by Pak Sako
CPI
Monday, 16 April 2012
“If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves.” – Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
“[T]o dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day… This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest… “The people” are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the “business” of the country.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States of America, An Autobiography.
The million-dollar question for the voting public is not about choosing between a Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat government based on who is more generous, holier or less corrupt.
It should be what to do to shake up the system.
That should be the prime concern of the voting public.
That should be the focus of political analysis and commentating.
The system is where the problems that bedevil the people originate, and it there where the seeds of real change lie.
If there is no intention to review and alter the system, all talk of ‘reformasi’ or ‘transformation programmes’ is meaningless.
What is ‘the system’ and why bother about it?
The system is the set of political and economic arrangements, relationships and mindsets under which government and society operate and with which they interact.
A democracy like Malaysia is defined by government under the control of the public, using everything at its disposal to unerringly serve the public interest.
The basic understanding is that the people are the owners and controllers of their political and economic destinies.
In a democracy, therefore, the system can have only one legitimate purpose: it is to give its all in the service of the people’s interest.
Politicians, business interests and religious leaders, as elements of the system, are bound by this higher purpose. The state is not to be misused for their enrichment, for lavish ceremonial purchases, for religious mind-control or for promoting free markets everywhere.
A constitutional monarchy is likewise also bound by this purpose. The claim that Malaysian society is “semi-feudalistic” (see Zairil Khir Johari, ‘Of songkoks, uniforms and managing expectations’, The Malaysian Insider, 1 July 2011)— which implies service also to rulers and lords— is false and dangerous.
Suppose the public purpose of the system is undermined.
Suppose special interests have hijacked the system, that they are able to manipulate it for their gain at the expense of the public, behind whatever guise (‘public projects’, ‘the national interest’, ‘for the glory of God’).
Suppose also the government of the day stands idly by or even takes part in the abuse.
Switching between new but passive leaders or governments will not help.
The public must instead be able to investigate and alter every single institution and political and economic arrangement to restore rule by the people and fulfill the ‘public-interest-only’ criterion.
That is the condition for real change. Any compromise short of the people taking charge of the system is defeat.
How is the system like in Malaysia?
The Malaysian political-economic system is not geared towards maximally serving public purposes and needs. Certain ‘leakages’ and mindsets block it.
The situation is rooted in events related to the nation’s foundation.
The system assembled after Independence saw influential political and business interests secure advantageous positions and establish mutually-benefiting interrelationships (see Tricia Yeoh, ‘Malaysia after regime change’, The Malaysian Insider, 24 March 2012).
This lopsided starting condition and dilution of public priority became entrenched over time under regime constancy. Lax internal oversight is to be expected.
A feudal mindset— of leaders lording it over the people and the people hand-kissing their “superiors”— contributes. Transparency and asking questions become taboo.
Government decision-making in matters such as economic ownership and wealth distribution filter through consideration for the elite as a matter of routine, without protest. Free-market economics becomes the excuse for privatising public assets (oil refineries, power generation, ports) to corporate ‘captains’.
The culture of ‘the cut’ is emulated in the bureaucratic layers of government and government-founded companies. In Petronas, a company established by law ostensibly to protect and serve the national interest, some top managers set themselves six-figure monthly salaries and bonuses from revenue streams—30 times the average national income.
Other examples abound. The foregoing is sufficient to make the case for intervening in the system.
Regime change as a tool to change the system
A way forward is to raise the prospect of regime change and tying it to an ultimatum to initiate a reshaping of the system.
This threat should force an unresponsive government to act.
This ultimatum must also be brought to bear on the opposition, who should be made to declare commitment to it.
If the ruling government shows scant commitment in delivering meaningful systemic change, the apple cart should be upset by an overthrow via elections.
The successor government is then to be held ransom to the same demand.
Failure to perform should trigger another change of government, and so on until the goal is achieved.
Regime change is desirable for the following reasons. It gives the people the needed window of opportunity, however small, to mount an attempt to regain the freedom to intervene to change the system.
It creates a momentary vacuum in which old connections become temporarily uncoupled. The vista opens for reconsidering old rules, norms and contracts. A chance is had to dramatically alter old institutions and relationships and drawing up new rules.
If nothing else, regime change rattles up the system such that some activities of some parasitic elements are disrupted.
Change can also be a source of renewal.
It allows for a different experience and viewpoint, a chance for stock-taking and reflection, and a refreshment of the collective spirit upon breaking out of a stale old shell.
