Truth and politics

All truth is God\’s Truth. But, does truth matter in politics? If, in fact it does not, what then can be the process for improved governance?

Is political governance merely the law of the jungle, where the Lion King reigns or Tiger is King of the Golden Jungle? (pun intended). What about the \’shrewd Rusa\’ or the Old Fox?

What does an absolute good governance ideal mean; what is the measure of goodness, if truth does not matter? How do we really know that it is in fact: People First and Performance Now?

Who defines which people are first? Who defines which performance is good enough? Are UmnoPuteras first, or is it Putera Keadilan or DAPSY first, as the case maybe?

Zaid Ibrahim\’s book, \’I Too Am Malay\’ puts this very well. He calls the newer NEP, the UEP (or Umno\’s Economic Plan).

I would call it Barisan\’s Economic Plan; what with the colour and shades from the PKFZ scandal.

If truth does not really matter in national politics, we must as well kiss our dreams of a mature democracy goodbye. As already articulated in the \’ Animal Farm\’ , all men are indeed brothers, but some are in fact more equal than others.

Then too, let us forget about the sisters completely and not even bother to mention the more marginalized; like the ants, birds and bees, or the Penans and Orang Asli or Orang Asal!

In all religious theology, truth must matter; otherwise, it should not matter. Whether we call HIM Allah or God or whatever. What then for truth in the politics of good governance in Malaysia?

I therefore noted with great interest that Najib Tun Razak, unlike Abdullah Badawai before him, did not attend the Christian Federation of Malaysia or CFM\’s Annual Christmas Fellowship Tea.

Neither did he send Christmas cards to the Christian leaders. Instead he sent Idris Jala, his personal representative for the event. And apparently, Idris did make an impact, from what I hear.

Even more interestingly, Anwar Ibrahim ( left ) was present. To his credit, I am glad he chose to be there, as even I as a Christian, was not even invited. It is excellent that Anwar chose to be there.

The truth of the matter is that in the last General Election about 10 percent of the electorate who voted was in fact Christians. In fact also, I hear Malaysians of Indian heritage only make about eight percent of the votes; which all the Indian parties seek to pursue and woo.

Thereby, and thereafter, Christian candidates also made up more than 10 percent of candidates and elected MPs and ADUNs altogether in some states and jurisdictions.

In many urban areas, mostly populated by young and upward mobiles, often called yuppies, they are at times more than 30 percent voters and therefore also the candidates too are Christian. I hear that there are 40 MPs who are from a Christian background in Parliament today, or almost 20 percent.

Of course, Christians being so, will always want to know if these MPs are Evangelicals, or traditional Protestants (including Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians), or Catholics. Does it really matter?

Good policy design

Now, returning to my dialogue about truth and politics. The Minister of Home Affairs says that the majority of Malaysians his ministry consulted say that they want the Internal Security Act to remain for the purpose of national security, except for some changes.

Can the minister advice or inform us what method of consultation his ministry used? How did they consult all non-political representatives of the people? Was a survey done? What was their policy analysis methodology?

If there was even a survey, who were the sample groups surveyed for the generalisation to be made? What sampling methodology did the survey use? I, for one, never heard about it nor of anyone being consulted about the review.

Was the Bar Council consulted? Were the Media consulted? Maybe not all media representatives, as the National Union of Journalists has demanded they be consulted.

Dear Minister of Home Affairs, if truth is important in Najib\’s 1Malaysia philosophy, there cannot be two views about the ISA.

If, for example, the \’No to ISA Group\’ was not consulted, and if the Bar Council was not consulted, and if the journalists were not consulted, and especially the blogger community was not consulted, I would say that it is not good policy design.

Therefore if your problem analysis is weak and inaccurate, the policy prescription will automatically become even more irrelevant.

Therefore for the sake of truth in Malaysian political life, can we do what is right in this very first time review of the ISA, and can we make it right for all times?

After all it is now 52 years after so-called freedom from British hegemony. Are we not mature enough to undertake a serious and full-fledged review?

Do we not really know how to do it? You see politics cannot be reduced to the law of the jungle, for that is when terrorists emerge.

It is when people believe their views do not matter or truth does not matter that they consider other ways and methods of using force. Illegal application of force is what we call terrorism.

Whether an individual or a group does it, they are all seeking to use the force of their arguments through violence, to make a statement. All force is terrorising to those feeling overcome.

Malaysia wants to become a developed country in our own mould, according to Vision 2020.

What does such development mean? Severe gaps between rich families and poor neighbours? Surely not. To me, the truth of the NEP of Tun Razak ( left ) was that he wanted to eradicate poverty.

I call this the \”Bottom 30 percent Agenda.\” Instead, the UEP focused on the top 30 percent of the NEP and we are still quarreling over whether it is 45 percent or merely 19 percent. Does it really matter?

After 52 years of ushering out the British and the Communists and foreign companies from Malaysia, we still have not got to the truth of the matter: That we are ALL better off today than when the British and Communists were here.

The \”Bottom 30 percent\” still lives in relative poverty; some have no electricity, others have no clean water, children of new migrants have no basic education, or basic infrastructure. How can we call ourselves a developed nation? Are we really?

Yes, on the human development report maybe, but what we are really proud of? Our corruption index or integrity index? Our stealth in public theft and bribing capabilities? Stolen lands and missing aircraft engines?

Come on Malaysia, we are in the first decade of the 21st Century, but we have been behaving like little children who can only drink milk, when we should be eating meat.

May God bless our nation in the new decade.