Good will, political will not?

A COMMON theme in the many forums organised by civil society, academia, and media organisations since the general election has been how to keep the new government to account; to ensure that the promises made will be delivered. This is no doubt motivated by the excitement of writers and commentators in finally being able to speak their minds without repercussion (at least from the state, for judgment on social media continues unabashed and unabated), and also the fear that these new freedoms might be short-lived and should be maximised. Is this scenario akin to a bottle of cincalok being spilled (after which its powerful contents cannot return), or a Tupperware of keropok being overturned (after which, with some effort, the crackers can nonetheless be put back inside, albeit broken and crushed)?

The confidence remains even though legally, many of the instruments to stifle dissent are still in force: the Anti-Fake News Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, National Security Council Act and Sedition Act have not yet been repealed or amended. There is a belief that, for now, the government wants to maintain public goodwill and not use these tools. At the same time, the government will want to reap the rewards of fairly applying the rule of law on alleged criminals.

But over time, the honeymoon period will end and the desire to be in control may overcome the desire to maintain goodwill. Already, there are concerns that the promises towards reform are faltering, with inconsistent statements among cabinet members (even on purely factual statements such as our true level of debt or whether the KL- Singapore High Speed Rail project has been cancelled) or long timelines for repeals being committed to, especially when the only line of substance need be “This Act is hereby repealed.” The idea that legislation must be ‘replaced’ by new legislation does not bode well for the mantra that ‘ the days of government knows best are over’: the previous Prime Minister began his tenure with exactly those words.

And though many have already expressed concern that leaders known for their authoritarian tendencies are back in office with the hope that they have changed or will at least be constrained by new realities, perhaps what will surprise optimists more is how quickly good people can morph into what they replaced: being driven by political imperatives and compromises more than the idealism that motivated them in the beginning.

This is also why it is vital for civil society to be as vigilant as we are hopeful: to demand the government deliver, and to expect backbench members of parliament not to slavishly obey their leaders but also show independence in defending the interests of their constituents and the nation at large. The coopting of activists and morally upright professionals into government too ought to be a tremendous asset to the nation, but there may be a time when their presence might serve to legitimise less honourable actions and policies.

Indeed, insider reports suggest that highly qualified and capable individuals have been passed over for senior positions in important institutions because they are too independent: they will not be pliable to political demands should the need arise in future. The important related question here is when will the process of appointments to constitutional and statutory bodies be reformed to ensure greater transparency and accountability – or is the plan to entrench a new corps of yes-men and women first?

I do not mean to scaremonger, and I’m sure the many new faces who joined politics with noble intentions will keep their moral compasses. But these initial weeks and months are vital in setting the tone for the rest of electoral term.

For many diplomats and academics have pointed out that in many countries, one change of power was not sufficient to truly embed democracy in their societies: the new ones in power simply mimicked their predecessors, or were such dismal failures that they collapsed and the old regime returned with their old ways. Rather, it took two changes of power to really catalyse democracy.

So I challenge the new government to prove that Malaysia can do it in one change, and I look forward to contributing what I can through the organisations I’m involved with. Ideas will continue its independent public policy research and advocacy, and I’m excited to support Visi Malaysia, a new movement aiming to infuse democratic values into everyday citizenship. But even the public listed companies and musical bodies are devising ways to keep the cincalok out of the bottle.

Hopefully these are the kinds of efforts that will ensure that goodwill becomes political will.

Tunku Zain Al-Abidin founding president of Ideas. is