KAPOK: The Blame Game

From a purely heuristic point of view, the Lau Si Lo resignation rumor has two virtues. On the one hand it allows us to reflect on the ins and outs of a rumor: who has an interest in spreading it? Why and how does it spread? Ultimately, that might be conducive to doing something about it. On the other hand, it entices a debate on responsibility, blame and citizen empowerment.
In his little book aptly entitled On Rumors, American law professor Cass Sunstein distinguishes between four main types of rumor propagators: the ‘narrowly self-interested’, the ‘generally interested’, the ‘altruistic’ and the ‘malicious’. The narrowly self-interested ones are in the game for personal gain, either for money or to get ahead in a competitive environment. The generally interested ones seek to attract attention and to raise eyebrows in public, for the benefit of a group interest. The altruistic have a different playing field: they vie to promote the public good and are often genuinely outraged by what they denounce through the spread of rumor. Finally, the malicious just want to inflict pain, to injure others for the sake of doing so. What all of these propagators have in common is that most of them are no way near knowing the truth, and can offer little or no evidence of what they profess. Also, a rumor will be spread by different propagators at the same time, and so the question remains: what makes a rumor “successful”, if by successful we mean spreading widely, even though it might very well be false?
Sunstein thus emphasizes the importance of what he calls ‘prior convictions’: “whether people believe a rumor depends on what they thought before they heard it.” Firstly, because our beliefs are ‘motivated’ by our hopes, goals and desires. Secondly, because the rumor adequately or less so fits what we already know. Thus “thresholds” for accepting rumors are different from one place to another. Then the transmission of the rumor comes into play, mainly as a result of ‘social cascades’: firstly ‘informational cascades’, imperfectly informed or totally ignorant, one finds it increasingly difficult to resist what one hears from others; as well as ‘conformity cascades’ - one does not want to be seen as socially inapt by escaping peer pressure in not believing. Of course, ‘group polarization’, and thus the strengthening of one’s own convictions through discussions with like-minded people also play a role.
As of now, while reading the newspapers and discussing with friends who know presumably little about the Lau Si Lo case, I would acknowledge that there are only three types of propagators, as I haven’t read or heard any purely malicious comments regarding Secretary Lau’s potential dismissal. What is striking though is how nobody has really challenged the rumor, except for the person concerned and his boss, who have offered up to now only a mere denial or muttered response — and rightly so as the pace of government cannot be the same as the media’s.
Extensive ‘prior convictions’ seem to be giving an additional momentum for this rumor to stick and amplify: starting with what we know for sure — a very critical CCAC report regarding the LRT and the nullification of all the La Scala land grants by the government in September — all the way to what society widely postulates since the unraveling of the Ao Man Long scandal in 2006 — that corruption, conflict of interests and clientelism are original sins in our policy.
What is to be done then? How can rumor be fought in an environment where the culture of irresponsibility is tolerated, the lack of responsiveness on the side of public authorities is putative, and extremely powerful individuals are completely unaccountable, either through elections or vivid grilling by a truly muckraking press? At the end of the day, responsibility has to be shared in a community and we all must assume part of the burden. Nothing new under the sun here: both Socrates and Confucius were advocates of this individual imperative! You and I are also to be blamed for not being demanding enough…

Published in Macau Daily Times on Friday 12 October