By KJ John
PM Najib Abdul Razak argued at the UN that the mainstream moderate majority must be mobilised to reflect and protect universal values of common day civility. He repeated the same call at the Asem Meetings in Brussels.
Coincidentally, Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) also made the same call in London at a Friends of Pakatan event; calling for the more significant role of the Third Force in Malaysian politics.
Actually these two leaders agree on the strategy forward for their nation. The only difference is that one is the leader of the formal system working within the UN system of nation-states and the other a civil society leader working via informal networks within his own country. One is elected, the other anointed by a specific calling.
It is good that they do actually agree on something. That allows and promotes a common ground for a virtuous dialogue on how to grow a 1Malaysia into a Bangsa Malaysia.
The current problem in Malaysia though, and actually anywhere in the world in the Global Village of McLuhan, is that the public interest does not seem to be the responsibility of anyone in particular any more.
Too many people and the large majority are only interested in their pet agendas and very few have interest in the common grounds of the public interest. These used to be called the commons. Today even the public service functions focus on rationalising their self-survival and existence rather than serving the public interest.
Let me quote a real-life example. This morning as I went walking I came across two young Malaysians on a motorbike at a traffic light. I stopped as I was crossing the lights and asked them their ages. One was ten and the other eight.
I asked who gave them permission to be on the road. The older one replied that he was only going to buy things for his mother from a grocery shop. I asked him if he knew the law. He simply looked down and pretended that “I should close one eye on the matter, presumably while waiting for the light to change.”
I instructed him to turn around and go home or I would report him to the police. He did turn around and I pray that he went home and never rides the motorbike illegally again. But, please do not hold your breath!
Whose responsibility is it?
Whose responsibility is it then to make sure that “our public space morality is not violated in casual ways?” Whose responsibility is it to make sure that “young boys like these do not become the Aminulrasyids of the world who consequently get killed after a police chase?” Is it then only the responsibility of the police to monitor and enforce such public space morality? What is the role and responsibility of the average Malaysian moderate mainstream human being?
The grand mufti of Syria who spoke on ‘The challenges of the 21st century Muslims’ at the Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies also had this reminder to all his listeners. By his definition and articulation, all Malaysians and all human beings, not just Muslims, faced the same set of challenges in the 21st century.
His talk was refreshing and very inclusive. I left encouraged that there are great Muslim leaders like him who are moderates and are speaking for the large majority. He also challenged me to review my rather limited views on some aspects of universality.
Furthermore, the PM at the launch of the Razak School of Government (RSOG) at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC) recently while making the inaugural ‘Razak Perdana Lectures’ argued that there are four benchmarks for public service, if Malaysia does not want to become a failed state.
The Prime Minister argued that “world class leadership was not merely about leading but also about inspiring others to follow suit. It required the ability to make the right decision on informed reasoning and an outcome-driven mentality.” Such a mentality had four benchmarks. They are:
1. Through ensuring transparency and accountability, such leadership must provide for the demands and expectations of the public but also include them in decision-making processes.
2. Learning to be receptive to change such leadership must make competitiveness their second nature. Competition is the only way for self-improvement.
3. Merit-based advancement within the civil service should be based on individual capacity and potential.
4. Lifelong learning must become a way of life for our public service.
Again, the grand mufti and Najib said similar things although focused on different issues and concerns. Najib concluded with the statement that the nation needed to have a society-centric government, where the peoples’ voice is heard by the civil service and wherein listening is the most accurate assessor of the ability of the public services and her performance.
Role of third parties
RPK argued had that his ‘party in England’ was instrumental for insisting on public sector reforms through their moderated hung Parliament negotiations. RPK’s argument was also that it was civil society made up of NGOs, Bloggers United, ordinary citizens and academics with integrity that were the third force in the last general election of March 8.
He cautioned and warned that if the PKR leadership refused to keep the Barisan Rakyat manifesto (the words are a coinage by the combination of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat) this would be the last GE wherein the Third Force would support Pakatan.
During my last Intan course for promotions, I wrote a paper on the need for a Citizen-led Action Movement or CLAM in 1999. In fact, I even took a half-day off to present the paper to the then Deputy IGP, a very good friend from Sarawak and former First College mate in UM. He commented that I sounded like an NGO; although while still in the public service of the government. I retorted that was why I had taken a half-day off just to meet up with him.
As argued by the grand mufti of Syria, Najib and RPK (left in pic) the modern world needs a third force of influence which will articulate moderate and good civic values of a universal nature to collaborate and work for the common ground issues and concerns.
Unlike with the “use of force” this movement must be a knowledge-based civil society engagement with values of a universal nature and agreed to by all faith systems in the world. The world has no other real choice. May God bless Malaysia to choose this path of righteousness and the way of a virtuous cycle of prosperity; without beggaring our neighbour.
KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed above are truths that matter to him as an individual citizen wearing private and civil society hats and therefore are not opinions of the university or faculty. Do send feedback to him at [email protected]
KJ John here talks about on whom we should depend the task of “mobilising moderate Malaysia”.
On Ruling party’s side we have for eg PM Najib Ku Li, even Khairi, and the “Mouth”, Nazri on selective issues and occasions. They are not dependable as their motive is preservation of power. If their moderate talk and stance against extremism loses votes or threatens their own political position they will balk.
Then the Opposition politicians, who are more dependable on a comparative basis only in relation to ruling politicians, as the so-called conscience of society and defenders of highest values of democracy and civil liberties but they too cannot be relied upon absolutely as events in Perak’s Ngeh/Nga-Kulasegaran dispute and struggle for power in PKR testify.
The third category is what RPK calls the “third force”. RPK argues that “it was also that it was civil society made up of NGOs, Bloggers United, ordinary citizens and academics with integrity that were the third force in the last general election of March 8.” There is a veiled threat here: if this third force could help make Opposition a force of influence to reckon with on March 8, so it can break it if Opposition politicians do not, like their counterparts in the ruling coalition, keep faith to promote and fight the Malaysian Cause as promised!
I want to say a little about this “third force” and what it takes for it to become really effective in the overall objective of mobilizing moderate Malaysia against extremism.
Civil society is made up of NGOs, Bloggers United, ordinary citizens and academics with integrity – in short the “public Intellectual”.
First, a definition: what is a public intellectual? A public intellectual need not have a resume replete with diplomas and degrees. God forbid if it were so, RPK would be straightaway disqualified. It is he who speaks and writes to influence the public audience; who makes clear what public issues of the day are about; who articulates what is true right and morally and publicly correct position we should take.
We have public intellectuals in various NGOs, whether spokesmen for (say) women groups or professions (like the Bar Council); academicians like KJ John, Azli, Farish Noor, Azmi Sharom or non academicians like surgeon Bakri, engineer like Mariam Mokhtar etc
Their common thread: they speak in public forums and write articles to persuade the general audience/discourse arena. The exponential expansion of electronic media – insatiable demand for commentary insights and angle on matters of public concern – makes them celebrities via the blogs, twitters and face books on which status they leverage to influence – mostly for our Good o what they think is for our Good. They are more reliable than politicians on both sides of the political divide because whilst counting amongst politicians are many public intellectuals they are at best “pseudo” in the sense that their motives are sullied by an extraneous collateral main objective of garnering votes to gain power and hence tend to engage in “double talk” for that expedience.
Sorry off topic.
Taib Mahmud’s property manager in US is dead. Apparently he has his bag strapped round his neck. Suicide? Or murder?
Recently the Sarawak Report carried a series of exposes on taib mahmud’s billion dollar wealth in us, uk and canada. Who gave online report those detailed info?
how to have a moderate malaysia when the head is not a moderate?
Continuing from posting 1: Even the ‘third force’ has various sub-categories. Academic public intellectuals like (say) KJ John & Azmi Sharom have to be a little more “moderate” in their fight for mobilizing Moderate against Extreme Malaysia because their tenured professorship in local universities makes them vulnerable to machinations of powers-that-be : they have to balance their conflicting roles as insiders as well as outsiders of the Establishment more delicately than say academicians entirely outside like Azli or Farish Noor and Jomo!
At the other extreme of the continuum of “third force” is RPK. He is prepared to be “extreme” to mobilize Moderate against Extreme Malaysia. Not contented with merely being disturber of peace of the realm he is in tradition of the world’s first public intellectual Socrates prepared to defy and mock the laws of the powers-that-be and be a martyr in exile! If only there were more of stubborn and brave public intellectuals like him.
But having public intellectuals to disturb and challenge extreme mindsets and worldviews is not enough for Malaysia. They must be effective in their objectives.
To which the question arises: what are the prerequisite conditions for them to be effective in their objective of doing Good?
We go back now to first principles. The tool of the Public Intellectual’s trade is language. They need it to communicate, articulate, discuss and exchange views and values (whether on ethics or good governance or rights recognition) boldly and persuasively. Likewise for their “wisdom” to be communicated, the targeted audience must be fluent in the language of the communicators. Otherwise the audience cannot benefit from their persuasion to be moderate.
If the audience shares common language with extremist ideologues rather than the language of public intellectuals, then the extremist values instead of moderate values and ideas will gain greater currency and ascendency throughout the realm – defeating the avowed Cause of public intellectuals to develop a Moderate Malaysia!
