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.

在印尼和大马听见神的脚步声

治国者的使命是倾听上帝在历史上走过的脚步声,趁祂经过时努力抓住祂上衣下摆,跟祂一起前进。

俾斯麦宰相

有犬儒的人会说,这段话是说政治人物须善于投机才能成大事,但是我对俾斯麦的意思有稍微不同的领悟。治国者鲜少可以大刀阔斧地施展理念,就算是有绝对权力的领袖,也只能仔细聆听主流民意,听神的脚步声,顺着历史趋势走。

就好像一些大马清流派欣赏的佐科威,在印尼大选中也不得不跟伊斯兰宗教司合作,来继续赢得印尼人民的支持。驻雅加达记者文森特.贝文斯在《大西洋月刊》写道作为总统,佐科威经常招安他的批评者,而不是对抗他们,他经常讨好主流选民,而不是推动新的愿景。最显著的例子,就是令钟万学入狱那次事件 ⋯⋯ 这段不也在说我国现任政府吗?让世俗派支持者失望的是,佐科威当总统后,他的政府一直向保守伊斯兰主义妥协,非穆斯林LGBT女性等的待遇不只没改善,还变得更糟。而2017年发文告暗示钟万学亵渎《可兰经》,令钟万学坐牢两年的伊斯兰宗教司马鲁夫,竟是佐科威在2019年大选中的竞选伙伴

虽然如此妥协,在2019年印尼选举中,佐科威阵营依然代表着穆斯林社会的温和派。其对手普拉伯沃不只更积极煽动保守选民,普拉伯沃阵营也不断发放虚假资讯,宣称佐科威是共产党员华人后代支持LGBT,但最严重的指控,是佐科威「对伊斯兰教不够虔诚」。在如此局面下,佐科威跟马鲁夫合作,有助于打消保守选民的疑虑。

何况佐科威从来就不是什么政治清流。我2014年就写过,佐科威极依赖印尼旧政治势力支持,他当年是得到以为他好控制的党魁兼前总统兼苏卡诺长女梅加瓦蒂提拔,才有机会竞选总统。佐科威2014年的竞选伙伴尤素福.卡拉更是印尼旧政治的代表人物,甚至曾公开讲「政府需要流氓帮忙做事」这种话。故佐科威上任时,大家都知道他只是傀儡,实权在垂帘听政的梅加瓦蒂。

然而,佐科威不是省油的灯。通过一系列精密政治布局,他迫使梅加瓦蒂退居二线。巩固权力后,佐科威委任效忠于自己的总检察长,对政治对手施展反腐调查,颁布替代法令解散被认为「有违团结精神」的民间组织,还在2019年大选中大肆动用国家机械为自己制造选举优势。难怪网民和媒体戏称,印尼摆脱苏哈托铁腕治国的新秩序(Orde Baru)时代后,在佐科威领导下迎来了新新秩序(Neo-Orde Baru)时代。

此外,佐科威也做了许多深得民心的举措,包括大力发展基础建设,令印尼每年的经济成长超过5%,加上作风亲民,和在反毒与国际议题上摆出强硬姿态。这一切让他维持不错的支持率,也让他再次能够击败普拉伯沃。重视发展甚于一切、对司法程序和繁文缛节不耐烦、有专制倾向 ⋯⋯ 这些都证明佐科威不是很多人误以为的民主派,他行为和理念上比较接近其他草根出身的亚洲领袖,例如马哈迪。

说到马哈迪,他是我国第一个草根出身的大马首相,跟佐科威一样,马哈迪不只大肆发展基础建设、对民主的限制相当厌烦,也是精明的投机者。有些人相信马哈迪是个强势领袖,讲他一手摧毁了大马,也有人迷信他有能力拯救国家。这都太看得起他老人家了!事实上他经常不得不顺着民意走向,去招安他的批评者,例如这两年马哈迪与过去批评他的林吉祥等人走在一起,摇身一变成民主派,又或者八十年代时,为了回应马来社会逐渐拥抱伊斯兰保守主义、伊党日益壮大,马哈迪提拔了有魅力的激进伊斯兰份子安华,并推动大马伊斯兰化,来分散伊党的支持率。后来安华入狱,发生了很多事情,最后酿成509国阵倒台。玩味的是,如今马哈迪和安华再次领导大马政坛,而马哈迪当年想利用安华击败的伊党,竟然和他当年领导的巫统合作。打了几十年的同一场战争,于是在新的战场上继续打到天荒地老。

下一届全国大选还有很久,不知这几年政治局势会如何发展?但我预测届时战场一方会是安华保守但相对温和的埃尔多安式伊斯兰主义,另一方会是巫统伊党混杂马来民族主义的神权主义。然而我也必须指出,佐科威在2019年保住权力,不只因为他向保守派妥协,比较关键的是在他领导下印尼经济持续成长,希盟政府如果要做超过一届,就要拼好经济。

