Published by The Star, image from The Star.
My previous column was about sensational gravity – the tendency for public discourse to gravitate towards the sensational.
I fell victim to this phenomenon when I formed my first impression of Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, only to later learn that he did not really say a lot of the things people seem to think he said.
I fell victim to sensational gravity once again when I bought into what everyone was saying about Nurul Izzah Anwar’s comments in a recent interview with Singapore’s The Straits Times.
In fact, I was already – to my shame – 90% of the way through writing an article on the matter before I realised that I had not actually read the original interview. After reading the source material for myself, I realised I had to throw out most of what I had previously written.
Going by headlines, news reports, comments by politicians and such, one might have thought that Nurul Izzah had gone on some hellbent crusade to lambast, rip apart and flay Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his government, through the mouthpiece of our “despised” southern rival.
Indeed, that seems to be the assumption of everyone – both her critics and her supporters – who immediately started jumping up and down and shouting passionately in response.
If anyone bothered to take the time and read the actual interview word for word, they would find that their assumptions about what she said were nowhere near the truth.
I did not come across any news report that highlighted the fact that Nurul Izzah, in fact, went out of her way to be diplomatic and choose her words regarding the government of the day with measured care.
There is no replacement for reading the interview in its entirety, but let me quote some examples verbatim from the interview.
On why she resigned from her posts:
She’s not saying.
She… wants to be “respectful” and doesn’t want to add to the drama as there are more important things for the country to focus on.
On Pakatan Harapan’s performance:
We ask what she sees as the good and bad things that have happened since PH came into power.
She prefaces her answer by saying she prefers the word “challenges” to “bad”, pointing out that PH took over from a Barisan Nasional coalition that had been in power for over six decades.
She cites “the opening of the democratic framework” as a positive development.
With regards to her hopes and dreams:
What’s her dream for Malaysia, then?
“For us to eventually survive and emerge stronger from this current racial, religious rut of extremities,” she says, choosing her words slowly.
These are not the words of some rabid anti-Mahathir crusader; indeed, she defends the Pakatan government multiple times, demonstrating mature restraint almost every step of the way.
All the other quotes that were highlighted by the media were true as well, of course, but reading those news reports and reading the full interview in its original context will result in two very different impressions.
It’s true that she called Dr Mahathir a former dictator who “wreaked so much damage”, but I think even a supporter of Dr Mahathir today must admit that this is at least one of many reasonable, objective assessments and interpretations of his first stint in power.
Obviously, Nurul Izzah also experienced a much more personal form of suffering as a result of Dr Mahathir’s previous decisions.
Surely that must entitle her to certain personal views and feelings that the rest of us should not begrudge her.
Moving forward, I would never deign to tell someone as prominent and experienced as Nurul Izzah what to do, but from the perspective of an outsider, I might humbly state the following.
Firstly, decisions such as quitting Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in protest of having a non-opposition chairman are eminently justifiable as a matter of principle.
Secondly, I think at this point, she (and the country, in the long run) may benefit from her treading extra carefully.
We live in an era where anyone and everyone can twist the slightest thing you say to mean something completely different, reminding us that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has got its shoes on.
I feel that not only backbenchers, but any member of the Malaysian public, should always feel free to point out what they believe the government may be doing wrong, and to offer constructive criticism as well as suggestions as to how the government can do better.
To simply attack anyone criticising the government in any way borders on the barbaric.
In Nurul Izzah’s case, as I’m sure she’s aware, any direct criticism that can even be vaguely seen as targeting Dr Mahathir, or agitating for a faster transition of power, could end up being counterproductive.
Speaking of suggestions, perhaps there is also room for improvement with regards to the response to this “manufactured” controversy by certain ministers.
In all of Malaysia, there are only 28 federal ministers responsible for the lives and well-being of the 31 million Malaysians who put them in power.
To be chosen for this task is a monumental – indeed almost sacred – responsibility. I believe the job requires 100% focus and dedication.
A minister who devotes too much of his or her time to politics is likely not devoting their full attention to their job and their ministry.
In this context, if indeed this matter must really be debated, it would be most appropriate, say, for other backbenchers or party politicians to be the ones participating – ideally of course, based on what was actually said and written, and not based on other people’s second-hand emotional interpretations.
I, for one, would be much more encouraged by communication from each minister and ministry regarding what they have achieved and are en route to achieving, as opposed to political posts from them about why we should support one individual or political camp over another – especially when such posts are worded in a less than gentlemanly fashion.
(Tweets consisting only of semi-enigmatic laughter can also be hardly considered becoming for a minister).
Updates on how each ministry is progressing towards fulfilling specific manifesto promises would also be very welcome.
It may be misguided to try and preach away the trend of sensational gravity. After all, this is only the latest incident in which small things were taken out of context and blown up to be big things – in no small part because doing so served certain agendas.
Be that as it may, each person who chooses to do their own original research, instead of buying into the version of reality purported by interested parties, can and will make a difference.
In the meantime, let us do our best to judge people based on what they are actually saying – not what other people want us to believe they are saying.
Nathaniel Tan is Director of Media & Communications at EMIR Research, an independent think-tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based upon rigorous research.
