1 Malaysia at the crossroads- The Malaysian Insider
May 1, 2011 — The 1 Malaysia juggernaut has taken a distinctly peculiar turn. The bureaucracy in particular is betraying a very strange understanding of the concept.
Arguably it all started in 2009 itself, when on October 15, The Star reported on a plan to build 1 Malaysia toilets in Terengganu in the following terms.
“The state government will introduce a '1 Toilet' policy in a move to liberalise education, where teachers – and even principals – will soon have to share toilets with their students. State Education, Higher Learning, Human Resource, Science and Technology Committee chairman Ahmad Razif Abd Rahman said the policy was mooted in line with the 1 Malaysia concept, and teachers and students could have a feeling of “oneness.”
“We want students to have a sense of belonging that we believe would inspire them to excel further in their education. When students share the toilets with the teacher, they (students) will believe that they are on par with academicians and this automatically invokes a sense of being important to an organisation, which, in this case, is the school,” he said here yesterday.
Ahmad Razif said the policy had initially been proposed by Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said earlier this year but that it took some time for it to be properly drafted.”
Not even the 1 Malaysia e-mail project which is going to cost RM50 million comes remotely close to the 1 Malaysia toilet in its jubilant, breathtaking idiocy.
There seems to be a yawning chasm between the substantive intent of the policy and it’s sometimes shallow not to say expensive interpretation by the bureaucracy at all levels.
It’s almost as if the 1 Malaysia logo, when stamped on any programme whether sane or half witted magically magnifies the real value of the programme.
From 1 Malaysia Green Concerts to 1 Malaysia unit trusts to the 1 Malaysia theme song, the list is growing substantially. The consequence is that even well intentioned substantive applications of the concept such as the 1 Malaysia clinics tend to get tarred with the same brush.
More importantly though, in many ways 1 Malaysia is actually a critical objective for the nation to work towards. It is much bigger than any politician or political party.
It is axiomatic that a people united can achieve a lot more than a house divided. A level playing field where all citizens are acknowledged as equals in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the law changes the way in which the same citizens see their relationship with the state.
It is only when people are not obsessed with which race or religion gets which crutches from the government can they take on the rest of the world. If Malaysia is to compete globally, it has to stop handicapping its own citizens.
But for it to be successful, it needs to be helmed by somebody who has transcended the divisions of race, ethnicity and religion in Malaysian society on the lines of what Gandhi tried to do for India.
Unfortunately possibly due to the lack of a personal electoral mandate, the prime minister has been unable to evolve a consensus within his own coalition as to the political value of 1 Malaysia.
When the Deputy PM openly declares himself a Malay first and Malaysian second, or when the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia calls for a 1 Melayu or 1 Bumi campaign, what is the general public supposed to believe? Even small shifts towards a meritocracy as envisaged by the NEM are immediately washed away by the rage of Perkasa.
The simple way to counter this rhetoric is to retain government affirmative action, but shift it towards a needs and merit based model, and then demonstrate how it actually addresses the concerns of each race as well as or better than the current model.
The other key step is to move towards a system where the state stays out of religious affairs to the extent possible. It should be the business of spiritual leaders to promote their faith, not the government’s.
In this regard, many commentators have commended the much maligned Chief Minister of Sarawak Taib Mahmud as a role model. The state’s role should be confined to providing people with the freedom and space to profess their faith and encouraging interfaith understanding and dialogue.
Of course all of this requires tremendous leadership, the ability to brave short term unpopularity and a deep belief in what 1 Malaysia really represents.
If this vision of 1 Malaysia actually comes to pass, it may just see civil society start becoming civil. Otherwise, there is always 1 Toilet.
Arguably it all started in 2009 itself, when on October 15, The Star reported on a plan to build 1 Malaysia toilets in Terengganu in the following terms.
“The state government will introduce a '1 Toilet' policy in a move to liberalise education, where teachers – and even principals – will soon have to share toilets with their students. State Education, Higher Learning, Human Resource, Science and Technology Committee chairman Ahmad Razif Abd Rahman said the policy was mooted in line with the 1 Malaysia concept, and teachers and students could have a feeling of “oneness.”
“We want students to have a sense of belonging that we believe would inspire them to excel further in their education. When students share the toilets with the teacher, they (students) will believe that they are on par with academicians and this automatically invokes a sense of being important to an organisation, which, in this case, is the school,” he said here yesterday.
Ahmad Razif said the policy had initially been proposed by Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said earlier this year but that it took some time for it to be properly drafted.”
Not even the 1 Malaysia e-mail project which is going to cost RM50 million comes remotely close to the 1 Malaysia toilet in its jubilant, breathtaking idiocy.
There seems to be a yawning chasm between the substantive intent of the policy and it’s sometimes shallow not to say expensive interpretation by the bureaucracy at all levels.
It’s almost as if the 1 Malaysia logo, when stamped on any programme whether sane or half witted magically magnifies the real value of the programme.
From 1 Malaysia Green Concerts to 1 Malaysia unit trusts to the 1 Malaysia theme song, the list is growing substantially. The consequence is that even well intentioned substantive applications of the concept such as the 1 Malaysia clinics tend to get tarred with the same brush.
More importantly though, in many ways 1 Malaysia is actually a critical objective for the nation to work towards. It is much bigger than any politician or political party.
It is axiomatic that a people united can achieve a lot more than a house divided. A level playing field where all citizens are acknowledged as equals in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the law changes the way in which the same citizens see their relationship with the state.
It is only when people are not obsessed with which race or religion gets which crutches from the government can they take on the rest of the world. If Malaysia is to compete globally, it has to stop handicapping its own citizens.
But for it to be successful, it needs to be helmed by somebody who has transcended the divisions of race, ethnicity and religion in Malaysian society on the lines of what Gandhi tried to do for India.
Unfortunately possibly due to the lack of a personal electoral mandate, the prime minister has been unable to evolve a consensus within his own coalition as to the political value of 1 Malaysia.
When the Deputy PM openly declares himself a Malay first and Malaysian second, or when the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia calls for a 1 Melayu or 1 Bumi campaign, what is the general public supposed to believe? Even small shifts towards a meritocracy as envisaged by the NEM are immediately washed away by the rage of Perkasa.
The simple way to counter this rhetoric is to retain government affirmative action, but shift it towards a needs and merit based model, and then demonstrate how it actually addresses the concerns of each race as well as or better than the current model.
The other key step is to move towards a system where the state stays out of religious affairs to the extent possible. It should be the business of spiritual leaders to promote their faith, not the government’s.
In this regard, many commentators have commended the much maligned Chief Minister of Sarawak Taib Mahmud as a role model. The state’s role should be confined to providing people with the freedom and space to profess their faith and encouraging interfaith understanding and dialogue.
Of course all of this requires tremendous leadership, the ability to brave short term unpopularity and a deep belief in what 1 Malaysia really represents.
If this vision of 1 Malaysia actually comes to pass, it may just see civil society start becoming civil. Otherwise, there is always 1 Toilet.
Comments
Post a Comment