My Shakespeare Blog

Don't ask (smile).

Against Corridored Thinking (Shamed But Not Ashamed, Pt.4)

Andrew Khoo's presentation was nicely timed, given its nature. After two on-the-ground, position-specific takes on religion, morality and sexuality (by Hamzah and Bong, both of whom were reasonably clear what they believed should or shouldn't be accepted as normal), it would seem appropriate to 'step back' and relook at the debate.

Khoo, deputy chairperson of a number of committees in the Bar Council, began by posing the 'big' questions (after amusingly issuing a 'health warning' that his views for the day do not represent the Bar Council's):

• who decides what morality, let alone public morality, is?
• if morality is begotten of religion, then whose religion sets the standard?
• how would we define 'gender equality'? (here some of us were introduced to the acronym, "LGBTIQ")
• what's the importance of sexual morality vis-a-vis other facets of morality? why is sex such a 'big deal' (and has it always been the case)?
• how do we navigate between private notions of morality and public law?
• should privacy legislation be practised, and what exceptions would there be?

I know my LLB-loving wife would've enjoyed the legal terms thrown out. I particularly took interest in the new knowledge that Malaysia had criminalised homosexuality under Section 377 of the Penal Code which, paradoxically, could outlaw male-male relationships but not lesbians (why not? check out the link). In the matter of sexual acts, we cannot ignore the question of what constitutes 'natural' and 'unnatural' activity (yet another bullet-point for the list above then).

Given the amount of reflection needed, to jump straight into condemnation, according to Khoo, would reflect 'corridored thinking' - and I agree. I also resonate with Khoo's method of focusing on asking the right questions instead of rushing to give knock-down answers cum arguments (which I suspect is what many have done, given their partisan loyalties - I've written my own confession in the previous post).

Khoo did, however, address the issue of the public's right to interfere into the privacy of others. This would be allowed in the case of hypocrisy i.e. when a politician's private life (e.g. he's gay) contradicts his public position (e.g. he pushes for anti-gay policies). In this case, according to this argument, the public should have the 'right to know'.

What's disturbing about this, though, is that it may make 'hidden cameras' more prevalent as how could the public be sure that a politician is not living/acting hypocritically unless his private life is an open book?

Khoo also (semi-provocatively) suggested that there could be another way to look at the Elizabeth Wong episode: Could it be a case of the media being concerned about public morality, thereby 'sacrificing' an innocent victim so the community could be warned? Who's to say, right? Who indeed.

Some concluding remarks up next...as for Irene Fernandez's session, I left after about seven minutes so I really can't say much here. I look forward to hear what others report.

Flashing the Feminist Finger (Shamed But Not Ashamed, Pt.3)

In my view, Sharon Bong (a feminist and literary expert) gave the best presentation of the day. It dealt with a sensitive / scandalous theme in a way which forced her listeners to question their own assumptions about what was 'basic' and 'natural'. I've no ingrained affinity for feminism, but when someone can both hint at polarities and abuses of power and challenge cherished traditional cores, my ears (naturally) perk up.

Quoting from Martha Nussbaum's Hiding From Humanity, Bong first discussed the idea of public shaming: Why do people get a 'rush' from this? Why have our communities believed in, and thus propagate, its use?

Bong then shared her personal experiences about being a prefect in school and how the school authorities publicly caned a student who littered and made her wear a 'litter-bug' plaque.

She also listed the impact of the public shaming of sex offenders: the erode human dignity, create divisions and promote branding (not in the glamourous Marketing sense but in the ugly caste-like sense) and entrench social hierarchies.

At this point, I suppose almost everyone was nodding. We were tacitly all in agreement that 'public shaming is bad'. But hang on: How many of us feel that V.K. Lingam was not shamed enough? How many of us have cracked cute one-liners about our DPM's (alleged) back-door sexual preferences (and are hoping for more lurid details)? How many of us would LOVE to see certain members of the incumbent government publicly shamed? Or can we draw a fine line between 'illegitimate shaming' (master-minded by political leaders) and 'necessary exposés' (performed by subversive writers)?

And as Andrew Khoo remarked later, why the surge of anger when Elizabeth Wong was shamed but less so in the case of Chua Soi Lek's cam-corded romp in a hotel room? The elephant(s) in the room are that i. Chua was a member of the incumbent government and Wong was from the Opposition and ii. Chua was a man, Wong a woman. (I'll be straight-up here and say that's how I felt about it emotionally. Yes, it disturbs me).

Quite unexpectedly, Bong then suggested that the phenomenon of the single women in charge of sexuality was a threat to our male-dominated society. Why? Because it subverts traditional views of family and marriage with all the phallocentric(?) biases that these institutions reflect. The sexually active single woman, in a word, was a walking flashing feminist finger to male power.