The people would feel liberated knowing that they can sack a government and assert greater control over it and thus the system.
Choosing between BN and PR
In Malaysia, significant power is concentrated at the federal level that could be used to massively impact the system in a way not possible at lower levels.
The federal route is the least-costly and quickest democratic route for rocking the boat.
A practical rule for deciding on regime change would thus be to remove a ruling government from federal power after a reasonable duration of time if it fails to effect sweeping change to the system with the aim of restoring eminence to public interest.
In applying this rule, governments that persistently collude with or maintain an unjust system are to be rejected. Governments that benefit from an unjust status quo might not have the incentive or motivation to change the way things are.
It would also be morally questionable to continue to reward with federal power a government that has against it allegations of serious past wrongdoings and abuses.
So do we keep or remove BN? Three points swing the case towards the removal of BN:
BN has had a formative role and remains a vested interest in the status quo; it would be difficult if not impossible for it to affect the needed changes on the system from within;
In spite of the current BN administration’s reformist proclamations, its economic and political transformation programmes contain no plans for inquiring into and reshaping the system; their implementation seems to show that they are intended to work within the confines allowed by the existing system, seeking some efficiency improvement perhaps, but not modifying the superstructure itself;
BN has against it a string of allegations of wrongdoing and abuses stretching back to at least the 1980s that await proper investigation and redress; to re-elect it under the circumstance would invoke a moral crisis.
If, after an appropriate evaluation of the opposition, regime change is chosen, what next?
The people must see to it that the successor government executes a radical plan for changing the system.
Such a plan would be extensive in scope and detail, and cannot be covered here. But among the least that a successor government should do is
to subdue, neutralise and remove negative elements and structures of the system (the crony capitalist structure, domineering religious institutions), and not just swap old components with new ones (e.g., replacing BN cronies with PR cronies);
to desist from introducing undemocratic elements and structures in the system (e.g., the shifting of power to religious (syura) councils or other anti-democratic committees);
to prevent public policymaking from being undermined by assertive ideologies (whether these be the supremacy of religion or the supremacy of free markets);
to consider changes that empower the people (e.g., the people having greater ownership of their economy and greater say in how the economy is to serve them; fostering in the individual a sense of intellectual independence and self-confidence).
Needless to say, a successor government should practice sportsmanship and obey the public’s will to replace it in the future.
There must be hope yet for a reformed BN.
There must be room too for a ‘third force’ beyond BN and PR, in the event that both are captured by a corrupt system.
Concluding remarks
Because an overhaul of the system and its institutions would involve actions such as aggressively going after the corrupt, reviewing land ownership and land-use patterns (timber, oil palm), investigating corporate ownerships and relationships, and generally dislodging the elite from the commanding heights of state control and policymaking, the elite are likely to fight back.
Resistance should be anticipated and planned for. It is vital for a new government not to get weak in the knees and make compromises.
Civil society movements have a role to play and should push for more transparent and participatory decision-making. They could also inspire self-sustaining, community-based action (a network of active residents’ associations, for instance). The rare example of Bersih as a broad grassroots movement seeking to bring systemic change in the area of elections should be encouraged elsewhere.
In the economic sphere, the neoliberal/free-market economic ideology promoted to the government and opposition by libertarian think-tanks such as IDEAS (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) needs urgent counterbalance.
Other organisations, such as CPI (Centre for Policy Initiatives), could contribute towards providing a variety of alternative ideas for policymaking.
The public should not be straight-jacketed into choosing only a free-market economic model or its neoliberal variant, the so-called German ‘social market economy’.
They must also be able to deliberate on other more egalitarian economic models and approaches such as those practiced by Australia and Norway, two countries at the top of the U.N. Human Development Index.
There could be other side benefits of regime change.
A BN that is free from an incumbent’s stress could refuse to play the game of escalating the ‘religious arms race’. It could capitalise on the secular position supported by the Federal Constitution and act as a compelling force for it. If this happens, it could counteract a possible slide towards greater theocratic influence in governance under PR.
Lastly, public personalities who propose the soft-softly approach that does not so much as scratch the surface of the system should prove they are not spineless or in cahoots with a crooked system.
Would Najib Razak and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah tell the elites to exit the control-room of the state and submit to the public’s will?
Can Anwar Ibrahim and other opposition leaders highlight their specific strategies for changing the system?
