Respecting Change

Respecting Change

A friend of mine told me recently that he was considering home-schooling his two sons. A battle with the private international school where his sons are enrolled and fruitless encounters with Ministry officials who were either incapable of seeing his point of view or could not empathise nor appreciate his lack of options had brought him to that point. It could be that to many a civil servant, private schooling is an elitist luxury that one purchases at the expense of its ills and pains. If so, this overlooks the reality that for many in this country private schooling is not about snob appeal but rather a necessity in an increasingly competitive world.

Many a parent is caught in a conflict between wanting to avail themselves of public services, be they education, medical or otherwise, on the one hand, and doing the right thing for those they love on the other. They, like many others here in Malaysia, have been forced into these positions of conflict by a public system that has been increasingly undermined by political and vested interests despite the obvious consequences.

It is evident that for a nation to progress sustainably into the future, the pillars of the nation must be protected and continuously strengthened. Of these, much has been said of the Judiciary and the Legislature. We should however not underrate the significance of the civil service. It is crucial for being the engine that impels the nation in the direction it should. Civil servants serving in a diverse range of capacities from teachers, administrators, lawyers, doctors, engineers, surveyors, geologists and so on provide invaluable input and service. They reach far into this nation’s heart, its people, and provide the nurturing and guidance that keeps it safe and beating.

Civil servants oversee every aspect of the system from schools to hospitals to hill developments. It is therefore crucial that those who take on the responsibility of administration be suitably qualified for their jobs. This is both a matter of competence and integrity. There is no excuse for not having the best possible persons for such positions, be they teachers or director generals of Ministries.

Even a cursory glance at modern Malaysia would show that this is sadly not the case. If it were otherwise, we would not be stuck in the rut that we are. The nation lacks sparkle, energy and drive. Hamster like, we run on the spot in our wheels of misfortune as the system, such as it is, wears itself down at the expense of the future we could have. Can we really say that we have the best people for the job in the various ministries, departments and agencies that we rely on to make sure this country runs at the optimum level in all respects? I think not.

It seems that the only employer that does not complain about poor levels of competence, at least publicly, is the government. This is understandable. The civil service has always been potentially useful as an employment bank, a direct means of furthering agendas, for control and, for all these reasons, winning votes. Somewhere along the way, that potential was harnessed, and welfare and privilege elements exploited to justify abuse.

The notion that employment in the civil service is an aspect of welfare or privilege is self-serving and dangerous. The civil service is so inextricably linked with our future, giving meaning to the adage “we reap what we sow”. This is not just about the alarming number of unemployable local graduates and school leavers, as worrying as that is, it is also about bad decision making with sometimes catastrophic results, tangible and intangible, and other equally significant aspects.

Things are definitely not as they should be in this nation. We are slipping far behind as we drown in a dizzying cocktail of lackadaisical attitudes, a total lack of imagination, mind-numbing incompetence and corruption. Mediocrity has become our standard. And though we rush to justify and distract from failings, be it for having allowed our tertiary institutions to slip into the “not worth bothering” section of the rankings or the increase in corruption, this is not addressing the problems.

Change became a catchword this year with even UMNO elites claiming it for their banner. If we are sincere about transforming Malaysia, the alarming state of the civil service must be addressed.

For this, ground-rules must be set and respected. Politicians must learn to respect the intent underlying civil service regulations that restrict political involvement: civil servants must be left alone to do what needs to be done. They do not serve political parties; they serve the government of the day. Additionally, key sectors of the civil service must be made impermeable to appointments based on race quotas and be defined only by appointments based on of high levels of competence and integrity.

Above all, politicians must learn to respect the civil service for the fundamental role it plays in nation building. Change is in its hands.

(Malay Mail; 9th December 2008)

MIS

Finding Equilibrium

Finding Equilibrium

Zaid Ibrahim’s impassioned call for a rejection of race politics last Friday at the LawAsia conference is one that deserves its place in history. His plea for the restoration of democracy and the Rule of Law has reverberated throughout the nation.

