Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Pengakuan Tok Mat mengenai UMNO dan Mahathir






By ANDREW SIA, The Star

UNLESS the name on the cover is Mahathir or Badawi, ministerial memoirs wouldn’t usually be greeted with bated breath.

But the book by Tan Sri Mohamed Rahmat that was released on Oct 12 has been causing quite a stir.

He was, after all, the person who controlled for more than a decade what the Malaysian public saw and heard on Government TV and radio channels as Information Minister from 1987 to 1999.

Now, aged 71 and suffering from diabetes and cancer, Tok Mat, as he is known, freely admits that his job was really as a Propaganda Minister.

In his political memoirs, Umno: Akhir Sebuah Impian (Umno: The End of a Dream), he explains how his ministry’s campaigns, such as Setia (Loyalty), were actually a response to the Team A versus Team B split in Umno in 1987.

“I had to bring Malay loyalty back to Umno. And I had to raise a presumption that anybody who supported (Team B led by Tengku Razaleigh then) was not loyal. I went all out in this psychological warfare,” he writes.

“The Malays were numb to political arguments ... I needed something that penetrated the heart. I needed a song.”

So he wrote one himself: the famous Setia song with its supposedly patriotic lyrics (“Demi negara yang tercinta”, or “For our beloved country”, goes the first line) that was broadcast for years especially via the Government’s RTM (Radio Televisyen Malaysia) stations.

Tok Mat admits in his book that he first used Information Ministry staff in 1977 on a “mission” to topple the PAS State Government of Kelantan.

He reveals that later, in 1995, during the Sabah state elections, he sent 500 ministry staff members to “campaign for Umno” against PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah, which was controlling the state government then).

“The officers went to the ground,” he explains in fluent English at a recent interview.

“They rented rooms in villages, they slept and ate like the locals, they gathered information and persuaded the people. This silent propaganda works very well.”

Since government machinery is supposed to be neutral, I ask Tok Mat if he considers what he did an abuse of power.

He replies: “You could say I abused radio and TV, but it was a privilege I had. I could not depend on TV3, (The New) Straits Times, Berita Harian or Utusan Malaysia because they were then controlled by Anwar Ibrahim’s boys. I had no choice but to use RTM.

“I was asked to bring PBS down. I shut the media off, there were no reports. People didn’t know what the Sabah Government was doing, so it looked like they were doing nothing. It was a very dirty tactic,” he now admits.

Tan Sri Mohamed Rahmat is proud of the job he did as Information Minister. - RAYMOND OOI / The Star

Tok Mat had his secondary school education at Johor Baru’s English College before doing a Bachelor of Arts at Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.

He tells me that he learnt the basics of propaganda when he was a script writer for Filem Negara (the National Film Board) in the mid 1960s. “There was no TV then, so that was the Government’s only (way to generate) propaganda,” he recalls.

He honed his innate musical ability there and picked up film editing skills too. He later went on to personally devise the melody and lyrics of various songs, including Setia, Syukur and Sejahtera Malaysia, that were used for his “nation-building” campaigns.

Tok Mat has always had a fondness for oldies by Nat King Cole and Bing Crosby, and once even made it to the quarter finals of Radio Singapore’s talentime singing contest in the 1950s.

“Tan Sri can sing and he can play the piano by ear,” chips in his wife, Puan Sri Salbiah A. Hamid, who is also at the interview. “And he can write. I still keep all his love letters from when we met as teenagers,” she smiles.

With these skills, Tok Mat became the chief loyalist and cheerleader for then Prime Minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad, whose political rivals included Musa Hitam, Tengku Razaleigh and, later, Anwar.

He claims that most Umno people were hedging their bets then: “Everybody was half leg here, half leg there, very few were working (100%) for Dr Mahathir. I was totally devoted to him.”

But then again, he has a chapter in his book that declares I Am Not a Yes Man. In it, he cites how the developers of the Second Link to Singapore, who were Dr Mahathir’s “friends”, were trying to acquire the land of villagers in his constituency at 80 sen per sq ft (psf) so they could resell it at RM17.80 psf! He claims that he spoke up despite Dr Mahathir’s anger with him, and helped the villagers secure a better deal.

When the Setia campaign was not sufficient to bring back Malay support to Umno, Tok Mat says his ministry then launched the Semarak campaign in 1988, during which Dr Mahathir had massive “meet the people” sessions.

“I told the police chief,” says Tok Mat, “I don’t want to see any police uniforms around Mahathir, because that looks like we live in a police state. Instead, I gave the policemen Setia T-shirts to wear, so it looked like he was surrounded by the public.”

Tok Mat’s promotion of Dr Mahathir – who certainly had his critics, even in those days – indirectly made him “the most hated man in Malaysia”, he says.

In his book, he even acknowledges that people called him the “barking dog of the government”: “When the people hated Dr Mahathir, I became the face of the Government for them to hurl abuse at,” he writes.

