Three incidents last week caught my attention. One was the clear, definite and unruly behaviour of our neighbours against our teams at the SEA Games. Second was the \”behaviour of the Sarawak Islamic Affairs Department\” in relation to the beauty contestants in Sarawak. The third is the capture of Saif Gadaffi and the potential trial process in Libya.
Allow me to comment on each of them and give an opinion.
In my field of Organisation Behaviour and Development studies, we have been seriously influenced by two fields of science; one is the study of rats and dogs by Professors BF Skinner and Ivan Pavlov.
The other is the field of humanities, which arose from a fundamental and radical review of the history of the philosophy of science, especially in terms of modern science. My teacher of this field of knowledge is SH Nasr and his \”Knowledge and the Sacred\” thesis delivered at the Gifford lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 1980-81; the framework for 100 years of lectures on natural theology.
All these findings and extrapolations wherefrom form much of the literature of the field of behavioural science, or what was called in my school as \”human systems.\” The field of human systems has now transcended the traditional field of \”behavioural science\” in that it has recognised and acknowledged the nature of human nature or the theory of man and made this a problematic issue or concern.
Such a fundamental and radical review arose since the establishment of the Heisenberg principle, that the very act of measurement distorts the measure under observation and thereby established the uncertainty principle.
Since then, the so-called \”objective science worldview of \”behavioural science\” was discarded for a more nuanced and value-laden view of all human system studies from the original field of material science worldview, with some circumspection. All scientific observations are today viewed as an extension of worldviews and belief systems of the beholder!
Therefore, today in human systems, we take worldviews and values that influence researchers and scientists as part and parcel of their \”framing logic\’ and only needs to be acknowledged as such, instead of suffering to live and breathe the so-called fact-value dichotomy.
My teacher Nasr was intellectual saviour for my definition of a \”dignity in the workplace thesis.\” At an American social science academy where I studied, so-called \”values\” and \”facts\” could not be mixed or intertwined! I almost became a victim of such a worldview and hypothesis development. Nasr helped me graduate when he joined my doctoral committee.
Can I therefore apply the human dignity in the workplace thesis for a new, different and more developmental worldview to understand civility of good behaviour of human beings in the world place?
Jeering and abusing unacceptable in sports
The Indonesian fans\’ behaviour of jeering and abusing Malaysian teams is clearly unacceptable by any normal standards of sportsmanship worldwide. Therefore the SEA Games organisers must \”severely reprimand\” their Indonesian counterparts and state clearly that no more sports tournaments will be held in Indonesia if such unruly behaviour continues. The complainant must be the sports fraternity of Malaysia.
The second incident and behaviour of both the team of contestants and their religious body is not as clear an issue though. I have always asked the rhetorical question about Malaysia as a nation-state: Is the air we breathe in the federation green in colour?
This question is designed to review and reconsider some false assumptions some people make that the air we breathe is \”only Islamic air!\” Therefore, their conclusion is that we must not breathe \”non-Islamic air\” of any sort, especially for the Muslims. The beauty queen contestants were victims of this false thesis or hypothesis!
For a fact, the New Straits Times carried the severe words, \”In DEFIANCE\” on its front page headline on the Sunday issue. Really, but, to whom, or to what, were they defiant to or of?
At the age range of 20 to 25 years, who are these younger citizens responsible to and for? If not their parents and community, I cannot think of anyone else, other than their own conscience. Surely they are not directly responsible to the self-appointed Islamic religious body!
Therefore, to me, it was even wrong of the Sarawak Islamic Affairs Department to call them up. If it were my children, I would sue the Sarawak Islamic Affairs Department for trespassing into my family jurisdiction!
Obviously the parents and the immediate community of these contestants and citizens had no qualms and worries about the nature of these contests and were sure they would not sow sin and evil behaviour into their children!
The third incident is equally important for this worldview hypothesis. When the Libyan freedom fighters captured the late Col Muammar Gaddafi, they murdered him on sight with a bullet in his head! But, fortunately, this group of NTC soldiers were more humane and allowed him \”minimum personal regard\” or recognised his human dignity that he is innocent until proven guilty!
Give basic respect to all human beings
In any civilised society, all human beings must be accorded minimum personal regard. This principle was established at the Nuremberg trials when Gen Adolf Eichmann, Hitler\’s right hand man, was tried for the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. His only claim in self-defence was \”he was ONLY following orders!\” The jury ruled that he was guilty of manslaughter because \”killing innocent civilians under any condition is still second degree murder!\”
The consequential debate is \”whether the Libyans are objective and professional enough to give Saif al Islam Gaddafi a fair trial? These are valid and real questions, especially for me as an organisational theorist who looks at group and individual behaviours in differing contexts to make sense of them.
To me, the core issue is whether Libyans under the NTC worldview that \”Gaddafi did no right\” can differentiate his personal behaviour from his institutional behaviour! When this is extrapolated to his son, can we then simply hold him guilty for all actions of his father? Moreover, how many sons or children can, with full audacity, say that their own father is wrong in certain things or actions taken?
The answer to these issues, from my field of study, is that we have to distinguish \”intentional action\” from \”instinctive behaviour.\” Human behaviour is observable actions but only when one can question and understand the actor\’s reasoning and real reasons for the particular action. All actions are defined by intentions of the actor; never by the motives assigned by the observer of that behaviour.
Our civil courts system, therefore always gives the reasonable opportunity for explanation to the actors and never only to imputed motives of the observers; whether they are called Indonesians, or Jakim, or the national transitional council.
In all cases, the actors are innocent of any presumed crimes until you can prove that they are personally responsible for their intended actions!
May God bless the world!