This is not surprising. Zaid’s message is rooted in an obviously deep and heartfelt commitment to the nation and the interests of all its citizens. Where the Malays are concerned, he is strident in his rejection of policies that have left the community struggling against a siege mentality that robs it of its ability to meet the challenges of a globalizing world. As he observes, the “Malays are now a clear majority in numbers. The fear of their being out numbered is baseless; they are not under siege. The institutions of government are such that the Malays are effectively represented, and the there is no way the interest of the Malays can be taken away other than through their own weakness and folly.”

Equally forceful in his defence of non-Malay interest, Zaid laments attempts by politicians to do away with a social contract that guarantees “equality and the promise of the Rule of Law” in favour of one that promotes a supremacist ideology that ultimately serves only the interests of an elite. This, he opines, has left the nation deeply divided and cut off from the democracy and Rule of Law so vital for the sustainable and inclusive development that all Malaysians need, irrespective of race and religion.

Put another way, Zaid has given voice to what it is most Malaysians think: that we need to be united to face the future. The founders of this nation understood we could, appreciating that there was no reason for fear and that we had every reason for mutual respect and dignity. Fear mongering has however kept us apart and from seeing the threats that confront us, and what we need to do to counter them.

Zaid’s message is persuasive for its simplicity and self-evident truth. He must be credited for having been able to say what had to be said, as it needed to be said.

If there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of the viewpoint expressed, then we need only consider the reactions from senior UMNO members entrenched in the leadership structure of the party. These reactions not only make it evident that Zaid hit the nail on the head, they also show why it is UMNO and the Barisan Nasional need to seriously reconsider how to make themselves relevant. Two responses are illustrative.

Perlis UMNO liaison chief and former Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim had this to say, according to media reports, “Zaid should repent. Otherwise he should get out of the ‘rumpun Melayu’. Paraphrased by BERNAMA, his explanation for this was that “if Zaid continued to question the Malay supremacy concept, then he should no longer be a Malay as a Malay should be defending the Malays and not running them down.”

But, is that not what Zaid was doing? Apparently not, for the New Straits Times reported Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, who is incidentally an UMNO supreme council member, as saying that Zaid was “a traitor to his own race and should apologise for his remarks.”

Both responses are so self-defeating that they boggle the mind. They typify the might is right attitude that Zaid speaks out against. Being senior UMNO members, both individuals must be open to the possibilities. As Zaid put it, if “affirmative action is truly benchmarked on the equitable sharing of wealth that is sustainable, then we must confront the truth and change our political paradigm; 40 years of discrimination and subsidy have not brought us closer.”

Zaid was not alone in expressing concerns about the way things are. At the same conference, His Royal Highness Raja Nazrin Shah, the Raja Muda of Perak, called for a rejection of discriminatory policies. The Raja Muda observed that the “consequence of not empowering citizens or, worse, disempowering them, is to create a deep sense of alienation and hostility. Indeed, it is very often an overwhelming sense of alienation and powerlessness that causes the rash acts of violence that fracture societies. It gives these citizens every reason to seek to divide society in order to redress their dissatisfactions. This is bad and insensitive politics. On another level, we cannot morally turn our backs on the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that all stakeholders in our society, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, have a place under the sun.”

The ideal could not be better articulated. Malaysians, all of us, want our place in the sun. We do not wish to live in fear, looking over our shoulders all the time. There is more than enough for us all to share in. We have been blessed with a nation so abundant with resources and so rich with potential that generation upon generation will be able to live in peace and prosperity. The only catch, if it can be called that, is that we need to be left alone to find our equilibrium. Only then can we get on with the task of doing it right.

(Malay Mail; 4th November 2008)

MIS

Project Malaysia - Sighting Common Ground

Project Malaysia - Sighting Common Ground

Some friends and I launched a non-profit initiative called ‘Project Malaysia’ on Merdeka day this year. An on-line journal on key contemporary Malaysian issues, it will run for twelve months during which twelve core themes will, we hope, be deconstructed objectively and comprehensively. Our aim is to offer solutions for a stronger, more united Malaysia.

