— Douglas Teoh
The Malaysian Insider
June 07, 2013
JUNE 7 — I have little difficulty in confessing that I am a Pakatan Rakyat supporter.
After weighing the pros and cons of either coalition, the answer that emerges seems rather intuitive in nature. The current Barisan Nasional (BN) is corrupt, greedy and tyrannical — the worst kind of democratic government possible. Compare that to Pakatan — freedom fighters, typical wage-earning leaders, who also happen to be the electoral underdog.
In this battle, Pakatan occupies the moral high-ground, strengthening their discourse with populism and calls for social justice. Consequentially, any attack on Pakatan’s “character” by BN supporters seems ludicrous and invalid.
So what’s the issue here? Some might say that this is after all a classic good-versus-evil political narrative. Our sentiments (as with any good story) often lie with the struggling underdog who champions a good cause.
But there’s a catch. The trouble with this kind of dichotomous division of political parties is that we over-sympathise with and to some extent even victimise our party of choice.
Indeed, the sacrifices of some Pakatan leaders are awe-inspiring. To say that Tian Chua is less than a hero for lying in front of the FRU is “obviously” ethically wrong. I respect Pakatan leaders and what they have done for the country.
But their contributions do not absolve them of responsibility and legitimate criticism. This is based on my observations of comments in various news portals with regards to criticism of Pakatan. A good example would be the proposition by the Penang Malay Congress to delay the salary increment of state representatives. This is an instance where perfectly sound criticism is met with unreasonable responses by some pro-Pakatan supporters, who view it as an attack to gain “infamy points”.
Why should a populist coalition be immune to populist considerations in the first place? In essence, some Pakatan supporters may be subscribing to heuristics in order to make simplified judgments — BN is always wrong, and Pakatan, standing on the other side of the divide, is always right.
It results in the downplaying of criticism of the coalition we support. This is a negative outcome; after all, we would no longer be able to judge actions and policies in a constructive manner.
My suggestion is simple. The people have to be open about dialogue directed towards their chosen representatives. We should give credit where it is well deserved, and criticism where necessary. It is only with such a mindset that people can truly begin to regain ownership of their country and help to chart its future instead of relying on “heroes” (who are not immune to mistakes), in order to oppose the villains (who may not always be completely wrong).
Malaysia needs heroes for a revolution — but its development has to be driven by a synergy comprising a good leader and a sound public. — aliran.com
Pakatan leaders are humans after all. Like all of us, they also make mistakes and it is imperative that they are magnanimous enough to admit them and act accordingly to rectify it. Never ever be arrogant and egoistic as to ignore the feedback from the rakyat. We don’t call them ‘Wakil Rakyat’ for nothing. Just make sure that we give them constructive criticism and not slander, lies or deceit. Had enough of that already. Time to move on and progress, Malaysia!
Ideology. Democracy. Constitutional monarchy. The maturing of thoughts. People power.
Don’t criticize for the sake of criticism; but criticize for a good reason.
In a casual slash serious conversation slash discussion, criticism whether negative or positive will fly. Take the main points good and bad and make them work.
After they granted illegal immigrants rights to vote to protect their government administration (remember Malaysia is a independent country, this is Malaysian country)
They are already a permanent disqualify candidate for government administrator
No country in this word done such a silly thing
Only in Malaysia
To earn respect for Malaysia we need to proof to them this is a VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE to our country
This proves that granting of citizenship does not need donkey years and donkey criteria to prove one’s loyalty to the country.
The author is naive. I shall not brand him stupid although I am tempted to. Anyway, he is naive.
Yes of course, we all should accept criticisms positively. That is obvious. Who does not not know that?
But hey, what kind of animal are we dealing with here in malaysia? Tell us, what kind of animal umno is?
Umno, its members, cronies and supporters, has no problem telling us “yes” when it actually meant “no” and vice versa.
And worse, umno is perfectly capable of denying that it has said anything and that the press have misquoted it or that the opposition intentionally put words in its mouth.
Hows dat, huh?
A long article from which I learned nothing at all !
I mean, does PR need MORE criticism? Like, you can give more “constructive” criticism? Shall we give Eskimos more snow? Yeah, maybe if u wanna join BN’s Mr Bean Army, and make people laugh at u, ok.
Oh, but no offence meant, please accept with open mind ;)
///….some Pakatan supporters may be subscribing to heuristics in order to make simplified judgments — BN is always wrong, and Pakatan, standing on the other side of the divide, is always right…/// – Douglas Teoh
I’m not sure “heuristic” is right choice of word for this “Pakatan can do no wrong, you’re either with us or against us” syndrome. If applicable to PR supporters it is doubly so for BN/UMNO’s supporters. It is simply measure of how deeply and irreconcilably divided the country and people are at this moment. When one takes a side, down play one’s own side’s weakness, and magnify its strength and do the exact opposite against the opposite side, there’s of course nothing intellectually ennobling about it. Indeed this kind of blind political partisanship and loyalties ignore if not distort realities – national discourse become dumber – but it cannot be helped especially in times perceived as great struggle and upheaval between Good versus Bad!
It is a margin of human mind to be bias/partisan especially when one perceives he is aligned to the “right” side. The human mind seeks out for consistency and certainty and experiences psychological discomfort in ambiguities. It is hard to take the side of (say) PR on grounds that it is good replacement of the “bad” BN and be subject at intermittent conflicting signals that due to this or that reason or development PR may not be really that good or BN that bad after all and in the end getting confused as to who to give the undivided support especially in a major lie-death contest between protagonists of almost equal strength, each political side requires unity and absolute support at its own front ….And for the supporter it is a matter of a play of emotion, and not just intellect, and even the cleverest can be prone to this “either you’re with me or against me all the way” syndrome. I am not apologizing for such blind partisan approach but just explaining the way it is (naturally).
oops “Life and death contest”. No matter that blind partisanship corrupts the intellect and distorts reality, in the history of civilization there’s plenty of such instances especially in times of great struggle where much is at stake. In Biblical terms wasn’t it Jesus who said “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30)? In world war 2 (Britain & Free world’s darkest hour against Hitler) was there room to criticize your own side? Author of “Animal Farm and “1984” George Orwell wrote in his 1942 essay “Pacifism and the War”, “If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Recently after 911 President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists! In movies “Ben-Hur” our hero refuses to act as informer against jews, and his childhood buddy Roman Messala utters, “You’re either with me or against me”!
Mathew 5:44
Having said this if one does not criticise one’s side (say PR) objectively and constructively when it is wrong in its actions or policies along the way how is one side going to learn and rectify its mistakes to win over fence sitters and people from opposite side when it loses moral position? This is other part of the argument that Douglas is pushing. Of course lets not talk of those who are already staunch supporters whose political loyalty is unshakable, come what may, because the opposite side is viewed as symbol of all that is wrong wicked corrupt and un-redeemable and whose representatives should not be supported with the vote to be cast in favour of their opposite rival contestant even if it is a Chimpanzee!
Not at all! We understand & agree. But to criticize PR is to give BN even more bullets to shoot with… and do you want PR to even take their eyes off the enemy to defend itself against its own (so-called) supporters?
Worthy criticism is always welcome, but I don’t think it should be put out there for all to see. It should be communicated privately to the person involved, and resolved internally.