Sajakkini

At kakiseni.com.my, a ribut (storm) had been blowing over Amir Muhammad’s wicked review of Gerak Khas 3. It’s a fine return to form for Amir, as I’ve mentioned to him the other day, and may we see such wit in his NST columns to come.

The film itself is not what I wish to comment on; I think Amir has done a good job on that, so if you’re a purveyor of the quintessentially British sense of humour a-la Douglas Adams, you should go find the article and read it. (It’s in Malay, though.) What I am interested in is the response to it, as judged from the comments that people had left under the review.

The thing about this style of self-deprecating humour is that it is usually but a thin veil for truth, and that truth is often painful to hear or read for certain types of people.*

RUHAYAT X is a writer, publisher and co-founder of Neohikayat Publishing. He’s all bark and bite.

It’s true, I have found that making something funny lets you get away with a lot of things, mainly because if people think it’s a joke then it must be harmless. This is why humour, to me, is the best medium for social criticism.

But at the same time, you will also get a handful of people who will take even more offense at something as smug as Amir’s review, because to them it smacks of the superiority complex that ‘Westernised Malays’ supposedly have for their ‘kampung’ brethren.

You will often find that the reverse is actually true: it is these so-called ‘defenders of the kampung’ types who have an insecurity complex.

Real kampung people

The real kampung people (sans inverted commas), I suspect, don’t give a shit about what the other half thinks of them. They are secure in their beliefs and there is nothing which the other half has that they want. I don’t know about you, but if I feel good about myself and what I have, then I wouldn’t give a pelanduk’s arse about what my neighbours have, either.

The small group of insecure ‘kampung’ types, on the other hand, desire what they see over on the other side. They are all angry inside because they can’t get there, and the reason why they can’t get there is actually a product of their own making - their insecurity stops them from crossing over.

Except that, since they are so small and weak inside, they’d rather blame it on something other than themselves for their predicament. So they blame the other half, who they feel “wouldn’t let them into the exclusive clique”. And, being unable to penetrate the other side, they make themselves feel good by telling themselves that, “Alah, diorang tu bukannya bagus mana sangat lah. Perosak moral!”

I’m sure there are many of these types who, upon reading that, would go, “Eleh, aku sikit pun tak hingin pada apa yang diorang ada tu la!”. But bawak mengucap, beb, as you would say to others; sit down and look into yourself, and you will see that, yes it’s true, the Nerd in you wishes you were Popular.

But you’re not, and that’s why you’re so angry whenever you see That Which You Cannot Be.

(In school there’s always that bunch of nerds who wish they could be part of the popular people, right, and they’re always passing snide remarks, all the while pretending that they “tak kisah ponnnn, nyah”. The same dynamics apply here.)

The real solution, of course, is to accept that you are, indisputably, a Nerd and can never be Popular. That’s what I did, and look how happy an individual I am. If you can’t deal with that painful fact, save everyone the unnecessary heartburn and go find yourself a Fairy Godmother to transform you into somebody popular.

In other words, stop giving a shit. But insecure people are unable to do this because, like a rabid squirrel, they just can’t let go.

Clique A vs Clique B

I’ve seen firsthand how this thing works. The first year I was in the UK my batch had an emergency meeting: apparently, a group of girls were feeling sidelined by another group of girls. They felt that they were “not good enough”, and that the latter group were “memandang rendah” at them, because they were “orang kampung” whereas the others were “orang PJ”.

As an independent observer, being a creature with no cliques and therefore no loyalties save to my own self-interest, I found the charges puzzling and absurd. The reality, to me, was not that Clique B were actively shutting out Clique A - it’s just human to feel comfortable with people who are most like you.

There never was a “rule” that Clique A people cannot join the Clique B fraternity. The only problem was that if someone from A did join Clique B, they would quickly feel left out because they have very little in common in terms of background, worldview and experiences. That, to me, was a very educational experience in understanding the psyche of people who want more than their station in life (but frequently don’t want to work to get out).

I am all for open-ness and differing opinions. But what’s disturbing is that the “kampung” types are often unable to match the skillful arguments of the other side, and so they often resort to name-calling and personal attacks. Had they been in a position of power, they would surely have gone further and go about banning things as they please or throwing people into jail.

This is akin to the schoolyard bully who, being unable to elucidate why he thinks, he has the right to the swings more than anyone else (especially when he realises, when presented with arguments from the other side, that he doesn’t actually have such rights), resorts to simply thumping people into the ground.

When one is lost for words or - in many cases - simply unable to think for oneself coherently, the only avenue left is brute force.

Again, the proper response, of course, we being humans with logical faculties, is to upgrade oneself so that we can stand toe to toe with our critics. But evidently this is too much hard work, and so in the time-honoured Ugly Malay tradition, it is far easier to yank down the other fella’s pants so that everyone can see his underpants and join us in laughing at him.

The Mental Bully

The problem for the Mental Bully is that in a forum such as kakiseni, people are not as dimwitted as usual. Spitting boogers through a straw at other people is not funny, and neither is giving people virtual wedgies. You will only show yourself up for the idiot that you are. But as usual, fanatics walk around in their own Reality Distortion Field, and so while everyone can see that they are standing there stark naked, they can’t.

Yet these people persist in their illusion that they are defending the cultural traditions. Who are they kidding? Yusof Haslam a defender of Malay cultural values? Hyeah, if you happen to believe racism is good for the soul.

Besides, as a friend said the other day, don’t tell me the Malay culture is so fragile that it can have its back broken by having differing views within it? The Malay culture is stronger than that, having survived for millenia and being able to adapt itself to sweeping changes in its people’s worldviews. It will certainly last far longer than the smattering of sad cretins who inhabit it.

What is heartening to note, though, is that this time the ‘Westernised Malays’ - hitherto the Popular people - have again refused to go down meekly.

Usually we find that somehow people with viewpoints contrary to the arus perdana (ooo I love that word… it means, as literal as always, ‘mainstream’) shut up rather quickly when challenged by fascistic ‘kampung’ types. Maybe they just feel guilty about not being ‘normal’, or maybe they just don’t like getting lynched. But more and more, we find non-conformist types who are not afraid to defend their beliefs.

I think this is a good sign. All it takes for evil to reign is for good people to sit and do nothing, goes the saying. Certainly we should stand up and be counted, and strive to beat down prejudice wherever it may rear its ugly head. We musn’t stop doing that.

The anonymity of the Internet has a lot to do with this, I think. Which is why it has yet to translate into the real world. Eventually it will get there. And for all our sake, we’d better hope so.

Note: * We have discussed before the elusive nature of the Truth and the futility of argument, so let’s not get into that “Whose version of the truth blablabla” thing for now, yes? Instead, let’s just do the obvious and say that the truth in any case must always be that which the speaker/writer brings. You may or may not agree with his truth, but that’s not the same as condemning his beliefs to be false. For, if his thoughts are false, then it must mean that what you hold in your head is true; if so, who vouches for you?