging exclusively to BN, members of Pakatan Rakyat themselves are not doing well in terms of ambiguity. The ”negara berkebajikan” introduced by PAS is the latest example.
What is it exactly? So far, the buzz has it that it is Islamic, it is not an Islamic state, it is not the welfare state concept and it is different from the system practised by the BN-led federal government. There is little clarification on why it is Islamic, why it is not an Islamic state, why it is not the welfare state and why it is different from BN policy. Apart from several key terms, it is ultimately vague.
To be fair, PAS must be given time to articulate the idea, especially since the idea is creating a competition to the political centre. Nevertheless, the fact that concept was released before its articulation makes it susceptible to the same criticism directed against 1Malaysia. Unless the articulation lifts the veil of ambiguity soon, ”negara berkebajikan” will be a potpourri of contradictions, much like 1Malaysia.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on July 6 2011.
“Oh, I don’t know, but… but people do things in the world. I saw pictures of New York and I thought”—she pointed at the giant buildings beyond the streaks of rain on the cab window—”I thought, somebody built those buildings—he didn’t just sit and whine that the kitchen was filthy and the roof leaking and the plumbing clogged and it’s a goddamn world and . . . Mr. Taggart”—she jerked her head in a shudder and looked straight at him—”we were stinking poor and not giving a damn about it. That’s what I couldn’t take—that they didn’t really give a damn. Not enough to lift a finger. Not enough to empty the garbage pail. And the woman next door saying it was my duty to help them, saying it made no difference what became of me or of her or of any of us, because what could anybody do anyway!” [Atlas Shrugged. Part 1. Chapter IX: The Sacred and the Profane. Ayn Rand. 1957]
Mein Kampf.
No, I am not kidding.
You can find it at Kinokuniya at Suria KLCC.
It is the book with ominously pitch black cover, on the bestseller/highlight shelf.
Sitting close to it when I spotted it was Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead.