The Inherent Shoddiness of Everything

The leader introduces the team, praising their amazing teamwork. After building up the case, she proposes THE big idea, brilliantly conjured by the team to solve the client’s pressing problem. All sounds good.

Of course she mentions not the heated meetings where people misunderstood each other. Or that one of the departments went rogue and did their own thing. Or how the writers and the art directors got a bunch of shoddy posters done without communicating their intentions to each other, because that was how they have always worked. Or the entire week they wasted on an idea that went nowhere, because the idea was not properly explained to the CEO.

None of this matter, as nobody imagined it happening otherwise. The job got done, right? And the client is going to love the idea, blissfully unaware of the mess concealed behind a seemingly polished presentation.

Such is work. Remember how much group assignments sucked? Work is more of that, except your projects now affect thousands or millions of customers. Surely there are wonderfully collaborative teams out there, but I suspect that most of us agree that teamwork universally sucks, and people in general are terrible at communicating.

If so, I wonder how we manage to get anything done at all. Yet we collaborated and produced truly amazing things, among many more obvious failures. We are surrounded with products which conception, manufacturing and retail span continents and involve hundreds or thousands of people. While I’m no libertarian, I can’t help but quote Leonard E. Read’s masterpiece I, Pencil, in which an anthropomorphised pencil explained his conception:

Actually, millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation, no one of whom even knows more than a very few of the others… There isn’t a single person in all these millions, including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how… Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me.”

The lesson, according to Lawrence W. Reed:

None of the Robespierres of the world knew how to make a pencil, yet they wanted to remake entire societies.

Indeed.

Wonderful all this products of mass collaboration may be, if we see how most things are made, we will realise that they are far from perfect, and we might wonder why we put so much trust in brands. Even when products are exceptionally well made, there remains a bit of inconsistency and shoddiness. Look closer at a product, and you can almost see which features are demands from managers or the marketing team. You see the compromises dictated by accountants. And the half-hearted implementations. And the miscommunications, which always lead to someone saying in desperation: whatever!

Despite all this, as consumers we are led by clever marketing to believe that products are results of ingenuity and amazing teamwork. We blame the poorly done on bad decisions and flawed visions. We are blissfully unaware of all the miscommunications and messiness that went into the products that we use.


Now, please allow me to shift the topic… like most products, government policies and visions are the result of collaboration – one between people with competing or opposing interests, ideologies, mandates, and ambitions. As the popular quote frequently attributed to Otto von Bismarck goes:

Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made… to retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.

Teamwork was seldom amazing, even in political entities that swear by a common vision – friends in the Malaysian government offered me glimpses of the miscommunication that happens daily in Putrajaya, and I can’t help but draw parallels with a typical day at work. Proposals are misunderstood, people talk cock, high-level ministers broadcast unrealistic targets that everyone else ignored… no matter how shiny and promising a political sausage looks, it was, after all, built with a mixture of workplace politics and serious miscommunication. Yucks!

All this endemic miscommunication makes change hard, even if there is sufficient will and vision. When people talk over each other’s heads and nobody understands what the fuck is going on, we naturally revert to standard operating procedures. Even in chaotic environments, old-timers get their jobs done as usual with little to no instructions, and new instructions tend to go unheeded or scorned at. New comers seek the experience of seniors, especially when attempts with new ideas and work-styles brought more trouble than appreciation, or when they stumble because they realised that no one cooperates with new ways. While change gets punished, the existing system produces suboptimal work effortlessly. Is it any wonder that we eventually succumb to gravity?

Indeed, collaborations on a mass scale can magically produce wonderful results even with minimal and terrible communication, yet they are also extremely resistant to change. To change the way thousands or millions of people work, takes time and systematic reforms. A new leader is simply not enough for anything meaningful.

Armed with this insight, we should be more resistant of the allures of autocracy, especially when autocrats claim that more power is needed to realise big beautiful uncompromising visions.

