Malaysians generally believe in a ‘close one eye’ culture. What does this mean?  It actually originates from ‘kesian dia, bagi chance-lah’ , an attitude prevalent in the traditional Malaysian worldview.

These words truly reflect the gentle, genteel and nuanced Malay culture of grace and finesse which is still found, but maybe only in traditional kampongs.

They engender a culture of forgiveness and grace, when wrong is done against one. This value is not very much found in modern urban centres, not even in my modern Kampung Tunku of Petaling Jaya. All Malaysians will understand what I mean.

Nevertheless, when this cultural trait is found in modern urban and law-based practice of regulations, we run into problems.

Therefore, law enforcement, or better still ‘legal compliance administration’, becomes a tough and impossible job.

For example, in one local administration recently, based on its whim or fancy, it chose to “enforce the law” sometimes and close one eye at other times.

They caught one cutting the hair of another and saw some wrong in that. And now, it is not wrong any more!

In yet another local authority, enforcement officers (these words have meaning, but only when their authority is not abused) forcibly entered a private residence and destroyed private property; regardless of the nature of the structure and what it symbolised.

Anger is boiling over this incident and emotive anger when aroused may have no limits. So, all parties please beware, lest the red line be crossed.

Colours of the media

Am I really writing in riddles or is it actually in metaphors? Not really, if one reflects upon the newspaper excitement of the last two weeks, depending the type and colour of the news media one chooses to read.

If one reads the red colour one, the noise was all about the ‘wrongness of the green colour and their actions’, and how they administer compliance.

Complaints centre on what and whose law they choose to enforce, and which they selectively choose to ignore. But, bribery and corruption are often ignored, whether in red or blue domains.

\"\"

To the reds, the greens see everything within their vicinity in green colour terms; including the air we all breathe. No wonder I feel so suffocated with any whiff of green air.  God must have not been right about the colour of air.

As for the greens, there are many proxy versions and shades of green. The ‘blue-tinted green media’ only see wrong and hopelessness on every blade of grass on the other side; regardless of which version of ‘other side’.

Even if the same ‘other personalities’ were once their unequivocal heroes of the past; and they see the grass on the other side always with blue-tinted glasses. To them their tint is always a red line.  

Recently this blue-green media was given two red cards by our courts; and I pray that they appeal so that the Appeal Court can enhance the modest fines – RM70,000 a piece seems too low by my estimation.

Today, it appears that the best or the ‘even better model’ for media coverage is really the Internet-based media, which at least appears ‘colourless,’ much like the air we breathe.

\"\"

Their reasons are simple. You get all shades of light and colour but at least you are also allowed the light of Thomas Edison’s bulb to make your decisions about any matter after you surf the Net and read all shades and different opinions on the same matter. We call this philosophy of truth acquisition, ‘views and news that matter’.

Now, the second local government case and abuse of the law was closer to home for me; and it involved both versions of the ‘close one eye’ culture.

First, one of the exco members actually said that the officers of the local government were following the laws, when this structure was demolished forcibly. But, later, the same person reinterpreted the version.  At least that was how it was reported by Internetworked media.

Close which eye?

Our ‘close one eye’ culture also has some special privileges, as we never have to define which eye we choose to close for our truth-verification process.

One can always fall back to the retort ‘the media misquoted me!’. Now you see through one eye, and tomorrow you see through the other eye, often forgetting that even most rookie of reporters are only trying to simple get the facts, period. Their English is not good enough or nuanced as their command of Malay, not to mention Tamil or Chinese, which I do not read.

In this rather intriguing and interesting case, the coloured media all reported much of the truths ‘as they happened’ because all the people they interviewed, or those who intervened, were of those of the same or similar philosophical persuasion.

The specific structure that the local council workers destroyed was a construction of some spiritual significance to the adherents. The debate was over whether one needs legal approval for such construction, especially by the owner of the very private property. 

\"\"

But, can the enforcement officers even enter the compound without a court order?

Can we not therefore, as sane Malaysians, have a reasoned, rational dialogue or conversation on this issue?

Are Malaysians ready for this, or can we only frame all such dialogue or conversation within the ‘I win, You lose’ model of confrontation and discord?” Do we really need more war and enmity in the world?  Isn’t there enough of it already?

The ‘close one eye’ syndrome is a Malaysian innovation with a particular overlay of the Malay-based culture and worldview. Such a worldview presumes a psychology of depravity and not yet a framework of wealth or abundance. It presumes the negative psychology of ‘your win is always my loss’. A win-lose philosophy.

Rather unfortunately, this attitude is overlaid with a race-based worldview engulfed with a religious colour. Therefore, the other, even if they are the most holy of peoples, can never be right about anything, and are always wrong about everything and non-thing. Their worldview is coloured!

A more noble virtue is colour-blindness about others and their true colours. The good kind of colour-blindness can be seen with the symbol of the Blind Lady of Justice which is the Statute of Liberty in New York harbour.

Such a person has an attitude of humanity with humility and makes assumptions about the basic goodness of every human being until they prove us wrong by their very actions, and premised upon evidence.

That appears not to be the case with these local authorities. They assume the worst about other human beings, and seek to make good works appear through their own poor and bad deeds with misguided values.

My question: was their action legal in the first place?  Can the Bar Council please give its views; or even better still, can the LoyarBurok guys clarify this?

Malaysia needs a lot more of grace and hope, while we need to see goodness in others who are different from us.