I AM quite taken by the title of a 1960s British television sitcom, ‘Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width’. It implies that one should just look at the form but not the substance. I think this is patently wrong. The essence is paramount. Unfortunately, we tend to be dazzled by form and ignore the substance. This is particularly so when we confronted by a titled person.
Last week I broached the subject of whether our world champion diver Pandelela Rinong should be conferred the title of Datuk. I received quite a bit of feedback. Some were upset that the Minister for Sports Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah appeared to be against giving Pandelela such honorific. It is a “go-to” response for politicians to say that they were quoted out of context whenever they receive criticism. In this case, I do think that he was indeed.
Let’s recap. What the Minister said was that the State will give appropriate rewards for our high achievers, but he has reservation about give the Datukship. “… can you imagine someone in their 20s having a Datukship? It will be very difficult for her to interact normally outside.”
However, that is only half of the story, in fact, the wrong half. It will not be the young champion who will have difficulty to “interact normally outside”. It is we, the Malaysian public who have difficulty. It is a difficulty that is caused by a malaise that has afflicted our society for some time. It is a malaise that gives rise to that awkward behaviour called the Ampu culture. There are some who are more brazen and would describe this phenomenon in a more earthy language and usually link the word Ampu with Bodek. I need not elaborate on the term further but would just say it manifests itself in a near sycophantic reverence and admiration of a titled person.
Let me first state my position on this Datukship thing. I believe it is an honour given to Malaysians who have contributed significantly and brought honour to the country and state. On that basis alone the world champion Pandelela more than deserves that title. She has given more than 20 years of dedicated hard work to bring honour to the state and country. It is a world championship no less and, in a sport, where all the big nations partake.
It was suggested that bestowing such a title might “spoil her”, I presume to make her big-headed and she might demand special treatment as some Datuks are wont to do. I remember reading a news report a few years ago about a Malaysian Datuk who was apprehended in a US airport when he made a scene when he felt that he was not accorded the respect a Datuk was entitled to. It was reported that he shouted at the immigration officer, “Do you know who I am? I am Datuk ….” Needless to say, he was given short shrift and was led to the airport holding room pronto.
That’s “being spoilt” for you. How does this entitled behaviour come about? Just a few days ago there has been an allegation that a VIP’s spouse jumped the queue at the vaccination centre. I am not sure if this was true, but if true, I am not surprised. Our VIPs (presumably all titled persons are VIPs) do expect such preferential treatment. Titles do bring tangible perks.
First, there is the matter of VIP car parking space. On that trivial matter, I do have an amusing anecdote. At our recreation club, we reserve a few choice spots for the Management Committee. I must add this was not instituted arbitrarily. No, it was moved as a motion at the AGM, debated hotly and the resolution was carried. One day a Minister came to the club and wanted to park at the spot reserved for the management Committee. He was ushered away by the guard. He was livid and assert that Ministers should also be accorded the right to the preferred parking slots in the private members club.
Those who have organised dinner functions involving VIPs would know that it is a standard offer that VIPs (being seated at the top table) would be served a special menu, a better one than that of the ordinary guests. This practice is, of course, gleefully instituted by the restaurants and hotels, so that they can charge a higher price for the said tables.
In functions, musical or otherwise, the seats are arranged in “theatre style” but still at the front there will be a heavy sofa set complete with low tables with an offering of beverage and cakes. The VIP guests have also entitled to exclusive use of the special VIP toilet.
These practices are manifestations of our acceptance of ordinary people’s inferior status. They can be annoying but not of real great import. However, there is a more damaging practice – our proclivity of dumbing ourselves intellectually in the face of titled persons.
There is a practice in logic and rhetoric called “appeal to authority”. This is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it is perfectly alright to appeal to the opinion of an authority on a topic as evidence to support one’s argument. However, it becomes entirely fallacious when one appeal (whether unconsciously or deliberately) to a false authority as support of one’s claim, meaning citing a non-authority as an authority. For example, one should not quote as authority the opinion of an orthopaedic surgeon on a matter of brain surgery. This happens quite a lot.
I was at an Annual General Meeting of a golf club some years ago, where a series of constitutional amendments were proposed. The Chair ruled that in the interest of saving time the assembly should just vote on the amendments as one. The problem was that the motions were of varied nature, in that one can agree to some but disagree on the others. A heated argument ensued but the Chair was adamant. To solve the impasse, he referred the matter to a lawyer who supported his ruling. The problem was that the lawyer, I presume, a criminal lawyer or something but did not know Parliamentary procedure, the law governing meetings. The Chair declared “since our lawyer says so, therefore, we should just vote on all the motions as one”. This was patently wrong because as noted the motions were of varied nature and cannot be taken as one. Another bout of heated argument followed. Fortunately, there were sufficient legal practitioners in the house to get their points across. Had it been that the legal advisor of the Club was the only lawyer the Chair could have cowed the assembly into submission.
So, I say, examine the quality of the arguments irrespective of who present them and make our decision based on common sense.