As we look at autocracies worldwide, we see not nations that stand for powerful visions realised. The countries they governed look just as messy as democracies, if not more so. Despite President Putin’s strongman image, Russia remains a Westworld of corrupt oligarchs which Putin must please or cautiously remove, and despite China’s amazing achievements, from time to time we glimpse fierce power struggles within the Communist Party. Furthermore, everyday we see evidences of misalignment between the Party leadership and its minions. How did Winnie the Pooh got banned? It was likely the result of a censor trying too hard when second-guessing his superior’s wishes, rather than a direct decree from President Xi Jinping.

Let’s cast aside our fetishisation of strong, technocratic leaderships. Undeniably, there are autocratic nations like China and Singapore with consequential achievements, resulting in huge improvements to human wellbeing. Yet, the costs of achievements aside, be careful of attributing such successes to visionary autocracies. Neither autocracy nor democracy can solve everything. As means to an end, their effectiveness must rely on many factors. Autocrats don’t have as much power and control as we assumed, and autocratic leaderships remain massive and messy collaborations.

This shoddiness prevented much greatness from being realised, yet, despite all the existing horrors in the world, the inherent shoddiness of politics may have also prevented many leaders from executing their dystopian visions, and we should be thankful for that.

Back home in Malaysia, critics of Prime Minister Mahathir see him as a manipulative puppet master who single-handedly orchestrated all that plague Malaysia till this day, and hell bent on corrupting Pakatan Harapan from within in service of his racist agenda. Mahathir’s admirers on the other hand believe that he is the only one with sufficient vision, stomach, and cunning to push through necessary changes.

Such simplistic believes are tempting because they promise simplistic solutions. And they are tempting indeed. Throughout the world, conspiracy theorists obsess over the idea of a powerful mastermind single-handedly bringing the nation, or the world, to ruin for his selfish, hateful agenda, whether that puppet master is Putin, Bannon, Soros, or the Kochs. Conversely, people with autocratic tendencies claim that all the nation lacks is good people with the right vision, and the dedication to bulldoze agendas through. Yet assuming that humankind is universally bad with communicating and collaborating, no strong leader is sufficient to solve our ills. Nor are large scale conspiracies likely to be true. There is even a math equation to prove the intrinsic probability of a conspiracy failing!

While there is no doubt that Mahathir is a master politician, a closer look reveals a man often forced by the will of the majority to reinvent his positions throughout his political career. Decades ago, the Islamisation of the Malay majority and the threat of PAS inspired Mahathir to recruit firebrand Islamist Anwar Ibrahim, to retain the support of a more and more conservative base. Decades later, with louder demands for institutional reforms and clean politics, the former autocrat had to reinvent himself as an apparently sincere democrat.

Again quoting Bismarck,

The statesman’s task is to hear God’s footsteps marching through history, and to try and catch on to His coattails as He marches past.

Mahathir greatest genius is co-opting his opponents whenever he feels the need to reinvent himself, even if that means sacrificing his original visions. A diverse and ever-changing nation is no place for stubbornness.

Yet, for all his shrewdness, he ended up leading a diverse and quarrelsome coalition consisting of Chinese-majority and reform-minded DAP, the PAS splinter AMANAH, and UMNO splinters like PKR and BERSATU. And it is obvious that, amidst all the squabbles, Mahathir have difficulty pushing anything through. Despite initial optimism from some and fears from others, more than a year after that landmark election, our news are filled with conflicts within the governing coalition and Pakatan Harapan has yet to get its act together and function as a cohesive whole.

Now, why did we expect any better or worse in the first place? A coalition with diverse opinions, interests, experiences, and worldview should not be expected to speak with a unified voice and act in unity. It will be surprising if Mahathir – or more reform minded Pakatan members, or anyone else – can reshape the nation as envisioned. Besides, a hostile and uncooperative civil service cultivated over the decades by the previous regime makes reforms really hard. Malaysia’s governance is more than just about who leads the government.

