TR EMERITUS

By Tunku Aziz A monolithic organisation is, by definition, slow to change. This description fits Umno like a glove. As it lumbered into its 59th annual party conference, the collective mood of the general assembly was much less confident than it had ever been in its history. There was really nothing to celebrate, certainly not the succession of Datuk Seri Najib Razak with all that huge and unsavoury media attention he is attracting internationally. Even here in Malaysia, where standards of public morality and ethics are much less vigorously applied to those in high office, there is a real feeling of queasiness and unease that Najib appears to be so cavalier about the critical need to clear his name against what he protests are unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety. The salvation of his personal honour and integrity depends on his clearing the air, using all legal means at his disposal. Swearing on the Quran is not really the answer: it is not just a matter between him and his Maker. More to the point, he needs to respond to the concerns of society as a whole. The sooner he gets to grips with this inconvenient blight on his otherwise unblemished character, the better it will be for him and the country. Put this episode to rest. It will be good for the soul. Wrecked and bedevilled by one scandal after another, sordid and nearly all verging on the criminal, the once arrogant standard bearer of “ketuanan Melayu” is still licking last year’s electoral battle wounds. It was a Waterloo of sorts for a party that until then had largely assumed their right to rule as one of God’s immutable laws. The fallout was nothing if not surreal, a shambles of the first order if there ever was one. If it was a total shock for the party, then for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the man who led the troops into battle equipped with unreliable intelligence and an obsolete schoolboy atlas, it was a personal tragedy. Ever the gentleman, he took the blame for the debacle without a murmur. There were no tears shed for him even as a keris was plunged, and twisted for good measure, into him. Naturally, there was no “requiem” for the untimely political demise of its president, but then you would not have expected such a heart-warming gesture of decency and appreciation from a monolithic political structure bereft of common values of human decency. Did they not do the same to the greatest ever Malaysian statesman, the man who came to be known as Bapa Malaysia? They demonised Tunku Abdul Rahman, and rewrote the history of our country’s independence in a way that blotted out his role in the fight for freedom. The Malays are rather good with their keris. Abdullah will be remembered as the Prime Minister who had no stomach for the sort of vicious political infighting that is Umno’s hallmark. His handling of the 12th general election dealt the coup de grace to his political career. By his departure, he will also be remembered as the Prime Minister who did nothing to stop a scandal-strapped deputy from assuming the highest political position in the land. His decision to promote Najib may well have met with the approval of the Umno membership, but what about the millions of other Malaysians who, unlike their Umno friends, are fussier about the choice of the person to lead the country. It is an act of irresponsibility to say the least, on the part of Abdullah, to foist on the nation a successor who has yet to satisfy the people of his innocence through the legal process. Pak Lah must realise that Umno is not Malaysia, and by the same token Malaysia is not Umno. It is this inability to distinguish between the party and the government that has cost Umno its attractiveness as a party of the people, and that could work against Umno come the next general election. The speeches have all been well crafted; the sentiments expressed resonated beautifully, but the test of the pudding will always be in the eating. We have heard thousands of speeches from Umno politicians over the years, and if only a tiny fraction of those had been translated into action, Malaysia would not have remained a divided country, a country that is in danger of being torn apart not only along racial lines but also, God forbid, class lines. There is a lot of practical wisdom in Abdullah’s farewell speech for Umno, but I am not sanguine that anything useful will come out of it as long as the same people remain in control of the party. The shake-up has been nothing more than a recycling process. I hope to goodness that I am wrong on every count, and there is hope for all of us yet. Most of all, I pray that the Najib years, as many fear, will not bring a return of the Dark Age of Mahathirism.   Source: The Malaysian Insider  Read More →

As Singapore prepares to celebrate 50 years of “good governance” – it may be a good idea to just spend sometime asking ourselves whether Kishore is justified to adopt a “we have arrived” tone? But before diving there – let’s just consider what is good governance? And is it really the magic bullet that can slay the bad and the seed the good in one go? Well, first of all you need to realize that good governance - has absolutely nothing to do with it's dictionary meaning – it's abit like dial a girl - it's 10% reality and 90% imagination (for all you know the sultry voice on the otherside could weight just about 2 metric tons) - so it's a bag term that really defies precise definition – I don’t doubt some people can rip out a bullet point list and tell you what it is – the problem is like all abstractions, it inspires the same problem with what’s often striven so hard for – it’s fails to pin down the nub. If had to plumb for a definition of good governance it would be simply this – the need to establish accountability within government systems to reduce the abuse of power. Through - rule of law and not rule by law. The distinction is subtle and wafer thin - so work it through your head, play with it - take your time even, as the rest of this essay will not make sense - if it's not crystal. When the idea of good governance is applied judiciously - it works! For example if you look at the US system although it is radically divided over issues of how best to pursue the best ends and means - none of them, no matter how fractious threatens the stability and legitimacy of the system - Americans may vilify one another as bigoted or morally depraved, but they know they will not be put up against the wall if their party loses an election - they know no one will be run out of