How this 'plays out' in the case of Elizabeth Wong is uncertain yet (because of that?) bizarre: Does Bong mean to say that Wong's condemnation by the BN was in part a reflection of our male-dominated society striking a blow for traditional family values? Now, isn't that exactly what the likes of Toyo were saying? But would this mean that those of us who opposed Wong's condemnation are (somehow) against traditional family values?!

The plot thickens.

Throughout it was clear that Bong was making a hard pitch for the sexually marginalised. She half-challenged Wong defenders if they would've remained so if

• Wong's photographs were taken with her consent
• Wong did not have a good track record as a politician and
• Wong was gay.
  

This, really, was to make us question the extent of our commitment to victims of public shaming and condemnation and how this commitment was bounded by our views of what's sexually acceptable, 'normal' and so on.

The recent episodes of OuYang Wen Feng, pastor of Malaysia's first openly gay church and trans-sexual Jessie Chung could prove insightful in examining the consistency and dependencies of our judgments. How would we feel if they were to say that, despite all the condemnations they've received (especially from traditional Christians and Muslims), that they too were 'shamed but not ashamed'?

Next - Andrew Khoo (or go to start of series).

Made-in-Malaysia Islam? (Shamed But Not Ashamed, Pt.2)

Masjaliza Hamzah (Program Manager at Sisters in Islam) shared some pro-human rights/dignity quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith which I'm sure many present were grateful to know. I for one had my (stereo)-typical concerns about Islam somewhat relaxed when I heard that the faith's holy books included verses like:

• "He who conceals the nakedness of a brother concels his own nakedness" (and positive flip-side of,"He who exposes the nakedness of another exposes his own")
  
  
  
• "Do not enter the houses of others without permission" (you're allowed to asked three times)
  
  
  
• "Greeting precedes conversation"(!)
  
  
  
  
• "Suspicion is akin to lying" (not the exact words but it amounts to something similar)

The verses seem clear. So what's up in Malaysia?

It would appear that either a) some people don't give a damn or b) some people interpret these passages 'in the light of' other perhaps more control-oriented ones (evangelicals shouldn't bat at eyelid at this, right?) or, Hamzah's next point, c) Malaysia's brand of Islam adopts a  more active role in the moral regulation of its members.

Unfortunately, women get a raw deal on this whole moral-policing thing. It was news to me that Muslim women participating in beauty contests could be arrested but not male body-builders!

A thought I was playing around with in this context: Is such skewed law enforcement a feature of Islam in Malaysia or would it be characteristic of the religion in most/all places its practised? Are the women in the Middle-East treated substantially better, for example?

It would also have been interesting to hear Hamzah's response to Khir Toyo's 'stone-casting' of Elizabeth Wong, "How can she (a single women) allow a man into her room?" - from an Islamic standpoint, was there anything 'wrong' with Toyo's remarks? Putting aside his (and her) partisan loyalties, how should a faithful adherent of Islam respond when a non-Muslim woman gets intimate with a Muslim man, and when this woman declares she has 'broken no law'? Also, what would be the reaction if it was a Muslim lady instead of Wong?

Sharon Bong would ask similar questions later (e.g. "How would Wong's defenders have reacted if the photos were taken with her consent and/or if she was gay?"), except her line of questioning was directed more towards the (potentially) unexamined sexual norms cum 'prejudices' of the public.

In the questions above, however, the spotlight is on the Islamic (and later the Christian) faith itself - what (agreed upon?) provisions and priorities are in place for dealing with a victim who may also have committed morally questionable acts?

Next up, Sharon Bong...(see start of series here)

Shamed But Not Ashamed, Pt.1

There's a scene in the movie, Philadelphia (starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington), where Washington's character, Andrew Beckett, tells the entire courtroom that "sex is everywhere", that even as he was speaking his listeners were thinking about sex even whilst they attemped at 'objective' evaluation of the case.

What's Beckett's point? It's that nobody can deliberate on matters of sexuality without a bias, some predetermined prejudice about what's alright and what evinces an ewwwwwwwwe from us. The subject is way too personal and, whilst we may keep straight faces and look really 'academic', our minds are constantly 'in heat' when discussing sexuality (not least judgments about it)

In such discussions, we try not to snicker (until group laughter relieves us); not to blush (especially if an obviously attractive other is watching). In a word, we want to behave like asexual rational beings, which is to say we try to be non-human in the face of talking about something integral to humanity, sex.

All this made yesterday's Hidden Cameras forum worth remembering, as much for the experience itself if not for the ideas and questions raised.

Sivin jump-started the discussion with the Gospel story of Jesus handling the Pharisees and the woman caught in adultery. This famous catch-22 and sand-drawing story with that time-honored solution, "He who has no sin may cast the first stone", set the tone for the forum (as no less than two of the other four presenters used it). There is probably no more accurate parallel in Scripture to the recent case of Elizabeth Wong, shamed into resigning her political position on account of private photographs of her being taken at home.

