Of late, there have been complaints that what matters most in Malaysian politics, is perception.
So often have we heard political statements in the form “not only must one be…but one must also be seen to be…” that we have developed, perhaps subconsciously and in a subtle way, a kind of resolve that it is the latter part of the form that is to be accorded our focus.
But is this really confined to the political realm?
Or is it not the fact that many people in this country are easily driven by perception?
It may well be that the mushrooming of the “business” of indexes in this country and the endemic obsession with indicators are, in many respects, the outcome of this perception-driven orientation and culture, which in turn is perpetuated by that very outcome.
In fact, so powerful and predominant has perception become that on issues as important as integrity there seems to have been no better option for us Malaysians than to rely on people’s perception of it.
On July 16, 2008, Bernama reported that the Malaysian Institute of Integrity (IIM) will conduct a study entitled “The National Integrity Perception Index Research Report 2008” to determine the level of public perception concerning a number of indexes.
The indexes, as reported, are corruption; the quality of public service delivery; business ethics and social obligations; the stability of the family institution and community; the quality of life and community welfare; and also public courtesy.
The study, IIM president Datuk Dr Mohd Tap Salleh said, is aimed at evaluating the integrity perception levels among Malaysians four years following the implementation of the National Integrity Plan. It is a mechanism of measurement to determine the perception of Malaysians concerning integrity given the country’s culture and situation.
In fact, earlier, on July 2, 2008, during the launching of IIM’s National Integrity Perception Index Survey Report 2007 by Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, Mohd Tap was reported to have said that such survey findings are important because they will assist the Government in re-assessing existing policies and drafting new ones, and that a national survey of this sort would be conducted annually.
I suppose, the majority, if not all, of us readily accept that no man can be without perception.
Man, in other words, is bound to have perception.
The contention, however, is less about whether or not man can do without perception than about whether or not there is such a thing as correct, true and good perception.
Should one hold, on whatever grounds, that there is indeed such a thing, then what is important is to know and decide which perception is correct and good, and which is not, as well as to be certain of the valid basis and sound criteria of one’s decision.
It is no less important for us to also realize that once perception has been demonstrated to be correct and good, then at least to one who has been convinced of it, perception is no longer “perception” in the sense of “mere appearance” or “sheer impression” but is in fact truth, reality.
In this regard, one needs to be cognizant that the real purpose of religion, and for that matter, true philosophy, is to guide mankind not only in distinguishing reality-truth from appearance but also in firmly being with reality-truth.
And it is really of no use to lament about our deplorable perception-driven state if no action is taken at identifying as well as addressing what in fact gives rise to it.