Sadly, with every failed attempt of change, the temptation to do things the easy and usual way gets stronger. Change is diluted and misapplied. The old system remains. Everyone succumbs to gravity.

In a nutshell: the world is much shoddier than most people imagined – and harder to change as a result. Neither Trump’s election nor Pakatan Harapan’s win has resulted in the massive change many hoped or feared. Rapid transformations like how Germany devolved into the Third Reich are often decades in the making, and they happen because they are endorsed by the masses. The statesman can only hope to try and catch on to His coattails as He marches past. Change takes far more than great leadership.

All this may sound pessimistic, yet small changes are better than none. With enough perseverance, tiny acts build momentum over time.

True change will not come from leaders with vision and will. It can only come with systematic reforms that change how everyone and their interests interact. And powerful it may be, inertia will ultimately give way to gradual changes on a mass scale, like how Malaysians worry more about freedom and corruption today, or, on a darker note, like how Malaysian Muslims became more conservative over the decades.

Such changes are organic and involve millions of people, yet they can be, and have been, done. Every individual’s action counts! Before we know it, we would have taken one more baby step forward.

在印尼和大馬聽見神的腳步聲

治國者的使命是傾聽上帝在歷史上走過的腳步聲,趁祂經過時努力抓住祂上衣下擺,跟祂一起前進。

俾斯麥宰相

有犬儒的人會說,這段話是說政治人物須善於投機才能成大事,但是我對俾斯麥的意思有稍微不同的領悟。治國者鮮少可以大刀闊斧地施展理念,就算是有絕對權力的領袖,也只能仔細聆聽主流民意,聽神的腳步聲,順著歷史趨勢走。

就好像一些大馬清流派欣賞的佐科威,在印尼大選中也不得不跟伊斯蘭宗教司合作,來繼續贏得印尼人民的支持。駐雅加達記者文森特.貝文斯在《大西洋月刊》寫道作為總統,佐科威經常招安他的批評者,而不是對抗他們,他經常討好主流選民,而不是推動新的願景。最顯著的例子,就是令鍾萬學入獄那次事件 ⋯⋯ 這段不也在說我國現任政府嗎?讓世俗派支持者失望的是,佐科威當總統後,他的政府一直向保守伊斯蘭主義妥協,非穆斯林LGBT女性等的待遇不只沒改善,還變得更糟。而2017年發文告暗示鍾萬學褻瀆《可蘭經》,令鍾萬學坐牢兩年的伊斯蘭宗教司馬魯夫,竟是佐科威在2019年大選中的競選夥伴

雖然如此妥協,在2019年印尼選舉中,佐科威陣營依然代表著穆斯林社會的溫和派。其對手普拉伯沃不只更積極煽動保守選民,普拉伯沃陣營也不斷發放虛假資訊,宣稱佐科威是共產黨員華人後代支持LGBT,但最嚴重的指控,是佐科威「對伊斯蘭教不夠虔誠」。在如此局面下,佐科威跟馬魯夫合作,有助於打消保守選民的疑慮。

何況佐科威從來就不是什麼政治清流。我2014年就寫過,佐科威極依賴印尼舊政治勢力支持,他當年是得到以為他好控制的黨魁兼前總統兼蘇卡諾長女梅加瓦蒂提拔,才有機會競選總統。佐科威2014年的競選夥伴尤素福.卡拉更是印尼舊政治的代表人物,甚至曾公開講「政府需要流氓幫忙做事」這種話。故佐科威上任時,大家都知道他只是傀儡,實權在垂簾聽政的梅加瓦蒂。

然而,佐科威不是省油的燈。通過一系列精密政治佈局,他迫使梅加瓦蒂退居二線。鞏固權力後,佐科威委任效忠於自己的總檢察長,對政治對手施展反腐調查,頒布替代法令解散被認為「有違團結精神」的民間組織,還在2019年大選中大肆動用國家機械為自己製造選舉優勢。難怪網民和媒體戲稱,印尼擺脫蘇哈托鐵腕治國的新秩序(Orde Baru)時代後,在佐科威領導下迎來了新新秩序(Neo-Orde Baru)時代。

