Why Najib can’t reform
The nature of reform is about moving away from how things are done, therefore, reforms by definition upset people. They would not be reforms otherwise. If it was easy and effortless, it would have been done a long time ago.
Praba Ganesan, The Malaysian Insider
When at a duty-free zone, you have to buy. No matter how broke you are — and I was then very broke — there is an unbearable shame leaving the facility without buying anything. In that instance I was at the hyperstores inside the Clark Freeport Zone, Luzon in the Philippines just before the millennium.
In the spirit of keeping up with the times I bought then what seemed a bargain. Coffee nuts, very cheap coffee nuts. Not coffee beans, you can’t make a drink from these nuts, you just have to munch them.
The bargain was, when you buy one pack, you get five packs free. One pack was cheap enough, but getting five other packs free gave me a buzz. I was shopper extraordinaire.
Of course that feeling fades rapidly when you try to actually eat the nuts. I’ve never opened the other five “free” packs, and if other purchasers felt as bitter in the mouth as I did then, there must be tonnes of those free “packs” in a long forgotten landfill.
Those packs remind me of the Najib administration’s reform zeal in politics and economy. It was on full display, with the rushed passing of the Peaceful Assembly Bill two days ago.
Ask me anything, as long as I don’t need it
It must have started with a meeting, as most things do in Malaysia. A meeting after “jamuan pagi” (“morning tea”, over here tea is a full-on meal) of course.
The prime minister would have asked the young men in the room (they are always young and male) how to tackle the need to reform without Barisan Nasional (BN) risking one vote come election day. Of course in the world of reasonable persons it would not have seemed a ridiculous request.
The nature of reform is about moving away from how things are done, therefore, reforms by definition upset people. They would not be reforms otherwise. If it was easy and effortless, it would have been done a long time ago.
It is like saying white landowners were pleased by the redistribution of their plantation lands to their former slaves during America’s post-civil war reconstruction period. That they thought aloud: “How splendid, why did we not think of that before?” And walked on with peace in their hearts.
Of course, to clarify matters, reform cannot just be confrontational, just for shock value. It has to be planned, managed and done in stages that the bitter pill can be swallowed over time, and the need to shock does not overwhelm the actual need to see the process through. To its functional end.
A reform is successful when a generation later, looking back, most people would be of the consensus that it was the right thing to do.
But as they say, this is Malaysia (TIM, my friend).
Rather than slog to an equitable and progressive proposal, the young men in the nice conference room have to stay true to type; promise what they can afford to give (free coffee nuts, anybody?), and set out to manage perception (language, terminology, public relations blitz, media overdrive, etc).
Between the excitement of giving stuff and the streams of consultant speaks drowsing them to new heights, they feel a sense of national service — before they head off for the buffet lunch at the five-star hotel.
They reckoned since people were upset about the old laws, giving them new laws will ease the pressure on government. So let’s have a slew of new laws, and repeal the old ones.
But hold on to your seats, they want the new laws to do exactly what the old law did, perhaps a bit more if possible. No point enacting laws that don’t help your side stay in power, is there?
They are perplexed that people are upset despite them being given new laws with new names. Didn’t Abdullah Ahmad Badawi end corruption with a single mighty swing of turning the Anti-Corruption Agency to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission?
Malaysians are just not grateful, they’d sigh.