But he took all this as a sign of “success” because it meant that he had managed to “penetrate people’s minds” to provoke anger: “In the art of propaganda, touching a nerve is very important,” he explains.

Tok Mat claims that a sign of Setia’s success was that he has personally heard even non-Malays singing the song. As for the Semarak campaign, he says the crowds at Dr M’s meet-the-people sessions ranged from 30,000 up to 100,000.

Were civil servants “pressured” into attending such events?

“No,” he asserts, “nor did we provide transport or give out free T-shirts.”

His “propaganda” might have been successful, but the Government still hired a PR and advertising firm during his tenure to advise on winning popular support. Now in hindsight, he is critical of the move.

“I think I was more effective because I understand the culture better. I had 1,000 officers working on the ground giving me feedback. Even Pak Lah (former PM Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) used these foreigners. But what results did these PR people get?”

Tok Mat’s detractors say one of his career missteps took place in May 1999 when many Malays were angry at Umno over the Anwar Ibrahim saga.

Tok Mat alienated non-Malay voters (who were to play a crucial role in returning Barisan Nasional to power in the general elections later that year) with his infamous remark that Anwar’s wife, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, was “unfit” for leadership as she had been “educated in Singapore” and had “darah cap naga” (dragon brand blood), an euphemism for Chinese blood or lineage.

“No, it wasn’t a mistake,” says Tok Mat now. “Because Anwar wanted Azizah to become Prime Minister. By the way, I am also cap naga. My mother is a Chinese (who was adopted by Malays). So I can talk. I can scold the Chinese and the Malays because I am one of them.”

Whether by coincidence or not, Tok Mat was relieved of his minister’s post in May 1999 too. However, he writes that this was because “forked tongues” whispered to Dr Mahathir that he was a secret Anwar supporter.

“What I can’t forget is the way Dr Mahathir dropped me without any hati budi (grace and gratitude),” he writes in the chapter entitled Habis Madu Sepah Dibuang (When the Sweetness is Finished, the Tasteless Part is Thrown Away).

Since then, he has become more critical of his former political master. For instance: “We know that Dr Mahathir blamed Pak Lah in all aspects even though the initial problems were caused by he himself. This is the ‘expertise’ of Dr Mahathir,” writes Tok Mat sardonically.

Despite his rather caustic tone, Tok Mat says to me, “It may sound like it lah ... but I don’t hate Dr Mahathir. I’m not angry with him. I still consider him a great leader of the country.”

In fact, he leaps to Dr Mahathir’s defence when I ask him about other controversial episodes when Dr M was PM.

However, he adds that money politics really became a “cancer” within Umno during Dr Mahathir’s era.

“In the old days, the corruption was smaller. If an Umno branch leader did not get a taxi permit, he would dissolve his branch. Now many Umno leaders are busy looking for big projects. That’s the success of the NEP (New Economic Policy),” he laughs.

More seriously, his book concludes, “Umno has jeopardised its image with power grabbing, money politics, bribery and excessive racism by certain leaders.... Umno must reform or I fear the End of the Dream (for the party) will really happen.”

Monday, October 26, 2009

the man in a hurry 3 - caravanserai blog


Materiatistic wants
In his eyes he needs it all
Craving for it as he tags along
He wants to be known
Speaking by people
As he flexes his wealth

The man in a hurry
He has no time for trifle things
Pursuits equate with wealth
This is his game

He knows what poor means
Nobody cares you live or die
Tomorrow seems hard to come by
Going hungry no option
In a poor home surviving counts

The days and years
The man in a hurry
Growing up with a tag
Learning how to survive

In years he manages
Surviving and growth he makes
Building up his portfolios
He believes it is the way

The man in a hurry
He forgets about his roots
He thinks he paints a better landscape
With wealth gated into his life

Sunday, October 25, 2009

the man in a hurry 2 - caravanserai blog

The man in a hurry
Living it thinking to get more
Hitting the score sheet
He isn't satisfied

The man in a hurry
He wants it big nothing small
Stand it out amongst the crowd
Let them see he is in the fore front

The whispering with the wind
The breezy rustling singing tunes
Materialistic wants only temporary
You can't take it with you............
When the day comes to go home


Yet the man in a hurry
He has no time on small things
Time he hits the score sheet
He feels he gets it makes
Quickly chasing after his time

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

the hungry for wealth - caravanserai blog



A man in a hurry
He wants to make it
On the materialistic wealth
On the age he looks best

He runs along
Catching on his dreams
A life of richness
Once he was poor

The hungry of wealth
There is always a drawback
He loses sight of the roots
He forgets to build
The spiritual flame of his life

No doubt he thinks he makes it
The world he believes is his game
Stomp the foundation feel that it is safe
Else the whole thing will crumble
For a man in a hurry

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

MENGENAL KONTRADIKSI DAN MUSUH - tukartiub.blogspot.com aka pak isham

Ramai aktivis politik dalam negara kita ini tidak memiliki pandangan politik yang tepat. Ini berlaku kerana tidak wujudnya budaya pemikiran kritikal yang ampuh. Keadaan ini bertambah hodoh apabila bercampur dengan budaya malas membaca.