The idea for the initiative came up towards the tail end of 2006. The Article 11 road-show had become controversial as had my involvement in the Lina Joy appeal at the Federal Court. Circulating, were posters denouncing me as a traitor to Islam and flyers declaring that I was the principal mind behind an anti-Islamic campaign. About a year earlier, I had chaired the steering committee of an initiative aimed at promoting the establishment of a statutory interfaith commission. That too had become controversial, and judging by the campaign in Permatang Pauh, is still something that some see as being useful for purposes of agitation.

Needless to say, these events got me thinking. I had involved myself in these efforts for the same reason that I had been involved in human rights and civil society work since 1996. Appreciating that coexistence in a multi-cultural society such as ours would involve some friction from time to time and that historical antecedents would lend itself to majoritarianism and the unfairness it could entail, my objective had been to find constitutionally just solutions to potentially problematic scenarios. In the case of the proposed commission it had been to find a mechanism by which infringements of religious harmony could be considered with the detached objectivity that problem-solving required. With the Islamic conflicts cases, it had been to highlight the avoidable problems that an erosion of constitutionalism had led to.

No matter what my detractors might say, at no point in time did I advocate the rejection of either Islam as the religion of the Federation, the system of Islamic administration or the special status of the Malays. And yet that is what certain quarters had come to represent with much force. It is readily apparent that the truth had been manipulated and controversy created for the sake of a less obvious agenda, much as it was when the Bar Council held its forum recently.

As I began to appreciate more clearly what it is that had happened, I saw a similar trend in other aspects of our lives. Instead of addressing issues, some of which went to the heart of our ability as a society to remain cohesive and capable of facing the future, it seemed that those in positions of influence were more concerned with scoring points and creating opportunities through proverbial storms in teacups. Added to this was a high degree of politicking from which nothing, it seemed, was sacred, including governance. There was as such a lot of noise and drama, but very little being done.

When confronted, our leaders would have us believe that there was hardly any, or no, common ground on these issues, that they required detailed study by persons unknown, or, all else failing, the matter was too sensitive for discussion. This attitude left little or no means by which issues could be viewed constructively and resolved. Talking to the opposition is only as effective as the opposition is as a means to influencing change and as interested as it is in the issue at hand, the latter not being a given.

The more I thought about this, the more I became convinced that unless Malaysians were given access to objective viewpoints from all relevant perspective, they were going to be constantly in the dark and vulnerable to influence. Difficult scenarios would only multiply.

I began to talk to friends about what it is that could be done. The fact that Malaysia appeared to be awakening, and it cannot be denied that all things said and done the Abdullah Badawi administration did create more space for discussion, was a key element in our discussions. Over time, we began to see the need to challenge preconceptions, not only about issues but also how we were to address them. In this vein, maybe rather presumptuously, we began to look at the possibility of a nation building experiment.

That experiment became known as Project Malaysia. It was meant to have kicked-off about a year ago but schedules, commitments and circumstance made it impossible. In retrospect, this was a good thing as we gained the advantage of the events of March 8th and all that has happened since.

Whether we manage to achieve our goal is something that all Malaysians have a role to play in. We intend to approach each theme in the following manner. An article on the theme will be presented to selected respondents, leaders or experts in their respective fields, and a response invited. The respondents having been selected from the range of relevant stakeholders, it is hoped that a multi-faceted, perhaps comprehensive, analysis of the theme will be presented. Shorter comments on varying aspects of the theme by interested participants should allow us to keep the discussion relevant and real.

Through this, we hope to be able to identify common ground, problem areas and possible avenues forward. At the end of twelve months, we should have a blueprint for a better Malaysia.

As our first step into the void, we chose the theme “Race” and invited responses to a comment entitled “The Politics Of Race”. Already featured are perspectives by YB Nur Jazlan Rahmat of UMNO, Ooi Kee Beng, Tricia Yeoh and Mavis Puthucheary. There are many more to come, some which may surprise. We take the view that the more dimensions the better.

This is, after all, for a better Malaysia.

(Project Malaysia is at www.projectmalaysia.org)

(Malay Mail; 2nd September 2008)

MIS

Is There A Statesman In The House?

Is There A Statesman In The House?