此外,佐科威也做了許多深得民心的舉措,包括大力發展基礎建設,令印尼每年的經濟成長超過5%,加上作風親民,和在反毒與國際議題上擺出強硬姿態。這一切讓他維持不錯的支持率,也讓他再次能夠擊敗普拉伯沃。重視發展甚於一切、對司法程序和繁文縟節不耐煩、有專制傾向 ⋯⋯ 這些都證明佐科威不是很多人誤以為的民主派,他行為和理念上比較接近其他草根出身的亞洲領袖,例如馬哈迪。

說到馬哈迪,他是我國第一個草根出身的大馬首相,跟佐科威一樣,馬哈迪不只大肆發展基礎建設、對民主的限制相當厭煩,也是精明的投機者。有些人相信馬哈迪是個強勢領袖,講他一手摧毀了大馬,也有人迷信他有能力拯救國家。這都太看得起他老人家了!事實上他經常不得不順著民意走向,去招安他的批評者,例如這兩年馬哈迪與過去批評他的林吉祥等人走在一起,搖身一變成民主派,又或者八十年代時,為了回應馬來社會逐漸擁抱伊斯蘭保守主義、伊黨日益壯大,馬哈迪提拔了有魅力的激進伊斯蘭份子安華,並推動大馬伊斯蘭化,來分散伊黨的支持率。後來安華入獄,發生了很多事情,最後釀成509國陣倒台。玩味的是,如今馬哈迪和安華再次領導大馬政壇,而馬哈迪當年想利用安華擊敗的伊黨,竟然和他當年領導的巫統合作。打了幾十年的同一場戰爭,於是在新的戰場上繼續打到天荒地老。

下一屆全國大選還有很久,不知這幾年政治局勢會如何發展?但我預測屆時戰場一方會是安華保守但相對溫和的埃爾多安式伊斯蘭主義,另一方會是巫統伊黨混雜馬來民族主義的神權主義。然而我也必須指出,佐科威在2019年保住權力,不只因為他向保守派妥協,比較關鍵的是在他領導下印尼經濟持續成長,希盟政府如果要做超過一屆,就要拚好經濟。

印尼局勢不明朗,大馬恐怕也不會好到哪裡去。民調顯示四分之三的柔佛州馬來受訪者要求對穆斯林實施伊刑法,有57%要求對全體大馬人實施伊刑法,另外聖母大學宗教與社會研究中心的蘇馬克托尤通過民調發現,大馬穆斯林比印尼穆斯林保守很多,甚至比伊朗孟加拉土耳其等國的穆斯林更加保守。在下一屆全國大選,當雙方陣營致力於討好主流社會,華社身為少數群體恐怕不會有任何好的選項。不過在保守與極端保守之間,我們最後還是會被迫靠邊站,當神在歷史上走過,我們只能身不由己。

慢新聞的必要

我身邊有些人把新聞當娛樂,新聞夠不夠客觀有沒有深度不重要,重要的是夠煽情。他們開心就好,但我覺得這有點自虐。新聞很精彩,但大多令人沮喪,不是說娛樂必須正能量,但至少我看驚悚片時,知道那是虛構啊。

我們活在史上最和平富裕的時代,不該如此焦慮和無力,然而一打開報紙,全是讓人憤怒的消息。問題在於進步是上不了報的累積過程,可怕或荒唐的事件則引人矚目。是的,世界每天發生讓人難過的新聞,媒體有義務讓我們知道,不該粉飾太平,但讀新聞有時未必有助於我們理解世界。某人中彩票,錢都捐給老人院!恐怖份子殺死五十人,手法極殘暴!某官員講了白目的話!隕石打中他的頭,頭盔救了他一命!這些膚淺、重複、片面、無意義的雜音,讓我們以為世界很荒謬,讓我們不知所措。尤其今天我們都通過臉書上朋友的分享得到新聞,不是由專業編輯篩選,於是我們就只見荒唐搞笑感人讓人憤怒的內容,心情也在各個極端之間搖擺。我們花時間讀這些內容究竟是為了什麼?

