An excited friend admonished me:
“My dear BC, why are you keeping silent on the Sarawak state election? It is really exciting here in Kuching, the crowds here get to listen to really good talks by opposition every night, DAP speakers are good and entertaining, SUPP not as fiery, but seems like the new chap Dr. Sim Kui Hian is steady and looks like a very reliable politician – if he is elected lar…”
My friend… I’m still in holiday mood and will opt to not side any one party at the moment. So, Sarawakian friends will be missing out on my knify sharp political analysis this week, hehehe.
Anyways, to sooth friends who are buoyed by the highs courtesy of opposition speakers, share with you something I’ve gotten from another savvy friend.
Until next week,
Let a wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows public opinion
It is a common human fallacy to generalize issues when trying to justify one’s argument in order to KO the opponent. Who haven’t heard of someone who will say “He/she is so typical of a xxx (insert race/category of profession) therefore he/she is (insert assumption of undesirable action here).”
Let’s not be ashamed to admit it, most of us might have done it conscious or unconsciously. Even the DAP and other opposition parties tend to do this ‘natural’ thing. Usually, the members of the opposition will strike first with accusations of xxx (insert preferred presumptions of guilt before trial here). And then it is followed up by bombardments and arguments to stir up the public’s emotion with insinuated wrongdoings such as, “xxx is rich, therefore xxx is corrupted”. This is a well worn method as human beings are found to be intrigued by real or imagined scandals especially if it can blacken the image of the more famous member of the community.
But if one were to dig deeper, one will find that the argument was not wholesome and skewed to be lopsided towards the interest of the opposition. For instance, when debating issues of development, the attacker will not acknowledge truths of how the whole community has also benefited to rise up to better living as compared to their forefather’s hard environment which seriously lacked the economic public infrastructure built up since then. There was no recognition for work and effort put in by the state to satisfy and balance various communities’ demands, sensitivities and interpretations of social justice.
One is reminded how the Chinese who are generally well recognised for their belief in ‘Dao’ and that everything in the universe have a black and white perspective that balances each side for a harmonious life existence. Many Chinese sayings have been handed down since the ancient sage kings to disseminate their wisdom to guide the new generations to balance all sides of each story. Indeed, this has given rise to the general perception that all Chinese are pragmatic practitioners capable of understanding the Dao of both sides of the story before making hasty decisions.
Why not try out the Chinese way to analyze what has been given as ‘truth’ and avoid the risk falling into the trap of ‘One stick knocking down the whole village’. Don’t you think it is a great injustice to deny the work of many good people from the village who has silently contributed to make our lives better today?
by: Bintang Bulan