The most important pre-requisite is therefore common language between communicator and listener/reader.
Although it can be any common language, my bias, in a nation of diverse races and cultures like ours, is English – with no disrespect or denigration of our National Language. It is an international lingua franca of our Global Village. It transmits universal values of what constitutes human rights, best practices in governance and so on – whatever that is needed to put the country on right track and move forward in all spheres of endeavour.
If we want tour public intellectuals to “mobilise moderate Malaysia” effectively and at same time infuse ethics in private and public lives, improve human, moral and economic capital of the country and people, we have to do the first thing first – which is (unfortunately) support the first culprit, TDM, in his campaign to teach English for science and mathematics, and from that point support NGO -“PAGE”, I think – to lobby for return of English in our education system.
Both are talkers. Who is the doer? To make a difference, we must not only talk, we must walk the talk. Pardon the cliche.
One more thing.
I see there are many public intellectuals in web sites like MalaysianKini, the MalaysianInsider and blogs linked to them. Even an ex Judge like NH Chan has become a public intellectual!
That they gravitate to the Net is understandable because the conventional media of print is manacled by the Printing Press Publication Act and the public intellectual journalists, editors are cowed to expend their intellectual resources to help the ruling party’s cause than that of the common men and country! How sad!
There is little compensation in being a public intellectual to help advance the moderate cause of Malaysians against extremists.
If there were any monetary benefits (in writing for the Alternative Media and in their own blogs), they are secondary and modest.
Whatever little ego massaging that comes from being publicly known of and for their views is set off against by the disproprtionate disadvantage and overwhelming dangers of being slammed with police reports alleging sedition and ISA etc by the extremists.
Whatever views intended for public good are also subject to them being slammed by the same members of the public for being inaccurate, misinformed, illogical and fallacious.
The risk of being ridiculed is ever present. Especially so in world of an explosion of knowledge and specialisation. So where a public intellectual says something that touches on all fields of knowledge he is bound to be viewed by the specialist of any given field as talking cock in matters he knows not that much about.
We should cut public intellectuals some slack here. Instead of ridicule, encourage them to speak and write whatever they wish and give them a fair hearing without being unnecessarily nit-picking of their errors and fallacies.
Or if that must be done, for the sake of abstract truth, then do it courteously and gently for they (public intellectuals in civil society) are doing us all a public good of trying to push the moderate agenda as against the extreme one that threatens to spread throughout the land under the cover of race and religion.
On who is talker or doer per #5 above, the doer is mostly the politician in power, and most time he talks cock to different audiences. It is the nature of the beast for a politician to do so. However his main Achilles heel is still fear of loss of power. It is votes that dominate his agenda. So ultimately it still how a voter or an aggregation of them who deliver the decisive majority votes think. They make the politicians toe their line ie according to their mindsets (whether moderate or extreme). That is why they say people (or majority of them) get the government they deserve!
The role of public intellectual in civil society is therefore to influence that mindset to become more moderate than extreme so that they in turn by cause-effect support moderate politicians and policies and shun and vote against extreme politicians and policies.
That is I think the role of the public intellectual, an important role good for the common cause and the reason why we should encourage nd support thm and not be too harsh in criticisms.
But voters don’t like moderates, they love extremists, racists, cheats, murderers
What about those whose heads are not right? Can they ever become moderates?
There have been so far about 30 senior citizens returning their “haram” RM100 to umno (NOT to the Penang CM)
Wonder whether any of those 30 heroes above had ever undergone blood transfusions in hospitals? If so, how can they be sure that the blood they received was not from haram donors? Quick, umno, get them to the nearest hospital to pump out the blood from their bodies.
According to rumours, the 13 GE will be held after the Chinese New Year in 2011, about 120 days from now. Is PR ready with its candidates? Remember what happened when you last put up subprime candidates such as Limpin’ Hee, Cashswindler Singh, Wee Choo Kiong, Zul Notting, Tan Tibeng, and so on. And now PKR has accepted that Doc Ayam Li Chong Ming as its branch chairman. Will you never ever learn?
PKR desperate 4 members n candidates 2 stand 4 election
Opportunists desperate 4 a PR party 2 stand 4 election
Ngam ngam ho, great union even though haram n strange bed fellows
What will happen later: opportunists get elected as PR candidates during GE, they then offer themselves 2 jump 2 or jump back 2 BN, of cos with a big fat $$$ reward fr BN
Easy instant millionaire strategy, may even get titles n positions
If PR wins big in d next GE, opportunists also benefit, no problemo, win-win situation
Perkosa I-Bra-him practised dat in d last GE, got elected as PR MP but now no more
Now doc ayam is taking advantage of dis win-win route as well
PAS is doing it again and this time they want UMNO to cancel Adam Lambert’s concert in KL. That doesn’t sound moderate to me. PAS sounds more like the extremist Talebans from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. In many ways, UMNO is more moderate than PAS.