Would Mahathir Mohammad join the chorus?
Who dares say “change the system”?
There is nothing to change for those in power and with connections who could expliot and take advantage of the current ” systems ” resulted from decades of bad leadership and gross mismanagement.
Actually, intellectually ABU and Haris Ibrahim got it right. Truth be told, while the other component parties are party to the guilt, its UMNO that has broken the system and solely stands in the way to fix it. The other component parties really have no say one way or other..
Very good analysis. However, how would you translate this for the ordinary people? We are a culture of corruption: we bribe policemen; and we have our contacts at the hospital to cut the cue; we can buy off people to get the exam questions … .
How can who is the cause of much of the problem be the hope of a cure, even in a dream world?
(How can one who is the cause of much of our problems be the cure?)
To prevent the incumbent government from erring, the opposition can always give warning that once it is voted to federal power, it will set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the wrongdoings of the incumbent government.
Educate more the vast majority whom we rarely heard of any complaints or grouses by them about the one(Umno/BN) who caused so much problems on the nation.We,especially the PKR and PAS must work harder now in rural and remote areas to achieve the goal and not wait till the nation go bankrupt..tamat riwayat…completely si liau liau leh.Lawan tetap lawan for the sake of our nation.ABU!
Agree, its not just about changing BN by PR but the system. However what Pak Sako says about changing the system is likelier an aspiration, not necessarily a reality because the reality is, the system, by which expression includes mindset and cultural values, though changeable, is a generational process, slow and piecemeal. It definitely won’t happen by next GE, even if PR wins, or the GE after next. Though the 26th President Theodore Roosevelt said people should control the “business” of government but today in the US there are still large segment of Americans having given up. Te government/system runs on its own: even Barrack Obama cannot rein it in. Noam Chomsky will tell you that! However admittedly the advantage of a regime change is that, with each change, the new politicians elected to power, will try a notch better in governance than the ones they replace (so as not to be quickly replaced in turn next round of GE). For that all incumbent and opposition politicians perceive and believe that whosoever in power, in spite of having all the resources of the state at its disposal, can’t fight -and can be changed by- the will of the people, dissatisfied with performance, by their votes. In US the institutions allow that. Here replacement of an incumbent has not happened before, so we have to wait and see. Disaster happens if incumbent politicians believe they can stay on forever and are determined to even thwart the will of the people by not relinquishing power/position even though the ballot boxes’ results have evicted them!
It is always about a clean system demanded by Malaysians which the Govt. twist it into politics.]
And all events leading is get rid of corruptions and have a clean election…by so many groups are also twisted as PR plans against BN.
Only BERSIH 3 UMNO b dare not make wild conclusions but is making it very difficult for Ambiga to organize it properly…one day ok..next day cannot…kind of fickle minded approvals.
The Govt will keep on trying to confuse Malaysians as much as they can.
That’s the only way to find suckers supporting them.
You keep telling them it is not about BN or PR….they will keep ignoring and keep fooling and confusing voters.
“People First” is simply a worthless slogan from Najib.
How unmo can win the 13GE (vote rigging not included)
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=32159:najib-you-can-win-hands-down-if?&Itemid=2
Ya lor, educate rakyat it’s OK 1 2 hv REGIME CHANGE, just like changing UNDERWEAR/UNDIES; dirty, smelly, soiled n stained 1, just buang lah n change 2 a new fresh 1, with no experience in corruption, self-enrichment
WAKE UP, rakyat, better ABU n KICK out UmnoB/BN b4 they consolidate their power against rakyat, their bosses – just look at d way various BILLS r rushed through n passed in d parliament by UmnoB/BN MPs, what a FARCE (fart), what a SHAM
“…. d gomen CANNOT appoint a lawyer 2 represent d PM’s wife” said Nazi. REALLY?!
Y did ahCHEATkor n his char bor send a lawyer on ‘sensitive legal assignment’ abroad
WALOU, DAP kaki relaxing, acting, singing 4 UBAH, ABU
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/195283
Unless there’s change in the people’s mindset and feudal values and they absolutely do not tolerate, and check their elected representatives and public officials from corrupt practices, the new set of people elected to replace the old set will, given power and opportunity, equally try to use their position to make money for themselves and families – except that in attempting to be perceived cleaner and better at governance than the ones they replaced, so as not to be replaced once again, they will try to do it in new and more sophisticated ways than the well worn tried ways that they have successfully exposed the previous group of doing… Human greed and desire for unfair gain over others is as old and unchanging as Human history and the sole condition for rakyat not to become exploited and robbed by their political elites (which includes the new set replacing the old) is eternal vigilance and the need to develop and maintain institutions of check and balance, including a dynamic opposition, to prevent or minimize abuse of power and corruption of whomsoever the incumbent in power.