Last Friday former British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered the 22nd Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lecture. He spoke, to the chagrin of some, on the Rule of Law and its continuing relevance in an increasingly challenging world. The gist of his lecture was credibly reported in the media and no useful purpose would be served by my summarizing it here. Suffice it to say that Mr Blair presented the key aspects of the subject winningly and, at times, poignantly, lending important validation to what it is civil society has been saying for more than two decades now: an independent and competent justice system is crucial to democracy and the sustainable growth of a nation.

But as I listened to the lecture, it was not so much what he was saying that struck me but rather how he was saying it. His delivery was crisp, articulate and erudite, the intelligence and maturity underlying it evident. I do not intend to put Mr Blair on a pedestal but leaving aside his more questionable decisions including those on Iraq - I know of no leader whose every decision has been universally acceptable and if we are going to accuse Mr Blair of war crimes then we should be accusing those who wield the ISA for political purpose of crimes against humanity – here was, simply put, a world class leader.

After the lecture, I overheard some members of the audience ask whether they could imagine the Prime Minister or any other member of the cabinet delivering a lecture of that caliber. Sadly, the laughter the question generated was answer enough.

I walked away depressed. As unpleasant as it was to admit, they were almost entirely correct. Looking at those who claim the right to lead us, I have difficulties seeing whom it is that I can have faith in to get the job of running this country done the way it needs to let alone make a high performance presentation.

Many say Dr Mahathir was a great leader. I cannot accept this. It was his administration that left us in the difficulties we are in now. From reckless deficit spending on vanity mega-projects to a seeming incapability, or was it unwillingness, to deal with destructive corruption to the dismantling of the Rule of Law to the encouraging, nurturing even, of sectarian interests, his was an administration that left Malaysia deeply divided, distrustful and greatly crippled.

It is a testament to the resilience of Malaysians that we have been able to limp forward in spite of everything. That is our achievement, the rakyat, and not that of our current leaders as they are so wont to claim. To the contrary, it would seem that they have done almost everything to keep us hamstrung in order to secure political interests, no cost being too great for this purpose. Inconvenient realities have been almost carelessly hidden behind a flimsy construct of delusion, self-denial and studied indifference, effective only for it having been propped up by draconian laws aimed at procuring compliance.

The fact is this country is in a mess.

In all of this and more, the only individuals who have ascended to leadership have been those with the cast iron stomachs and the wily cunning that politics in this country requires. Objectivity, maturity, competence, and the other key characteristics of statesmanship appear not only to have been low on the list of prerequisites, they have at times appeared to impede the pursuit of greater political power.

Were things otherwise, we would not be the weak, divided, paranoid, and underachieving society that we are. Malaysia would instead be a strong, united and prosperous nation whose people, irrespective of race or religion, were global competitors capable of achieving greatness. We would have our share of world leaders.

There is no conceivable reason for our not being as successful, if not more so, than Singapore or a number of other nations. We had the talent, ability, intelligence, and resolve to have gotten us there a long time ago. Politics and the vanity of an elite were however permitted to keep or drive them away from where they were most necessary for the nation: the civil service, the nation building institutions, the governments of the States and the Federation, to name a few. Though not necessarily definitive in itself, comparing and contrasting the qualifications of those who sit on cabinet or in institutions such as the Judiciary in this country with those of similar positions in nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom and, closer to home, Singapore allows us to see the contours more clearly.

Politics continues to reign supreme, and those who lead us continue to deny the need for urgent systemic reform across the board and the need for reappraisal of race-relations policies in this country. That the status quo will eventually strangle us to death unless radical change is effected and effected quickly does not seem to figure on their political horizons.

We need a real leader; someone whose commitment to truth, social justice and nation building is as uncompromising as is his or her rejection of politics, greed and vanity. Though we do not need a saint, we need someone who understands that Malaysia belongs to all of us and that its future is our collective future; someone who appreciates the immense power that lies beneath its surface and is capable of harnessing and unleashing that power to capture the world.

Though, someone who could call a spade a spade and get on with dealing with things practically and fairly would be a good start.

Now, is that too much to ask?

(Malay Mail; 5th August 2008)

MIS

The Politics Of Race

The Politics Of Race

It is abundantly clear that the politics of race has slowly and surely brought to this country to the brink of disaster.

