Placing a bid in ideas

Talk about good timing. Today is a fine day for the return of a columnist who hopes that Malaysians will work harder at strengthening the bonds of citizenship.

AT a recent panel session on the status of institutional reforms after 100 days of the new government, there was unanimous optimism that enough manifesto pledges would be implemented over the next five years such that the Malaysia of 2023 would be better than the Malaysia of today.

(That is no guarantee of any particular electoral outcome, though, since the opposition might also be better.)

Prior to the 14th General Election, each of the panellists already enjoyed a reputation as staunch defenders of the constitution (in the case of Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof and Tommy Thomas) or proponents of democratic reform (in the case of Ong Kian Ming, Michelle Ng and Shahril Hamdan).

Now, they were being interrogated by a demanding audience at the Aug 25 event – jointly organised by the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) and the London School of Economics and Political Science Alumni Society of Malaysia – about how they would do their part as Dewan Rakyat Speaker, Attorney General, Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister, Subang Jaya assemblyman and Umno Youth deputy chief respectively.

Although all of them burnished reformist sentiments, some of the responses contained nascent circumspection and defensiveness that so characterised similar exchanges with members of the previous administration.

However, following a charge of “obsession” over the Pakatan Harapan manifesto, Ong creditably insisted that the public should hold the government accountable to the promises made.

Ng suggested that some actions could turn out to be better than what the manifesto promised, but “better” is open to interpretation.

These comments are important because in some other recent forums, it has been suggested that the present government “never expected to win”, and therefore they “shouldn’t have to fulfil everything” and they “need more time”.

All of those things may be true, but one of the key reasons they won is the fact that voters now expect higher standards.

That is one sure way to incentivise greater democratisation, and civil society has a responsibility to keep up the pressure too.

Indeed, at various conferences since May 10, I have suggested that one permanent legacy of GE14 is greater freedom of expression.

Civil society is no longer afraid, and our priority is to remove the stains upon the principles of liberty and justice espoused by our founding fathers and embedded in our Federal Constitution.

In this regard, the ongoing repeal of the AntiFake News Act is welcome, but we also await the abolition (or significant amendment) of the Sedition Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Official Secrets Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, and National Security Council Act.

Until then, the actions of the government will be instructive.

This week, the Prime Minister declared that the report of the Council of Eminent Persons may not be made public.

This seems to contradict pledges of greater transparency in policymaking and harks back to the condescending idea that some topics are too “sensitive” or “complicated” for public consumption.

We should instead be moving towards greater freedom of information, and even where restrictions are justified – for example, where national security is at stake, or indeed parts of this CEP report – crosspartisan scrutiny or judicial oversight is still possible.

On the flip side, journalists must be free to verify allegations of fake news while defamation laws should protect people from wrongful incrimination.

Comparisons to other reports being made public (for example, those by previous Royal Commissions of Inquiry) are relevant, but of greater comfort are the significant reforms afoot in Parliament that will enable transparent submission of evidence through proposed select committees, hopefully leading to the publication of Green and White Papers before Bills are introduced (as in Britain).

Ten years ago, this newspaper quoted me as saying “whatever the intentions of Malaysians on polling day, they had undoubtedly strengthened the primary institution discharged with the duty of protecting their liberty”.

That was rather optimistic after GE12, but I repeat it confidently now after GE14, for Parliament is where, of all our national institutions, the most promising, concrete and democratic reforms are occurring.

The bonds of citizenship, like the bonds of sharing an alma mater, depend on the inculcation of common experiences and joint values.

Today we fly the Jalur Gemilang, recite the Rukunegara and sing Negaraku.

But truly achieving Merdeka requires citizens to share a common understanding of our foundations and to have similar expectations from our national institutions, of which Parliament is – in the words of the first Yang diPertuan Agong – “the crown and climax of our Constitution”.

In rejoining The Star as a columnist, I hope to place a bid in ideas that fellow Malaysians might find useful, provocative or at least entertaining.