印尼局势不明朗,大马恐怕也不会好到哪里去。民调显示四分之三的柔佛州马来受访者要求对穆斯林实施伊刑法,有57%要求对全体大马人实施伊刑法,另外圣母大学宗教与社会研究中心的苏马克托尤通过民调发现,大马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国的穆斯林更加保守。在下一届全国大选,当双方阵营致力于讨好主流社会,华社身为少数群体恐怕不会有任何好的选项。不过在保守与极端保守之间,我们最后还是会被迫靠边站,当神在历史上走过,我们只能身不由己。

慢新闻的必要

我身边有些人把新闻当娱乐,新闻够不够客观有没有深度不重要,重要的是够煽情。他们开心就好,但我觉得这有点自虐。新闻很精彩,但大多令人沮丧,不是说娱乐必须正能量,但至少我看惊悚片时,知道那是虚构啊。

我们活在史上最和平富裕的时代,不该如此焦虑和无力,然而一打开报纸,全是让人愤怒的消息。问题在于进步是上不了报的累积过程,可怕或荒唐的事件则引人瞩目。是的,世界每天发生让人难过的新闻,媒体有义务让我们知道,不该粉饰太平,但读新闻有时未必有助于我们理解世界。某人中彩票,钱都捐给老人院!恐怖份子杀死五十人,手法极残暴!某官员讲了白目的话!陨石打中他的头,头盔救了他一命!这些肤浅、重复、片面、无意义的杂音,让我们以为世界很荒谬,让我们不知所措。尤其今天我们都通过脸书上朋友的分享得到新闻,不是由专业编辑筛选,于是我们就只见荒唐搞笑感人让人愤怒的内容,心情也在各个极端之间摇摆。我们花时间读这些内容究竟是为了什么?

我想,我们必须重新定义娱乐和新闻。谁说有深度的报道不能让我们喜悦?好的调查报导更像小说,它们耐心地带我们深入理解整件事情的来龙去脉,看见世界不为人知的一角,理解事件中各个角色的心境和动机,借此引发深思。如《纽约客》对昂山舒吉的报道,让我们看见这位典型亚洲领袖如何成为了一场美丽误会,如《大西洋月刊》和《纽约时报对IS恐怖组织深入调查,让我们看到受过教育的人如何拥抱激进思想。

这不也很精彩吗?这类慢工出细活的新闻也比速食新闻更有社会影响力,如1972年《华盛顿邮报》调查水门事件数个月后,震撼了美国政坛,尼克森总统被迫下台,《华邮》也成了美国最有公信力的报纸之一。2013年《华邮》和《卫报》则揭发美国国安局对美国公民和外国首脑的监控,还有《南方周末》等数家报章,在中国媒体享有相对自由的年代,曾多次通过调查性报道推动社会变革 ⋯⋯ 我国有多少媒体肯投资于调查性报导?也许不少本地媒体到仍在痴等脸书浪潮退去,不觉得有更上一层楼的必要。报业人该参考参考1960年至1980年美国报业黄金时代的形成背景:电视机变得普遍。哈佛历史教授莱波尔(Jill Lepore)说,当人们想知道新闻只需要扭开电视,报章不得不提升素质,给读者更有深度的内容。有了压力,报业自然快马加鞭,今天来到社媒年代,报业更须加倍努力,这样才可以迎来更美好的明天。

很遗憾,许多媒体人仍然过时地迷信抢先报道的必要。几年前我在一场宴会上听到有人说,在网络时代,报业必须跟脸书比快。我一直认为这是错误的策略。在脸书年代,独家已死。你抢先报道了,在新闻前放了「独家」两字,然后?其他媒体和脸书专页只需引述一下稍加修改点评,就做成了自己的新闻,当大家都分享同样并流于表面的内容,谁注意和在乎谁先报道?但他们无法将你有深度的调查性报导占为己有。又或者惊天动地的报道如水门案,谁都抢不走《华邮》和《纽时》的光芒。传统媒体资本充沛,能资助网络媒体做不到的深入调查,能供养专业记者花时间整理精确有深度的新闻,为什么不好好利用呢?

当大家滑滑手机就知天下事,传统媒体一定要脱颖而出,而不是盲目冲进不利己的战场。好的报道需要时间,可怜的记者不可能在区区一天或几天之内赶出来。2011年,美国奥立冈州立大学教授劳佛(Peter Laufer)开始提倡慢新闻运动,认为当新闻进入速食时代,媒体必须放慢步伐,给大众更健康有营养的新闻,让读者和记者都有充分时间思考。如今市面上已有多家以慢新闻为宗旨的媒体,如2011年出版于英国的《延迟满足》季刊杂志,在美国,首家获得普立兹奖的网上传媒 ProPublica 也被认为贯彻了慢新闻精神。我不是生意人,不知这对本地媒体而言是否可行,但我确信报业的出路不会是跟人家的脸书页面比烂

1999年《南方周末》在社论中写道,调查性报导应该「让无力者有力,让悲观者前行」,这是我对大马媒体的愿景。我认识很多年轻媒体人,看见他们仍然有热忱,有意愿做对读者有利的事情。但读者也必须进步。当我们知道自己要什么,当我们选择奖励对我们有益的高素质内容,无视低俗煽情的内容,媒体的素质自然会跟我们一起提升。