We are a nation divided, kept from strength by divisive policies that constantly remind us of our differences rather than our similarities and, in doing so, breed distrust and weakness. We have been reduced to nothing more than representatives of our different ethnic communities. Instead of being husband, father, wife, mother, child, lawyer, artist, accountant, doctor or public intellectual, we are instead Malay, Chinese, Indian or Other, the value we can each add to this society limited by the box that keeps us in our respective categories.

Though this may serve political interests, ‘divide and rule’ having always been a useful strategy for ensuring dominion, it does not serve our interests and those of the nation.

The NEP was intended to address disparities in income levels between the primary ethnic groups even as it addressed poverty across the board. I believe that over the years political interests had gradually hijacked the policy, so much so that Ketuanan Melayu has come to define the social contract for some while others believe that affirmative action is a permanent privilege of birth notwithstanding the policy having led to the enrichment of a small elite at the expense of the wider community and the nation.

Accepting that this is a contentious issue, consider instead where race based policies have left the nation and the Malay community respectively.

Where public education is concerned, though the policy has allowed for greater Malay student intake into institutions of learning at all levels, admission quotas and declining standards in a mass assembly style education system have led to the production of graduates, Malays and non-Malays alike, who are simply not good or confident enough to do what it takes or sufficiently experienced to deal with multi-racial existence. This has been influenced to an extent by political objectives that have suborned quality to quantity and, in having permitted race based appointments of educators, subjected the education system to a cycle that undermines it.

Seeing as how local graduates, diploma holders or school leavers form the bulk of the work force, in part due to more young Malaysians choosing not to return home after completing their studies abroad because they do not believe they can achieve the quality of life they aspire to here, this cannot be a good thing. It is no secret that the country faces a major human resource shortage.

This has had serious implications. One of the more evident knock-on effects is the impact it has had on the civil service. It is an open secret that race has played a big role, and continues to do so, in appointments and promotions, having resulted in a civil service made up almost entirely of Malays, graduates of local universities and schools in the main. In time, it has come to be dominated by persons who are not sufficiently equipped with the skill, knowledge and experience to do what they have to, unlike their predecessors.

The same can also be said of public institutions such as the Judiciary. Appointments to the bench have largely been from the Attorney General’s Chambers or the Judicial services and in this way the civil service experience, such as it is, has found its way onto the bench.

In all of this and more, race has figured very prominently, even though it should not have. It is not insignificant that of the ten Federal Court judges currently serving, eight are Malays, as are fifteen of the twenty serving Court of Appeal judges and thirty-three of the forty-eight serving High Court judges, the overwhelming majority of them having been appointed from the civil service.

This raises important questions. Though affirmative action may be a relevant consideration for us, what is the cost we will have to pay for it? Do we have to sacrifice our competitiveness and sustainability?

I think not. There are ways in which the poor and the disadvantaged, Malays and non-Malays alike, can be assisted without having to sacrifice the competitiveness of the nation or the individual Malaysian’s right to be the best he or she can be. Creating the methods by which this can be done requires maturity, a consideration of what this country needs in the long run and, above all, a jettisoning of political interests.

Sadly, it would seem that the Government has been incapable of this.

Take the Judiciary for instance. The Prime Minister has publicly admitted that we may not have the best persons for the job on the bench. It also appears as if race quotas have been imposed on appointments. How is it that that could have been permitted? The Judiciary is a crucial institution, a cornerstone of democracy that requires the best minds to function as it was meant to. Leave aside the fact that the Constitution does not authorize such quotas for the Judiciary, that justice can be served by reference to ethnic considerations defies logic and common sense. Justice is blind to all considerations, race and religion included.

That the Government was prepared to allow the Judiciary to be subverted in this way is indication enough of how it is that other aspects of governance have been approached, especially those essential to the functioning of the pluralist democracy that Malaysia is. It is hardly surprising then that race relations has taken on an edge that it never had before.

(Malay Mail; 29th July 2008)

MIS

NB. The special status of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak is constitutionally enshrined in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. As I have written elsewhere, this allows for measures to be taken in protection of these groups. Nothing in this comment is intended to undermine the significance of that constitutional provision.