DOES the “staple” of truth and rubbish sent to us through WhatsApp every day add up?

In arithmetic, we know that 2+2=4. My question is, do the many social media messages we receive daily make any sense?

I’m concerned that social media mixes up truths and lies, and even births liars, and we, the ordinary citizens, are assumed to not know the difference. That is a lie.

Another reason for asking this is because I am following the “two trials of the century”. Yes, the impeachment trial in the US Senate, and the corruption trial of our former prime minister.

Congress has already served two impeachment articles against the US president. As I write this, the trial is ongoing in the upper house.

The US claims itself to be the democratic benchmark for the world. This makes it the world’s “moral conscience”, at least in some self-serving definitions. I can’t forget reading newspaper articles on the global measurement of democratic standards in the 1970s, and Malaysia was always labelled a “partial democracy”.

Today, both US and Malaysian authorities are facing corruption and bribery charges. The only difference between the two nations is that in Malaysia, its citizens – even with a rigged electoral system in place – have been able to vote in a new government after almost three scores and ten.

Is the world not now watching US senators, whether liberal, democrat or conservative? Can they act irrationally or ignorantly with regard to the meaning and implications of their collusion with a schoolyard bully flexing his muscles on the international stage? Is this “showbusiness” not American shame?

Truth verification

When seeking to verify the truth of any unknown or unknowable content, one’s definition and verification process must be measured against the public definition of an objective standard of truth.

What is this standard, then? How does one assess media content against an objective scientific reality? Is not the requisite for evidence same as that adduced in any court of law, the only real and true basis for all verification? How else can the corruption of undue influence or political crimes be decided on?

In social science fields, this model of truth verification is called the “triangulation of three independent variables”. By verifying the related X and Y factors, which explain the direction of the Z factor, we can conclude that X and Y cause Z. This process provides 95% certainty that X and Y do indeed contribute to Z.

The ‘Trumpire’ model

Ownership versus stewardship – Donald Trump may not know the difference between these two concepts when it comes to accountability and responsibility, especially when in public office. After all, in his previous empire-based model of “Trumpire management”, he did not have to be accountable to anyone other than himself.

I don’t think he understands the concept of governance, which etymologically refers to the public role of the government and all official stewardship. Transparency and accountability must be included in the definitions for both. With authority, power and responsibility, full public accountability is needed.

For private entities, good governance is expected of their owners, and sometimes, golden share representatives. Independent directors are appointed to ensure truthfulness, and this is usually written into the memorandum by the framers of any private initiative.

For the public sector, especially public-listed companies, there are different, higher expectations, which I will call “360° accountability”.

The question for all of us is, can there ever be absolute ownership? Or is that the wrong way to frame the question? Is it not better to word it as, “we are designed to be stewards of the universe and our life experience, as long as we still have breath”?

The Potus patronage model

James Comey was invited by the US president to a private dinner at the White House on Valentine’s Day, which the media termed “a romantic dinner”. The meet was designed as a one-on-one, almost as if the Potus was going to make a marriage proposal.

This brilliance of the “Trumpire” was rejected by Comey, and in the language of the late Jerry B. Harvey, created an Abilene paradox situation, where White House senior officials colluded and took a trip to Abilene, but don’t remember any among them doing anything wrong. Collusion with stupidity is the essence of this trip.

My only regret is that my teacher of this subject, which falls well within the ethical, moral and spiritual dilemma of all human beings, is no longer alive to see and experience this Abilene trip, which he had taught so well.

Allow me to explain why and how this is the very truth that Harvey always talked about.

Such 100% political patronage is present in all public governance situations, in all public services. The only real difference is how senior public officials learn to say no, without appearing to say no. Is that not why Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Shintaro Ishihara authored The Asia That Can Say No?

Saying no without losing one’s head in any situation is what the Abilene trip dilemma is all about. Learning to say no nicely is always difficult because in a world that follows the hierarchical leadership model, one is expected to kowtow to the big boss and stay loyal.

The problem with Comey and Sally Yates, the former US deputy attorney-general, is that each had the audacity to say no in their own way. Of course, the A-G appointed by Trump was also sacked. That is saying no without being sacked. Moral courage is the only antidote, to avoid the trip to Abilene. – January 26, 2020.

* KJ John worked in public service for 32 years, retired, and started a civil group for which he is chairman of the board. He writes to inform and educate, arguing for integration with integrity in Malaysia. He believes such a transformation has to start with the mind before it sinks into the heart!

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.