the country on trumped up charges. Result: good governance shows that the cohesion of American society is stronger than its divisions - good wins over bad. The problem with good governance as an idea, concept or even school of thought is when its given only the perfunctory treatment - that's to say form takes precedence over function – here people aren't so sure - it's like walking in a mine field, if they cross the line, maybe they will get kicked out or bankrupted or have some part of their privacy revealed to their greater detriment – when that happens; good governance as an idea becomes not only a means to express contempt for the rule of law; but it also degenerates into a farce and nothing more than a rubber stamp to perpetuate the reign of terror. Why's that? Simple - good governance can really cut both ways – and this dichotomy bears out only too clearly when we peruse through the history of good governance; don’t be surprised, if instead of seeding the good, it even kills it dead and instead rubber stamps a whole lot of undesirable practices. Don’t believe me, then consider this: why did the US invade Iraq? Good governance. Why is Najib Abdullah clamping down on the opposition just up North? Good governance. Why did China block Youtube? Good governance. Why did the Thai elites kick out Thaksin and declare martial law? Yes, you guessed it. Yes, as we can see the appellation of good governance can sometimes be closer to the mark of the devil – closer even to the whole idea of perdition than salvation, if you really cared to drill deeper as our internet liaison officer Singaporedaddy put it so aptly in this entry: Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure (Part 1) “Singaporedaddy on Fri, 27th Mar 2009 2:13 pm    Good governance is really a double edged sword - the problem with good governance is its not always good all the time and all too often, it can be used to condone less than desirable practices and policies. This unfortunately is one area Kishore did not see the wisdom to talk about in great length - all he really does is say, we have good governance and off he goes like a train (presumably straight down a cliff) So let us all be clear; good governance is a double edged sword - it can cut both ways; can even be used to sanction genocide and ethnic cleansing along with building a few death camps. The U.S. for example regularly uses the idea of good governance to impose their will and designs on other countries - why did Bush invade Iraq? Good governance - at times they use the UN - sometimes they use the IMF, including the fund’s policy on good governance, as a way of furthering narrowly conceived U.S. foreign policy interests. I think it pays to read up further on this whole idea of good governance. Things are not so simple; you just dont say you have good governance and everyone believes you and off you go - life is not so simple. SD  (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)” And that pretty much sums up the dissonance that accompanies the whole idea of the principle of good governance – the problem boils down to one word – it’s too broadly endorsed, and all too often it bestows the power to determine what is “good,” along with probably the whole idea of what’s “governable” to ONLY a select few – and that idea has to remain problematic. As it’s a darn good way to legitimize everything from power grabs, invasions to perhaps the dubious role of insisting that you should raise your hands up even to go for urination breaks. And this brings into sharp focus the disconnect  –  new demands are emerging against the backdrop of the whole idea of what is good governance in internet age. Unfortunately, when we talk about good governance alongside the internet in the Singapore context -  it’s a bit like putting a horse drawn carriage in an eight lane expressway – government has not only been slow and bovine to capitalize on this new reality – they have deliberately bracketed the whole idea of good governance to exclude the role of the internet - why matters little - it could be because it makes writing academic papers easier or deciding to elide it wholesale somehow manages to perserve certain sacred cow beliefs - my point is they haven’t really articulated the set pieces to reflect the reality of this new age. And this raises some disturbing questions – like how can government even begin to reap the benefits of a network approach to good governance when they don’t even see the wisdom of engaging citizens and civil society organisations in shaping and implementing public policy? Where does the idea citizens as partners feature against this new definition of the term good governance? The idea wouldn't be so disconcerting - if you didn't know in some countries, such as Scandinavia, Finland, France and Japan, governments have already set the e-ball in motion in earnest – they’re required to consult with citizens to assess the impact of new policies. Here the idea of good governance goes beyond just informing in advance; they’re leveraging on the notion: if governments want people to invest their time in consultation, they must account for the use of that input in policymaking and explain their decisions – its not enough to ape the form without the content. How does that compare with our current system? Is there any room for improvement? Could the revision to the films act and the whole idea of appointing AIMs have been better planned to include more people – was the opportunity to strengthen the relationship between a government and its citizens squandered or reaped meaningfully? Why do so many people continue to criticize the government for being remote from the people? Not listening enough and not seeking participation? Aping the form and going through the motions instead of genuinely recruiting the interest of those who seem more interested in tuning out to officialdom? These are of course hard hitting questions that all have the effect of throwing cold water on the whole idea of celebrating 50 years of good governance – I think, I’ve give it a miss and go cycling instead – the road is long and we are definitely not quite there yet, not by half.  Darkness 2009  Read More →

