Implications of Political Apology or Non-Apology for Politicians in Malaysia: The Early Findings

1Rugayah Hashim, 2Mohd. Anuar Mazuki, 3Adzrool Idzwan Ismail, 4Shaharuddin Badaruddin, 4Nooraini Mohamed Ismail, 5Zulkifli Abdul Latiff, 6Norizan Shariff

Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia: 1Research Management Institute, 2Bursary, 3Faculty of Art & Design, 4Faculty of Administrative Science & Policy Studies, 5Faculty of Media & Communication Studies,

6TERAJU, Prime Minister’s Department guy73106@yahoo.com, mam_3508@yahoo.com, adzrool@yahoo.com, pmshahar@salam.uitm.edu.my, aini1511@gmail.com,

zulatif@yahoo.com, nobisha@yahoo.com

Abstract—Malaysia’s political scene has been full of requests and demands for apology from errant politicians on certain sensitive issues. The media has had a field day covering the various politicians’ resentment, annoyance and even rage at the slightest provocation of inadequacy or other accusations on the victim’s part, and a righteous stance on the accuser’s part. Name-calling and gutter politics are common news every week. Winning the war of words has become rhetoric when ego and stubbornness prevail. What triggered these psychological and behavioral tactics? Are these actions a well-thought plan or just charges of emotion? These are questions relevant to behavioral research and through literature ferreted, some situations can be explained through relevant political theories. Therefore, this paper will provide insights into past research projects that show the coordinated human behavioral elements manipulated by politicians to gain political mileage using the media. At the end of the day, who would gain the support of the citizens and the grassroots? Would he or she be the one who publicly apologize or would a non-apology be better for affiliated political party?

Keywords-Political science; non-apology; reconciliation; neuropolitics; Malaysia

I. INTRODUCTION Lately, Malaysia’s political scenario has been full of

requests and demands for apology. Probably, the heat from the forthcoming general election has taken a toll on politicians and making rash statements has resulted in antagonistic moments. The media has had a field day covering the various politicians’ resentment, annoyance, and even rage at the slightest provocation of inadequacy or other accusations on the victim’s part, and a righteous stance on the accuser’s part. Name-calling and gutter politics are common news every week. But the crux of the matter is, would a public apology be sufficient to ameliorate the situation?

This is definitely a thought-provoking question but does it

matter at all whether the politician apologizes or not? Within

this time frame, it does matter as Malaysia’s next general election is due in 2012. Swaying the voters’ sentiments should start now as the media plays an important role in deciding one’s choice of political representative. Voters or citizens want to know the politician’s background and capability prior to attesting this decision on the ballot paper. The candidate then, should be someone who is favorable and fits the voters’ criteria, presumptively, someone who has been positively highlighted in the media or being able to walk their talk, or using the political jargon, “a winnable” candidate [1, 2].

The recent-sensationalized front-page news in the

Malaysian media was when a prominent politician demanded for an apology from the deputy Chief Minister of Penang [3]. Both politicians are from the same political party but the uncalled-for remark against the party elders, particularly, the party national chairman was unforgiveable. To date, no public apology was made.

Another reported case was when the Penang Chief

Minister publicly apologized to the Sultan of Johor for making defamatory remarks on the state’s crime rate. However, the Deputy Chief Minister refused to apologize as the comments were made in a private affair. What made the Chief Minister change his mind and apologize? This is the goal of the paper. Coincidentally and again in the limelight, numerous sensational news on Malaysian politicians demanding for public apology were the topic of the day. For instance, Mat Sabu (PAS Deputy President) pressured the government to apologize to former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees but his request was brushed aside by the Home Minister [4, 5]. Ironically, Mat Sabu too refused to apologize publicly for insinuating that “there was nothing heroic about defending the police post at Bukit Kepong in Johor more than 60 years ago as the policemen were fighting for the British”. Mat Sabu’s statement has drawn wrath from many parties especially the families of fallen soldiers and the armed forces and so the controversies continue with Mat Sabu suing the Utusan Malaysia for misinterpreting his speech and instead “allegedly hailed the actions of communist guerillas who attacked the Bukit Kepong, Johor police station in 1950 as the true heroes”

The research project is being funded by the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) Malaysia under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS).

2012 IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications

978-1-4577-1634-8/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE 448

[4, 5]. But the question persists, why didn’t these politicians want to make a public apology?

Nevertheless, the past decade has seen an unusual change in

Malaysia’s political scene where citizens and politicians alike are demanding for public apology at the slightest conduct (or misconduct). To apologize or not to apologize requires careful thought and deliberations as the impact is significant towards the political party of the apologizer. Admitting a fault is tantamount to a gentleman’s conduct as shown by a prominent Malaysian politician [6]. Using the mass media to make a public apology is an honorable move but not all politicians are willing to admit their mistakes. Dwelling on the socio-psychological issue of non-apology necessitates moral neuropolitics, that is, the initiation of emotion and behavior-related areas in the brain is linked to strong political preferences.

