Kam Raslan’s Talking Edge

(Reprinted from The Edge – Options pullout, 7 April 2014 issue)

Dear Kam,
My father keeps complaining that if I don’t focus on my studies, then I won’t get a decent job. He wants me to get a job in an office, but I can’t think of anything more boring. I want to get outside and travel the world. The thing is, I want to be a secret agent. That would be exciting. Where do I apply to become a secret agent? I already have a driving licence.
Agent 007

You do realise that James Bond is a fictional character, don’t you? You can’t be James Bond because, er, well, you just can’t. And even if you were a secret agent, then it probably wouldn’t be a very interesting job. German magazine Der Spiegel recently claimed that America’s National Security Agency (NSA) spied on 122 world leaders in 2009. Malaysia’s then prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi topped the list, but only because the list was in alphabetical order, so “A” for Abdullah. Der Spiegel did not say what the surveillance entailed, but can you imagine how boring it would be to transcribe those tapes?

Most spying around the world is internal security. China announced that it spends US$130 billion on domestic security, which is more or about the same as it spends on its military (depending on which website you look at). According to the rogue NSA agent Edward Snowden, the budget for the various US spy agencies comes to US$45 billion. I got that from Wikipedia, so who knows if it’s true or not. The US military budget is US$680 billion. In 2011, Britain’s spy agencies were given a measly budget of £2 billion, which is hardly enough to service James Bond’s Aston Martin, let alone give it machine guns and an ejector seat. Basically, if James Bond were ever involved in a chase, then he’d have to take the bus and make sure he gets a receipt. I have no idea what the budget is for Malaysia’s Special Branch (can’t find anything on the Net) and what they really do.

Spying doesn’t sound like a very exciting thing to do because it probably involves not much more than listening to people’s mostly boring conversations. And yet I really enjoy the spy novels of John le Carré, for whom spying is ultimately a personally morally degrading activity. Some countries seem to enjoy conducting espionage more than others and it’s intriguing trying to understand why that might be. The British have always enjoyed it and I think it’s because they always operated with limited means but had big ambitions. A single spy in the right place could be a force multiplier. I think the British also just enjoy sneaking around. Malaysians were trained by the British, so one can only imagine that they have followed in those traditions. During the Second World War, the Germans and Japanese were really, really bad at it whereas the Soviets were extremely good at military subterfuge. Americans were good at cryptography and broke the Japanese codes very cleverly. After the war, countries started spying on their own people. China’s internal security system is called weiwen or “stability maintenance”. This includes not only the regular police and courts but also censors and “opinion guides” for the Internet. With their huge budget, government operatives (we’d call them Internet trolls) are constantly patrolling the Internet, quashing debates and inserting the government line. So far, it seems to be succeeding in maintaining the “stability” that authoritarian governments so love, but it probably isn’t changing opinion so much as merely suppressing it for another day. After all, the old East German government managed to spy on just about every single one of its citizens and the Communist Party opinion was absolutely everywhere. And yet the regime disappeared overnight.

Does Internet trolling work? I don’t think so, not in the long term. It’s just an echo chamber and it doesn’t really persuade anyone. Propaganda cannot beat an actual policy direction with which people are then free to agree or disagree.

Dear Kam,
My father keeps saying things about other races that are, well, you just can’t say that. I might secretly agree with some (not even nearly all) of what he says, but surely you just can’t say that?
Truly Malaysian

Are racial stereotypes ever accurate? Or are they only ever just plain racist and wrong? Privately, Malaysians enjoy making sweeping statements about other races (all Indians are this, all Chinese are that), but etiquette insists that publicly, we must keep a polite silence. Unless you’re somebody who can get away with it, in which case, heck, you can say something really crazy. And get away with it.

I’m writing a book about Malaya and the world of the 1890s and I’ve been reading something called the Selangor Journal, which was a newspaper/magazine that existed until The Malay Mail came along. Articles in the Selangor Journal were written by British men, many, if not most of whom, spoke the various Malayan languages (especially Malay). They wrote about their own kind and the “Asiatics”. The underlying tone is a firm conviction in their own British superiority but with a desire to understand the locals. Perhaps I’m less “sensitif” than many, but I don’t find the Selangor Journal language to be deliberately insulting.

The 1890s was a different age, before political correctness and when it was absolutely OK to make sweeping racial generalisations. Many of the generalisations about Asians can make me wince because they sound embarrassing familiar, but equally, many statements are simply outdated, as if describing a long lost tribe. For instance, one article is about a football match and its author describes the young British men as being something like ancient Spartans who are “strong, stark, clean-limbed men” conquering the world through sport. I wonder what he would make of today’s England football team? The Selangor Journal can sometimes sound familiar and often sound weird.

Here’s what somebody wrote in 1896 about the Malays (none of the articles in the Selangor Journal are signed but this might have been by W.W. Skeat who went on to become an ethnographer and write a book called Malay Magic):

“Malays seldom lie with malice. Prevarication with them must either rank as oriental diplomacy or as exhibiting a desire to please. ‘Is it far to the next village?’ asks the weary footsore traveller. ‘No, quite near,’ answers the obliging Malay, well knowing that it is nothing of the kind, but guessing this answer will give greater pleasure than if the truth were told.”

Sounds familiar? It does for me, and I think it might help explain much of the disastrous handling of Flight MH370. But I also think it might be true for Malaysians in general (if I can generalise). I’ve worked in many high-pressure situations and have sometimes found that the whole system can fall apart when a crisis arrives. All too often, it can be really, really hard, if not impossible, to get to the truth of the situation so that one can then make a decision. The people who have the courage to explain the true situation, even if it shows that they did something wrong, are the ones who rise. But I’ve only ever worked in real-life, private sector organisations that cannot aff ord to only hear what somebody thinks you want to hear.

Reprinted with the kind permission of