(What's noteworthy, though, is that for the 2 hours I listened, no one in the audience - including myself - or on the panel brought up the concluding remark to that story, what Jesus said to the woman, "Go and sin no more." - more on this later...)

Sivin also highlighted the fact that we were in the season of Lent (and how potato chips were NOT on his give-up list!). How ironic to be remembering Lent in a forum where words like 'anus', 'lesbian', 'gay', 'queer', 'eroticize' and 'playboy', were used. And yet maybe Sivin's counsel, borrowed from Richard Rohr, is timely: Lent is a time to let go of (not so much chocolate and high-calories goodies, but) our judgmentalism of others and our numbness to their pain.

So the tone was set, the mikes in place (the cameras unsheathed) and the pens unleashed - what did Hidden Cameras reveal?

Part 2 - Made in Malaysia Islam? (Masjaliza Hamzah)
Part 3 - Flashing the Feminist Finger! (Sharon Bong)
Part 4 - Against Corridored Thinking (Andrew Khoo)

Conclusion - Ashamed But Forgiven

The Set Induction

It's that 'thing' you do before the lesson begins. It's that (non)-lesson on the margins of the lesson, the (non)-teaching prior to teaching. It's the small storying to open up ears for the big story. It's the casual narrative which could decide the significance of the formal delivery. It's the pseudo-point that postpones, yet heightens the interest in, getting-to-the-point.

I've only heard about it an educational context, but it's surely relevant for:

• a marketing presentation
• a initial project briefing
• a sermon!
• a lecture to one's kids
• a request (of any kind)
• a business proposal
• a piece of advice

Burning Ships

Am reading a wonderful book, Predictably Irrational, by M.I.T. Prof Dan Ariely.

In chapter 8, Ariely mentions how Xiang Yu - a Chinese commander in 210 BC - prior to attacking the Qin army, ordered all the ships and cooking pots destroyed. This was to ensure that the soldiers wouldn't be 'distracted' with thoughts of retreat, return or staying put.

Result: Yu's soldiers won nine consecutive battles, completely defeating the Qin armies.

Cortez would've been proud.

But not us. We love to keep our options (and bridges and ships) open and available. Does that reflect prudence and a healthy flexibility or plain indecisiveness and kiasu-ism? Is having multiple options always a good thing? Ariely (and Yu, not to mention Cortez) would beg to differ.

Two Songs

Something happened this evening which drove me towards these songs and the Comfort(er) they point to. I'll blog about that later but for now I hope you like these two great melodies from Singapore's New Creation Church:

I Stand In Worship - New Creation Church

ALL GLORY AND ALL PRAISE - NEW CREATION CHURCH

The Tell 'Em Strategy?

"Tell em what you are going to tell em, tell em, tell em what you told em" - this is standard (because reasonably sound) piece of advice normally given during courses on how to teach, do presentations, etc.

What's wrong with laying out everything for the participants, being consistent with what you said you would say, then repeating it all over again at the end so they remember well?

What's bad about all this, right? Quite a bit:

1. Tell 'em what you are going to tell 'em

What for? I mean, would you like to read a summary of the story before you get into the story? Would you like the Director to explain the structure of the movie before the show begins?

Suspense. Anticipation. Unpredictability. These, when manipulated well, are what make a great presentation great.

Do you really want to know the headings of all the sections from slide 1 onwards? Can't we be trusted with our ability to know what to do with the particular information/communication when we get to it?

Never tell the congregation or students or participants that you've "three points" to make. It's a waste of breath and the stage-setting doesn't help the mood.

2. Tell 'em

Of course we can't skip this part. Except I'd add: show 'em, sing it to 'em, get them to tell 'em themselves(!), or even DON'T tell 'em!

Also, for God's sake, tell them stuff they don't expect. Keep them on the ropes, one surprise after another - rock their states and make sure they never get the chance to believe they've heard (no, experienced) your presentation before.

3. Tell 'em what you told 'em

No no no. Get them to summarise what's just been presented. Get them to tell you more! Better yet, get them to compete to see who can do the final 'telling' in the most creative/coherent/content-rich way which i. summarizes what was presented and ii. expresses the participant(s)' unique perspectives of what's told.

Also, elicit tactics on how to use what's been told (this takes being told for granted, duh).

Devil's Politics

Sleazy hidden cams, flare-ups in and around parliament, frogger politics, gutter politicking, protesters charged and (supposed) protectors charging, and much more. In light of all the crapola happening in Malaysian politics since March 8th last year (including the latest crisis in Perak), that episode in the wilderness bears repeating:

"The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." (Luke 4:5-7)

Worldly authority (read: political governance!) is in some theological sense 'of the Devil'. Whilst we cannot take this theme uncritically, we cannot ignore the fact that Scripture speaks of political power being for Satan to give to whoever he wants to, at the (marked up?) price of worship.

Malaysia is, to put it mildly, one hell of a case-study.