Thus, the aims of this study are twofold: to critically examine arguments for or against political apology or non-apology based on the theory of neuropolitics and, to cite examples and construct typology relative to Malaysia’s political scenario. Qualitative enquiries through interviews with respondents identified through purposive sampling will be conducted via stratified sampling or zoning of Malaysia as a whole, that is, the 14 states will be clustered by zones, e.g., north, south, east, west and East Malaysia. This study is significant as the findings will describe the implications of public apology or non-apology modeled against the concept of neuropolitics. Furthermore, the output of this research will be timely for relevant political parties to read and understand the emergent variables arising in readiness for the 13th General Election.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Political Apology Naturally any apology let alone politically instigated ones

start from the mind or the brain [7]. This statement is also supported by Vecchiato et al [8], where laboratories researching on the human brain have proven that cerebral areas are activated during political activities and these emotions are reflected on the politician’s face. Similarly, the politician’s honesty in admitting his verbal blunder can be observed when a public apology is made, that is, behavioral and neurophysiological traits are subjects of contention [8]. Slanderous statements made by public figures and published in the media necessitate a public apology and this is usually politically motivated and manipulated [9, 10, 11]. Would the apology be sincerely made? Take for example Tiger Woods’s public apology for his infidelities; many are doubtful of his sincerity in the matter. Nevertheless, getting to the root of the matter requires a ‘tete-a-tete’ with seasoned Malaysian politicians like Tun Dr. Mahathir, Tun Daim Zainuddin, perhaps Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang.

Other studies that studies that highlighted that official

apologies have been abused in the context of democratic transitions where moral and practical redress are obvious yet

certain normative critera must be satisfied in a public apology or non-apology [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. A popular alternative to ‘rectifying’ the situation is by suing for slander [11].

B. Political Non-Apology

A non-apology apology is a statement in the form of an apology that is nothing of the sort, a common gambit in politics and public relations [17, 18]. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution or retaliation [17, 19].

An example of a non-apology apology would be to say "I'm sorry that you felt insulted" to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and, additionally, it may be taken as insinuating that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place [20].

Anyhow, Eisinger [17] posited that much of what is said by politicians accused of wrongdoing and later publicly apologizing can be construed as a “narcissistic tone” in which blame avoidance or victimization mitigates any sense of responsibility or contrition. Within local context, literature reviewed and published studies on similar topics were scarce and limited. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the theory of neuropolitics relative to Malaysia’s political scenario with regards to public apology or non-apology. This research is significant as the findings will describe the implications of public non-apology which will then be modeled based on the concept of neuropolitics [19].

III. RESEARCH APPROACH One of the suggested approaches for political research

projects is through qualitative inquiries [21, 22, 23]. For this study, a two-phase qualitative inquiry was deemed sufficient for rigor and rich data collection. Preliminary interviews were conducted with established or veteran politicians from which the interview transcriptions were analyzed for recurrent words or patterns that would form a theme. Firstly, through interviews with specific individuals and secondly, the content analysis of secondary data (example, newspapers and websites) showcasing the variables in contention. Next, through purposive or judgmental sampling, the units of analysis were identified and they are the politicians in Malaysia.

Furthermore, on certain politicians will make the list based on certain traits or criteria relevant to the study. For example, this group must be either active or non-active politicians partisan, opposition or independent parties. So far, 30 politicians have been listed but prior to the actual data collection, preliminary interviews will be conducted using an interview guideline. As such, interview sessions with the respondents will be taped or noted and later, transcribed. The transcriptions will then be analyzed based on pattern coding as advocated by Miles and Huberman ([24]. Also, the use of the qualitative software, Atlas TI will result in a tentative model

449

based on the neuro-political attributes and the non-apology variables. Upon reaching saturation, the interviews will no longer be conducted.

IV. THE EARLY FINDINGS Five interviews were conducted with veteran political

analysts and prominent politicians. The former are political analysts and keenly follow the political happenings in Malaysia. The analyses of the interviews indicated that politicians have different individual agenda, whether for personal or party gains. However, the preliminary insights gleaned were more specific, that is, politicians are wonderful orators but some statements were made hearsay. Audiences are captivated by their oratory skills; they do not check the facts yet what remains steadfast is the ability of the politicians to persuade the rakyat’s stance and make themselves believable. They have managed to ingratiate their aura and charm so much so that whatever is said (even though factually the information is wrong), what remains is the support from the people for him or her. Second, reconciliation is not something that politicians are in favor of but will accede if the situation demands it. Hence, the tentative framework from these findings are depicted in Figure 1. After that, discussions on these variables will be elucidated in the next section.

