I find it extremely disturbing to read about supposed authoritative figures in the field of psychology and psychiatry in Malaysia making sweeping statements on the behaviour of the organisers and participants of events that are outside the norm of the local culture; but worst of all, fail to define basic terminologies in psychology that even a degree student in psychology should know.

First of all, Prof Dr Rozmi Ismail claims that organising of events such as ‘I Want to Touch a Dog’ , ‘Oktoberfest’ and ‘Men in Heels’ are attempts to be the first to make a cultural change. One would question why would only these events were named and why assert that it is an attempt to pioneer cultural change. This is a very specific claim, but is there any evidence to suggest that ALL these individuals are there for attention or are primarily there simply to be the first to make a change?

It should be noted that the objective of each of these events are very different in nature. ‘I Want to Touch a Dog’ and ‘Men in Heels’ are awareness campaigns on separate issues. ‘Oktoberfest’ is like a funfair or festival that originated from Germany and has been around in Malaysia since at least as early as 2005, and therefore hardly a new thing any more. Naturally the organisers would need to draw public attention to their events so that people would come, but drawing attention by itself is hardly the objective.

Secondly, it is extremely troubling that Prof Dr Rozmi Ismail had altered the definitions of terms used in psychology with additional terms that are not backed by any peer-reviewed psychology journals or are entirely different.

Social anxiety is essentially an excessive and unreasonable fear of social situations. It is often a result of the fear of being judged and evaluated negatively by others similar to what Prof Dr Rozmi Ismail had stated. But the definition does not in any way specify towards people who “try to interfere with the exclusive rights of certain groups, such as challenging a cultural norm and eradicating a belief which has long been practiced”.

Social pressure on the other hand is the influence that is exerted on a person or a group, by another person or another group. It could result in public unrest if a larger or more powerful individual or group attempts to influence another by means of recrimination, slander and blaming one another.

However, that is merely one aspect of how social pressure could be used, but not what social pressure is. For instance, social pressure could be employed to prevent school bullying if an entire class stands up against the bully.

Attempt to incite fear?

For Prof Dr Rozmi Ismail to define social pressure in a purely negative light rather than the actual and neutral definition of a means to an end, as well as to misrepresent the definition of social anxiety, seems to indicate a deliberate attempt to incite fear towards these events.

With regard to Dr Muhammad Muhsin’s comment that “a person usually goes against society's norm when he or she has a specific intent to highlight something... they are anti-social,” people do not rebel or resist norms merely to highlight something. Instead it is usually done when the norm is not privately accepted; whether the person wishes to show their rebellion or resistance or retain that privacy is a different matter altogether.

Apart from that is the use of the term ‘anti-social’. Unlike how the public refer to people who dislike socialising with others as being anti-social, psychology has a much narrower definition that involves causing harm or lacking empathy towards others. The term should be used with care.

As a psychiatrist, Dr Muhammad Muhsin should have known better than to use this term to label people simply based on the assumptions. It requires much in-depth investigation into a person’s behaviour and history before such a label can even be considered.

BRAINZ is the pseudonym of a former graduate tutor in psychology. He is currently pursuing his masters in neuroscience.