Can Singapore Fail? Well let’s turn the question on its head and repose it this way: hasn't Singapore already failed?   I don’t know; and though I did attempt to delve into the minutiae of Kishore’s “Can Singapore fail? I can’t say I gleaned any valuable insights – to be honest, it left me quite perplex. Now don’t get me wrong – I appreciated his candor like his enthusiastic endorsement of how we should all pick up tissue paper and plumb for dosai instead of English breakfast – only something seems to be sorely missing from this whole valecditory narrative.   Fact: Singapore has failed! In my humble opinion at least.   This hardly requires any elaboration; you could just as well draw on a host of motifs ranging from whether the 1st division team really delivered the goods to the whole idea of how Temasek and GIC decided to plumb for banks when the clever money decided to go somewhere else – in my mind, there’s no shortage of examples testifying to the fact; Singapore has failed in every conceivable way imaginable.   Why have we failed isn’t the main phalanx of this essay – I will probably have to write about it another time (as time is short and I am typing this on the train) – only let us all agree on the start line: we have failed – the reasons are multi factorial; could well be our fixation of the scholar system and the whole idea of leaving it all to the cult of infallibility – the very idea that only a select few can deliver the good life – or maybe it has something to do with our corseted view of how we usually define personal and organizational success; which sets us apart from countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia – where the effective power that drives the economy isn’t really the elite or technocrats; but rather the armies small of entrepreneurs – this came to me quite by chance when I found myself sitting next to kid on a business trip recently. I asked him, who do you most want to be when you grow up? – he just answered nonchalantly: “Li Khan Shin of course...that's a dumb question.” Ask the same question in Singapore and you realize why the problem with our age has nothing to do a wider universe of how success can be attained; but rather the answer lies somewhere in the narrowed down version of what I term the tried and tested yellow brick road to success; where most people have in effect bought into the myth the only way to get the good life is to land yourself a scholarship instead of striking out on your own.   That in a nutshell sums up our lot – we are really the victims of our own scripting; by astudiously nurturing the myth that the good life can only be purchased by keeping to the apparent safety of the yellow brick road; most of us by default have inadvertently leveled off the field of possibilities to only perhaps a few ways to "succeed" in life.   Contrast that if you may with the American dream – where everyone and anyone can really strive for the idea of rugged individualism in a whole variety of ways which I can only describe as untraditional, unconventional and exciting – tell me how far would either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs get in Singapore?   I rest my case.   It may sound like a flippant question but its jugular when what’s really on the table is the idea of creating a new generation of trendsetters and not followers along with perhaps the whole idea of craving out competitive advantage, by all accounts – it has to be said, the American model provokes discussions on whether we have been too scripted by keeping to the idea of form while throwing out the valuable function. For all we know redemption on a national scale lies in the latter?   Its even conceivable part of that whole idea of being straight jacket requires us to ask whether the custodians of power have been “preaching” too much, which is quite different from teaching and mentoring.  Ultimately, what really needs to be discussed isn’t the valedictory idea of whether Singapore can fail? But rather can we even come to terms with the idea we may have perhaps already failed?   The question acquires a renewed sense of urgency when you consider how so often failure is often sidelined, white washed and even given the mind bending treatment to suggest everything is still humming along happily as planned – no doubt this is done with lashings of no regrets or deflecting the whole idea of blame by suggesting Singapore is really too small to tack its destiny in the broader world of globalization. Or even leveraging on the whole idea of good governance by trumping it as the only thing that really matters in the greater scheme of things – but nonetheless, it underscores our morbid fear of confronting failure head on – and that surely must be the greatest consternation to thinking folk as:   In business, like in statecraft - failure is the teacher - and admission of failure remains the key. My feel is the real challenge - has absolutely nothing to do with juxtaposing the minstrel question: can Singapore fail? But rather can we really afford NOT to analyze what went wrong so that we don't make the same mistakes again. Can we really afford to elide wholesale the whole idea of how we have miscalculated the resilience and durability of the free market enterprise?   I'm not sure how this could be done if even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that suggest we should press the pause button and relook at many of our time honored assumptions –  the prevailing mood is still on of -  business as usual – or we did the very best we could under a given set of conditions and there is no scope further scope for improve - we are the best in the world - the masters of the universe – my point is simply this: its hard, if not impossible to imagine a group of people who still cling stoically to the departmental mindset sitting around a table discussing a failed policy, strategy or investment and reaching conclusions that don't have negative impacts on certain members – in short, the opportunity to learn, improve and set a new course is squandered. The real lesson here could well be not whether Singapore can fail as Kishore suggested? But rather; its less desirable twin that so often hides behind all great failures - can we really afford to admit that we have not already failed? And this should prompt us to consider whether perhaps the only real failure is failing to learn from failure it'self? – and there lies the shattered dream and the firmament of all our hopes in the sign of our times. I have to step off the train now; its my stop – if only coming to terms with failure could really be that simple. If only…..yes, it's better if we contend ourselves with the sobriquet question: can Singapore fail? It's best... Darkness 2009 Auto Gen related Essay: Have you missed out on this essay? Find out more about the ASDF of the brotherhood -  Will PAP end up like Basket Case UMNO? auto generated 098124          Read More →