Figure 1. Framework for (Non) Apology/Reconciliation

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The initial findings revealed that four component themes emerged from the theory of neuropolitics, namely, authenticity, intentionality, agency and legality. These themes determine the reconciliatory approach of making a public apology or remaining silent, aka, non-apologetic. Similarities abound pertaining to the findings on intentionality and agency as indicated by Harris et al [10] as well as Luke’s statement where “the apology has become a form of political speech with increasing significance and power” [25]. The consequence to this is the legality as well as authenticity matters where the power of democracy through the citizen’s acceptance or non-acceptance of the apology or vice versa. Arguably, the emergent themes demonstrate the repercussions

for politicians for making speeches and statements that affect the country’s well-being. Regardless of contradicting or different opinionated ideologies, politically-induced public apologies represent a potentially serious loss of face especially for active politicians [10, 15, 17]. The younger cohorts may want to salvage the reputation of the party and are frequently eager to apologize for things that they cannot be held accountable for [10]. Given the magnitude of some of the oral offences, particularly if the slanderous remarks are aimed at Malaysia’s royal families, a public apology will ameliorate the situation. Hence, it can be concluded that the implications of a political apology or non-apology is career threatening to the politician as the authenticity, intentionality, agency and legality depend on the need for a reconciliation. Although ‘sorry seems to be the hardest words’, apologizing doesn’t mean defeat, rather it is a symbol of a civilized and respected leader.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the support and feedback

offered by the interviewees and other anonymous respondents. Additionally, the authors wish to recognize the assistance from the Research Management Institute (RMI), Universiti Teknologi MARA for expediting the relevant bureaucratic processes. Most importantly, we would like to thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia for awarding the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) to conduct the study.

REFERENCES [1] Z. Ariffin, “All it takes is a sincere apology”, New Straits Times, 2011

(Sept. 3). [2] The Star, “Winning candidate is assessed based on track record, says

Hishammuddin”, December 3, 2011. [3] New Straits Times, “Karpal demands apology”, December 12, 2011 [4] The Star, “Mat Sabu’s call for govt apology brushed aside”, September

19, 2011. [5] Bernama, “Mat Sabu wants an Utusan Malaysia apology in 24 hours”,

The Edge, 2011 (Sept. 8). [6] The Star, “I stand corrected and owe PM an apology, says Zaid”,

September 17, 2011. [7] S. Vrecho, “Birth of a brain disease: Science, the state and addiction

neuropolitics”,. History of the Human Sciences, vol. 23, 4, pp. 52-67, 2010.

[8] G. Vecchiato, J. Toppi, F. Cincotti, L. Astolfi, F. De vico Fallani, F. Aloise, D. Mattia, S. Bocale, F.Vernucci, and F. Babiloni, “Neuropolitics: EEG spectral maps related to a political vote based on the first impression of the candidate’s face”, In proceeding of the 32nd Annual international conference of the IEEE EMBS, buenos Aires, Argentina, August 31-September 4, 2010.

[9] J. Solomos, “The politics of official apologies”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 32, 8, pp. 1498-1499, 2009.

[10] S. Harris, K. Grainger and L. Mulanny, “The pragmatics of political apologies”, Discourse and Society, vol. 17, 6, pp. 715-737, 2006.

[11] J. Kimoga, “Remorseless apology: Analysing a political letter”, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 42, 8, pp. 2181-2188, 2010.

[12] K. Ireton & I. Kovras, “Non-apologies and prolonged silences in post-conflict settings: The case of post-colonial Cyprus”, Time & Society, vol. 21, 1, pp.71-88, 2012.

450

[13] Harrel, J. Ware, B.L. and Linkugel, W.A. (1975). Failure of apology in American politics: Nixon and Watergate. Communication Monographs, 42(4), 245-261.

[14] P.F. Goolpacy, “The perfect “political apology” is anything but ..”, Perfect Apology, available at http://www.perfectapology.com/political- apology.html, 2011.

[15] P. Feaver, “The perils of political apology”, Shadow Government, 2011 (June 3).

[16] M. Cunningham, “Saying sorry: The politics of apology”, The Political Quarterly, vol. 70, 3, pp. 285-293, 2002.

[17] R.M. Eisinger, “The political non-apology”, Journal of Social Science and Public Policy, vol. 48, pp. 136-141, 2011.

[18] Z. Kampf, “Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility”, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 41, pp. 2257-2270, 2009.

[19] W. Connolly, “Neuropolitics: Thinking, culture, speed: out of bounds”, Book Review in Anthropological Theory, London: Sage, vol. 5, 4, pp. 583-591, 2005

[20] S. Boyd, “Crafting a better political apology: Why politiciansapologize badly, and how they should improve. (Are you paying attention, David Vitter?), Available at http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=crafting_ a_better_political_apology, 2007 (July 23).

[21] L. Harrison, “Political research: An introduction”, London: Routledge, 2001.

[22] S.B. Merriam, “ Qualitative Research: Design and Implementation”, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.

[23] L.A. Baglione, “Writing a research paper in political science: A practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods”, Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.

[24] M.B. Miles and A.M. Huberman, “Qualitatie Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook”, Beverly-Hills, Sage, 1994.

[25] A. Luke, “The material effects of the word: “Stolen childred” and public discourse”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 18, 3, 343.68, 1997.

451