Neutral Position

Malaysia has been overwhelmed by political turmoils in recent days, and so far it seems like the storm is not abating anytime soon. Way too many Malaysians have suddenly become expert political analysts. I read, with a certain degree of amusement, some of their opinions and explanations—especially those which attempted to explain what's going on in the minds of people like Tun Dr M. 

Of course I have my own views and theories too, but I shall carefully refrain from making a fool of myself. The point is that I readily admit that I can't read minds, unlike those people I've mentioned in the preceding paragraph above. Instead, I want to share my view about people in general; of how easy it is for one to fall prey to one's feelings when analysing things.

The thing is that if we start theorizing or analysing people from a biased position, that is to say we start from the position of either favour or disfavour that person, there is that tendency for us to somehow arrive at the conclusion that would concur with our opinion of that person, all other factors notwithstanding.

Take for example, if I'm convinced that Anwar Ibrahim is a good person that he claims himself to be. Then no amount of evidence that anybody can produce would change my opinion of him. Even if glaring DNA evidence is produced, I will try very hard to say that that evidence was fabricated to destroy him. Even if his sperm is found in the anus of his accuser, that, too, is no good, because I would reject that as a conspiracy by his political enemies. In other words, doctors, lab technicians, the police, the judges—heck, in fact almost everybody else, would have to conspire on a grand scale to bring this man down! That must be the only right conclusion. Any other conclusion, in spite of whatever evidence, however spectacular, must be incorrect!

Now take the case of Najib Razak. If I'm his supporter, then no amount of evidence against him will be sufficient to affect my opinion of him in the least. Even if there are documented evidence to show that money—insane amount of money—has been deposited into his personal account, that would somehow be interpreted as some dark forces are all out to bring him down. His accusers must be the ones who are lying, even if all the evidence are duly corroborated. Najib's explanation for the money in his personal account, however ridiculous and can't hold water for a second, would be the more believable one instead.

Therefore, if I'm not a supporter of Tun Dr M, whatever he does, I will somehow interpret that as part and parcel of his evil plan, because he must have an ulterior motive in whatever he does. He is a scheming little scoundrel, a master strategist that would go to all ends to enrich himself and his children. If he remained as the Prime Minister, then that's because he is power-crazy and had intended to remain in power until he dies. But on the other hand, if he resigned as the Prime Minister, then that, too, must be yet another one of his evil plans to somehow profit himself and his cronies. In fact, even if he walks away from politics tomorrow, that, too, will be interpreted as having some sort of significance in a negative way.

How many of you would dare to say, in all honesty, that you can judge these people from a neutral position? Meaning analysing the pros and cons based on facts, truthfully, and not based on your personal sentiments of the matter? If the facts can show the conclusions about these people which are the opposites of what you believe to be the truth, are you capable of bringing yourselves to judge according to those facts, and not your own sentiments?