First let me congratulate the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein for being consistent with the new prime minister\’s rule of law edict for his One Malaysia vision.
It takes a first cousin to pull off this stunt. The release of more ISA prisoners, and especially the Hindraf three, held without trial is nevertheless consistent with the promise to review the draconian and undemocratic ISA law.
But, pardon me Mr Minister, can we have OneMalaysia, but still see two visions and versions of truth? Can we continue to allow the rule of law to be reduced to rule by law anymore?
Is it not evident that the police were following the wrong orders in the Perak, quite equal to a very partisan rule by law? It is in fact rule by might, not right!
Any ordinary citizen in Malaysia who understands the basic principles of the right conduct of meetings will and can tell you that the chairperson of any meeting has almost absolute powers given by the house, when it is in session.
How then can the speaker of the house, who is the absolute power in the house of democratically elected representatives, be removed by police, even if in plain clothes, when no criminal act of violation has taken place?
Do the police, who now use arbitrary force, understand that in any state such authority to use force is only given to them by the state to also be used within the decorum of both civility and by respect of the rule of law?
Which part of the constitution or the rule of law principle of the governance of this nation do your men in blue not understand? Do you really intend to empower and encourage the \”still corrupt police to become a law unto themselves?\”
Mr Minister, you are a lawyer and understand the law: what is wrong in law is wrong in fact; do I have to say more?
Some basic lessons
Allow me to give you some basic lessons on good governance in this new and growing nation towards evolving a civil democratic etiquette.
I was a good student of a paper on ‘government\’ taught during my days in Form 6. In the traditional model that I was taught, it was argued that the government of any nation-state was a function of three arms and processes of governance – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
We were also taught that these were different roles with different jurisdictions and that in some states the separation of powers was also absolute; but we also knew that in ours it was not.
That is a limited theory of governance because it only recognizes the legitimate frames of power and authority in a state.
There are many other important actors and purveyors of \”the stewardship of good governance\” of any nation.
Our traditional theories taught in \”developing countries\” did not highlight these other actors and players.
Most governments in the world are usually only given limited power, for a fixed duration, and never in perpetuity. The days of hereditary feudal lords are over.
In Malaysia we use the five-year term limit to any government. Nonetheless, the current federal government has been in power for the last 52 years; and as they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The federal government before March 8, 2008 was so absolutely corrupted that the people of Malaysia responded with: \”enough is enough.\”
Do Umno and the BN still have any doubts about what really happened? Let me say it in a way that is simple and plain.
The people feel cheated and have asked the morally corrupt government of Malaysia to reform or become completely thrown out.
The deadline for improved performance now is the 13th general election. Please be forewarned.
The fourth arm of government
Beyond government, and the formal authority levers of power, there are many other power systems in the world today.
For example, in ‘To Run a Constitution\’, the author and Professor John A Rohr argued for the fourth arm of governance to be the public services.
His is not a new argument. In fact, in many dialogues about the nature of the public services, the debate between the neutral public service model of the British Commonwealth and the American model of change in leadership with every change of president and government, have been widely discussed and debated.
Under our inherited British system of public services, in theory the public services are under the King\’s orders and therefore neutral to the parties in contention. That is theory.
In practice, in Malaysia, under the tutelage of Umno\’s domination of the public services, especially over the last 30 years or so, and especially after May 13th 1969.
Under a programme called the ‘Operasi Isi Penuh\’ many traditional due processes and concerns were set aside for the so-called benefit of the national interest.
Thereby, over 52 years, public interest became defined as national interest which was always defined by Umno with the concurrence and compliance of docile BN partners.
In fact, as early as 1980s, the former Lord President Salleh Abas, as the first recipient of the Intan Fellow Award made his public argument for the fourth arm of governance in his acceptance speech.
To his credit, Salleh even then saw the writing on the wall of the need to limit executive power and authority in an administrative state.
Last few weeks in Perak we saw the worst of the worst abuse of executive authority in the history of the nation. Now even the neutral public servants are not publicly objective and professional anymore.
If we are not careful, the next steps will involve the other states in the opposition slowly but surely securing mayors and senior public servants who are more aligned to their way of administration of state and local governments.
If and when this happens, we will not get a better form of governance, but rather, we will see the swings in political governance framed on a two-party system.
Both sides will seek out only their partisan interests, and express that interest through non-neutral public servants. Then our country will follow the model of other failed states.
Facing a high cost
The brilliance of the Malaysian administrative state hitherto was the neutral, professional and objective, non-partisan public servant.
If we allow that system to deteriorate, we face untold new dangers.
Even the very partisan rulers will come under review and much like in Nepal; a more mature democratic spirit may demand the removal of even the royalty.
My advice to the public servants and especially the Chief Secretary to the government, who is the most senior of all of them and secretary to the cabinet, that the spirit of non-neutrality in Perak is a bad example and a slippery slip slope which if we continue to support and abuse.
The costs to this nation will be very high.
Already the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney-General have double and maybe triple visions.
How can PM Najib Abdul Razak hope to build a OneMalaysia when the hands and feet of good governance abuse the other parts of the same body?
How can the hand take a knife and stab his heart or liver or stomach?
Well for those who do not have eyes, that is what happened in Perak. We cannot have two heads in Perak.
It is an absolute shame that the sultan and regent have already been drawn into the political intrigues in Perak.
With the public services now also in the mud, it is only seconds away from Malaysia slipping down the slippery slope of corruption, abuse of power and ignorance of decorum and a civic culture.
Beware Malaysia of the ides of March. Although we did see the dawn of a new day, it will be a long night before dawn breaks.
I pray that the Federal Court in Putrajaya will stop this rot once and for all.