我想,我們必須重新定義娛樂和新聞。誰說有深度的報道不能讓我們喜悅?好的調查報導更像小說,它們耐心地帶我們深入理解整件事情的來龍去脈,看見世界不為人知的一角,理解事件中各個角色的心境和動機,藉此引發深思。如《紐約客》對昂山舒吉的報道,讓我們看見這位典型亞洲領袖如何成為了一場美麗誤會,如《大西洋月刊》和《紐約時報對IS恐怖組織深入調查,讓我們看到受過教育的人如何擁抱激進思想。

這不也很精彩嗎?這類慢工出細活的新聞也比速食新聞更有社會影響力,如1972年《華盛頓郵報》調查水門事件數個月後,震撼了美國政壇,尼克森總統被迫下台,《華郵》也成了美國最有公信力的報紙之一。2013年《華郵》和《衛報》則揭發美國國安局對美國公民和外國首腦的監控,還有《南方周末》等數家報章,在中國媒體享有相對自由的年代,曾多次通過調查性報道推動社會變革 ⋯⋯ 我國有多少媒體肯投資於調查性報導?也許不少本地媒體到仍在癡等臉書浪潮退去,不覺得有更上一層樓的必要。報業人該參考參考1960年至1980年美國報業黃金時代的形成背景:電視機變得普遍。哈佛歷史教授萊波爾(Jill Lepore)說,當人們想知道新聞只需要扭開電視,報章不得不提升素質,給讀者更有深度的內容。有了壓力,報業自然快馬加鞭,今天來到社媒年代,報業更須加倍努力,這樣才可以迎來更美好的明天。

很遺憾,許多媒體人仍然過時地迷信搶先報道的必要。幾年前我在一場宴會上聽到有人說,在網絡時代,報業必須跟臉書比快。我一直認為這是錯誤的策略。在臉書年代,獨家已死。你搶先報道了,在新聞前放了「獨家」兩字,然後?其他媒體和臉書專頁只需引述一下稍加修改點評,就做成了自己的新聞,當大家都分享同樣並流於表面的內容,誰注意和在乎誰先報道?但他們無法將你有深度的調查性報導佔為己有。又或者驚天動地的報道如水門案,誰都搶不走《華郵》和《紐時》的光芒。傳統媒體資本充沛,能資助網絡媒體做不到的深入調查,能供養專業記者花時間整理精確有深度的新聞,為什麼不好好利用呢?

當大家滑滑手機就知天下事,傳統媒體一定要脫穎而出,而不是盲目衝進不利己的戰場。好的報道需要時間,可憐的記者不可能在區區一天或幾天之內趕出來。2011年,美國奧立岡州立大學教授勞佛(Peter Laufer)開始提倡慢新聞運動,認為當新聞進入速食時代,媒體必須放慢步伐,給大眾更健康有營養的新聞,讓讀者和記者都有充分時間思考。如今市面上已有多家以慢新聞為宗旨的媒體,如2011年出版於英國的《延遲滿足》季刊雜誌,在美國,首家獲得普立茲獎的網上傳媒 ProPublica 也被認為貫徹了慢新聞精神。我不是生意人,不知這對本地媒體而言是否可行,但我確信報業的出路不會是跟人家的臉書頁面比爛

1999年《南方週末》在社論中寫道,調查性報導應該「讓無力者有力,讓悲觀者前行」,這是我對大馬媒體的願景。我認識很多年輕媒體人,看見他們仍然有熱忱,有意願做對讀者有利的事情。但讀者也必須進步。當我們知道自己要什麼,當我們選擇獎勵對我們有益的高素質內容,無視低俗煽情的內容,媒體的素質自然會跟我們一起提升。