When they say politics is an art of deception (an old adage), it means that the new group vying for political power via the ballot box must persuade and convince majority voters that they more deserve to replace the existing set of abusers and exploiters. This, the new group do by exposing the incumbent’s corruption, which is not difficult as the latter brazenly put their hands in till/cookie jar due to complacency of years in power. And when the new group come to power, it is natural that they have to be more adept at cunning sophistry, guile & deception to take advantage of their newly won positions and devise new ways to make money, lest they be also caught and kicked out by those they replaced (now in the opposition). This is because at every stage of regime change, rakyat become less naïve and more demanding of standards of those elected to power and positions of trust by them.
We complain of Cronyism. In politics it is giving licences and government contracts to someone who is a friend without regard whether he is actually qualified to do the job and also without open tender (ie regard that he can do the job at the lowest cost to the public till). In private work place it is an act of hiring someone because they are a friend equally without regard as to whether the friend is actually qualified to do the job. The feeling of entitlement that cronyism can create could cause insubordination and disrespect for management and a drop in workplace morale. So as a matter of ideal and aspiration Cronyism is bad and to be eschewed. Yet in reality it is always there and we’re inclined to engage with a crony than a stranger because it is natural to trust those we know than those we don’t. (Hence the saying we stick better with the devil we know than the devil we don’t know). Also with trust of people we know we can do “business” to mutual benefit and get the benefits to our self by having an arrangement of sharing the spoils. This as old as history. Though not all most would think of self benefit than abstract principles of ethics and right or wrong, they would however in unabashed hypocrisy want others perceive them to be ethical and principled. That is the way most will think how to survive well in the short life. So its not easy to change “the system” so to speak!
Umno cannot change and will never change. We call it corruption and greed but umno sees them as umnoputras’ birth right and since several yrs ago they even started branding corruption and greed as their special constitutional right. This is the basic issue. Umno sees nothing wrong with that constitutional right and hence sees no necessity to change or do anything about those umnoputras’ right to be greedy and to be corrupt. So whatever umno does ended up as mere slogans and rhetorics – to placate unhappy voters, well just in case those voters decided to throw their votes to the opposition.
Kit,
I see from the book launch that Saudara Lee HB seems parly parly with you.
Be careful.
In fact, we are all trying to change the tenant at Putrajaya, BUT becareful in your candidate selection. Becareful NOT to admit Trojan horses, whose visions and ideals are not that of yours. They will do more harm than good in the long run, or even just after winning. Be wise.
Just becareful of these people who have suddenly ” I have seen the light”.
We must change the tenant at Putrajaya. GE 13 is coming soon. Let us all work very very hard for this change. 3 more steps to go. Bersih 3.0, GE 13 then new tenant at Putrajaya.
Change we must. Change we can and change we will.
MCA will probably suffer the most, seeing its representation in the government reduced to just a handful of MPs, but probably not a complete wipeout. As for Gerakan and MIC, they have so few seats to begin with, it’s not too difficult to envision them losing completely.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/352662
Nazri admitted in parliament that in the past the ISA has been abused for it was used to detain political dissidents instead. Now we need to know the precise instances of abuse. And we need an apology by umno and due compensation for the wrong commited by umno.
The current factory keeps churning out new but defective models. The latest one is the Prevee.
Will a new management be able to overhaul the system and come out with a really reliable system or will they continue to use the same assembly line technology, tweaked a little?
Sheriff…It must starts with proper education to guide all to be smarter an towards the right ways of thinking.
So many things are faulty because you have a Govt. that knows nothing about governing a country….except experts to try and win votes.
We need all Malaysians being properly guided to the right path.
When the new management takes over the factory in Putrajaya, it will not be able to do much.
Why? Because it will have no money but will inherit a massive RM 450 billion debt.
I hope the new management team will be able to garner all the necessary resources and support to modernise and make the factory lean and efficient.
But first you got to win at the 13th General Meeting of Stakeholders.
Like the ptptn borrowers, will housing loan borrowers refuse to repay their loans?
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/article/ptptn-we-didnt-start-the-fire/