Deny it all you want but the truth is PAS is using DAP and Pakatan Rakyat to achieve its dream of setting up Islamic state ala Talibans.
WE NEED A THIRD FORCE THAT WILL FIGHT FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY FOR ALL REGARDLESS OF RACE, RELIGION, AND GENDER!!!
The voters have been conditioned and brainwashed to vote for extremists to benefit themselves. The single most important question to ask is why do extremist politicians exist? Are they extremist because of the congenital fear of the people who somehow are not classified along with them, and thus they developed hatred because of their own experience? That is definitely not true.
Firstly, let us look at the issue of race. Before independence, there was hardly any incident reported about conflicts between people of different races. It was true that Malays, Chinese or Indians lived among their communities but in places where people of different communities stayed around each others, they became good neighbours. It has been said that people in Sabah and Sarawak are real Malaysians who could eat in the same restaurant which serves food under the same roof for people of different faiths and food prohibition. To them one man’s food is another’s poison, and they do not claim that others are insensitive as would the headmaster of ill repute near Sungai Petani. That was how Malaysians in Peninsular lived. In fact Universiti Malaya served in its residential colleges meals separately for Muslims and non-Muslims in the same dinning hall in pre-NEP days. So extremism started by the government.
Why then did the government implement extremist policies? They did it to divide the population as they needed only a majority vote to stay in power. To ensure a majority of the voters vote for them, they created the conditions so that these voters became captive to them. First UMNO battered their coalition partners into submission to afford UMNO followers unfair advantage. Then they threatened their followers that they would lose their advantage if they failed to return UMNO into power. This is still being called out loud by Mamakthir. To consolidate the hold to their followers, religion and race are added. Thus voting in the general election has now risen to be a matter concerning race and religion. In order to make religion a real issue, for example, UMNO minister chose to forbid the use of a particular word said to be reserved for Islam. That action raised the status of the word to sensitive level, and it is an object of protection by Muslims. When some followers are encouraged to show that they are champion of the religion, we saw extremism where churches were torched.
In the manifesto of political parties such as those in the USA or the UK, they talked about how they would serve the interest of the people in the nation. Since the policies would affect people differently, the point of departure could be the social and economic status of the electors. Thus extremism of any stand would not ensure voters support. But is Malaysia, as race and religion is the central election issue, extremism in respect of them turns out vote.
Politicians elsewhere do not have to take extremist position because they enter politics taking it as a profession or a mission to serve. With the talents they possess, they can be as wealthy outside political arena. But here in Malaysia, as shown by the fabulous wealth of the UMNOputras and their power-sharing colleagues in the subordinate political parties, politics is money making enterprises. That is possible because of the institutionalized corruption allowed in the system with the failed government institutions, the MACC, the Court, and the AG office. Thus legalized corruption encouraged politicians to win their seats at all cost, and since extremism is a short cut to gain recognition and outdo other competitors, weeding out extremism should begin by weeding out institutionalized corruption. But that is not in the interest of the powers-that-be.
… I was in Bandung a few years ago and noticed a sizeable motorcycle population. I asked my taxi driver whether they ever had a “Mat Rempit” problem. I had to explain what Mat Rempit was of course. He said “Yes, but its all stopped now”. I asked how it was solved, and he said very nonchalantly “Polisi tembak”. No limp-dick policemen over there……
http://niamah.blogspot.com/2010/10/its-not-hormonal-just-limp-dick-law.html
///Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud has attempted to explain away last week’s massive accumulation of felled logs and driftwood on the Rejang river as a natural phenomenon.///– Malaysiakini
The estimated 300,000 m3 of log or at least 30,000 trees simply uplifted themselves, cut themselves into pieces and fell into the river. That would be the only way to explain natural phenomenon when human beings are not involved in the activities. The same phenomenon does not occur on the Indonesian side of Borneo island.
That shows why Malaysians want to be politician and elected CM, or PM. An explanation has been given and no further action is required. Taib Mahmud might use a simpler language and say that the trees committed suicide.
just as it used to be and always has been , wanna be professorry of the bodohland, always last to speak and applaud after goodies and door gifts…..but never before
OOOOOh so educated opinions from these con acts , another product of 50 years denials and wishful thinking.
many could be already excited and aroused
If the words used rings out a rhyme…it may just sweep all the country side to their feet….
maybe can used something like “be a man smoke lucky strike” ..so be malaysian vote them out
..some weak minds would surely be suc..ahhahahaha