LAST month I raised the analogy of national stability as a three-legged stool – the
economic, political and social. Those who are focused on the economics – mostly
businessmen and economists – concentrate on raising GDP numbers. But politics is
all about trade-offs between different demands from different quarters. Politics
involves the power to tackle social demands on imbalances, inequalities and on how
the country should be run.
But at a time of grave global uncertainties, when everything seems to change at the
same time, it is the time when we all begin either to look inward or look outward. This
is all about the meaning of our social contract.
Looking outward, it is easy to blame everyone else for the troubles or uncertainty that
we are in. So we blame the Americans, Russians, Chinese, foreigners, immigrants,
government, opposition, disbelievers or anyone who is convenient to be blamed.
Looking inwards, we may have to ask very fundamental and disturbing questions –
who am I; who are we as a community; what do we hold sacred? These are very
tough questions, with no simple answers. Since few are willing to admit that the
problems start with self, it is easier to blame others.
No man is an island because we all have to live together in a family, community and
nation, sharing common beliefs, values and fates. It is only when we disagree and
end up with conflict that families go through divorce, communities fight and nations
break up or collapse.
Why is it that we tend to disagree? Human beings are hard-wired to have their own
views and beliefs, based on their own DNA make up (genetic inheritance), their
socialisation (through schooling, religious and cultural upbringing) and their own
personal experience.
Socialisation is why even identical twins think and behave differently. Generation gap
is why parents and children cannot communicate, because the young do not have the
same life experiences. Different beliefs, sometimes in the same God, are why
communities with the same ethnic make-up can engage in civil war. If we are a
community, we cannot force our views on others, we need to have shared values.
My fundamental belief is that only God is perfect, and humans are imperfect. If God is
perfect, he would have made all human beings equal and alike. But he did not.
Therefore there is a divine purpose behind our differences.
If we accept that we each are different, from different sexes, race, colour or creed, we
must learn to live with each other’s differences, but must strive to find things and
beliefs in common. No community or nation can last without such common beliefs and
shared fate.
Because we are different, we all face what is called “elephants in the room”, a term to
mean that there are issues that everyone in the room is uncomfortable with, but is not
willing to talk about. In New York, you would pay an expensive, qualified psychiatrist
to help you identify the angst, ego or whatever is making you uncomfortable. In less
sophisticated societies, that is the role of the shaman or guru. They are
intermediaries to make differences whole, through the unfolding of a dialogue, first
with oneself, then with others and even with one’s foes and enemies.
There is no secret about finding solutions in a complex world of uncertainty. In
internet language, it is a process of browsing, search, evaluation, decision, accept or
reject and move on.
We “discover” or reveal the unknown through the process of dialogue, followed by
action, which then reveals what each party holds to be the acceptable contract. A
social contract is made only through the process of dialogue and give and take.
In today’s fast moving world of instant knowledge through social media, we protect
our sense of security by hiding ourselves in different enclaves, which make families
and societies more fractious and segmented. It is as if we can be living in the same
house, same city, but live and work in totally compartmentalised and separate
spheres. This gives rise to the walls between rich gated estates and the poor in
crowded, abject insecurity.
It is because our differences are growing wider that we need to renew our faith and
friendship with each other.
Social cohesion comes from social dialogue – the ability to talk to each other and
understand each other’s differences. Conversations are important, because they
reveal common space, shared beliefs that are revealed and often discovered through
debate and dissension. The more dialogue there is within a family or community, the
smaller the “elephants in the room”, the greater the cohesion and willingness to share
or suffer together.
Nations and families sustain through mutual tolerance, mutual burden-sharing, be it
prosperity or adversity.
The problem with all relationships, family, communal or national, is that we tend to
take each other for granted. We forget that we need to work at every relationship,
because the relationship – the interchange (of information, money or values) is where
the bonding or the breaking occurs.
This is why I support the idea of National Consultative Council (NCC2). Next year will
be the 60th anniversary of Merdeka. It is a natural cycle to think through how we as a
nation, our communities, rural or urban, rich or poor, of different colour and creed,
can engage in dialogues to find the right social compact for the next 60 years.
We are not alone in this existential debate. All over the world, different countries are
engaged in similar debates – some even through civil strife. Crises are events that
mark change, but the management of change is a process.
That process begins with dialogue, between friends, as well as between foes.
Malaysia has always been a diverse nation, proud of its diversity, born out of
toleration and moderation. It is time to manage that diversity of opinion through a
national consultative process.
Tan Sri Andrew Sheng comments on economic, finance and social issues.
A version of this article appeared in The Star Online, 15 October 2016
|
|