Budaya malas membaca, malas mengkaji dan malas metelaah ini telah dilahirkan oleh budaya suka mendengar. Mendengar bukan satu kesalahan. Mendengar bukan satu jenayah. Kita semua mendengar. Ketika kita kecil kita dididik untuk mendegar. Kita itu tidak digalakan untuk berfikir.

Bayangkan berapa juta pembohongan dan kelentongan hantu dan polong yang telah dihamburkan kepada kita semasa kita membesar. Cerita makhluk halus hantu dan puaka semuanya didodoikan kepada anak kecil. Tidak cukup dengan ini kita ditakut takutkan. Bermula dengan hantu, kemudian dengan polis dan akhir dengan api neraka. Anak kecil tidak memiliki peluang untuk mencerna pemikiran.

Kalau anak kecil banyak bertanya akan dianggap kasar – kurang ajar dan tidak sopan. Sebenarnya mendengar tanpa bertanya adalah permulaan proses pembodohan yang ingin disebatikan ke dalam susuk jiwa kita.

Memang tepat - ketika itu kita masih kanak-kanak. Maka, apa yang kita dengar – kita terima – sebagai fakta. Apabila telah bersunat, besar bersekolah, boleh membaca dan sudah pandai bertenet dan berinternet maka seharusnya timbul nilai wajib berusaha untuk mencerahkan fikrah dari pandangan karut marut yang didengari ketika membesar. Membuang dan membakul sampahkan segala karut marut yang bersidai dalam otak kita.

Mendewasa ertinya meninggalkan budaya suka mendengar yang kita terima semasa kanak-kanak. Mendewasa ertinya memulakan budaya suka membaca dan meyelidik. Melopong mendengar – masuk lalat keluar langau – tanpa melakukan pembacaan, rujukan dan kajian akan menjadikan fikrah bonsai. Bonsai fikrah ini adalah satu penyakit yang tidak berkuman, tidak berjangkit tetapi boleh diubati

Dalam suasana politik kita - budaya melopong mendengar ini telah diperkuatkan pula dengan budaya ceramah yang telah menjadi darah daging budaya politik tanah air kita. Ceramah sebenarnya adalah monolok – jalan sehala – dimana si pendengar tidak ada peluang untuk bertanya kembali. Pelbagai sampah seranah masuk ke telinga kita. Sama seperti kita dizaman kanak-kanak - tidak ada langsung peluang untuk menapis atau bertanya.

Seyugia diingati ceramah ini hanya boleh berfungsi dengan baik sebagai satu senjata untuk memanaskan rapat dengan pidato yang hebat. Pidato bertujuan untuk menaikan semangat - untuk melanggar musuh. Ceramah dan pidato berperanan untuk membakar semangat. Ceramah tidak menjanjikan penemuan ilmu atau mengembangkan akal.

Justeru ceramah satu hala amat berbahaya kerana berkemungkinan ianya menjadi ajen pembodohan. Tidak kira siapa si penceramah – berjubah atau berdastar – monolok sehala adalah tidak mengasah fikrah. Beribu-ribu rakyat yang datang melopong mendengar labun si penceramah tidak mungkin akan melahirkan pemula atau perobek bingkai budaya yang mengongkong. Lihat bagaimana monolog tv sehala yang telah terbukti bekerja sebagai ejen pembodohan.

Hasil dari budaya mendengar ini ramai warga terlali dan terlalai dari membaca dan mencari sumber pengetahuan. Otak semakin jarang digunakan - akhirnya lembab dan mamai. Justeru jangan hairan kenapa ramai yang menjadi pelupa dan nyanyok.

Perangai lupa dan nyanyok lahir dari susuk yang tidak lagi menggerakan otak mereka. Perhatikan orang pencen dan berumur – kerana mereka tidak lagi menggunakan fikrah maka mamai akan menyerang. Ini tidak menghairankan. Tetapi apabila aktivis politik yang masih muda menjadi mamai maka ada sesuatu yang tidak kena dalam badan politik tanah air
kita ini.

Dalam gerombolan United Malays National Organistion bonsai fikrah adalah syarat utama untuk diterima sebagai ahli – jadi kita tidak perlu hairan. Apa yang menakjubkan ialah bonsai fikrah ini juga wujud dalam kelompok aktivis yang ingin melawan gerombolan.

Ciri utama yang dapat membuktikan betapa bonsainya fikrah aktivis politik kita hari ini ialah kegagalan mereka untuk megenali siapa musuh utama dan siapa kawan. Siapa kawan utama dan siapa pula kawan sampingan. Siapa kawan sepanjang perjuangan dan siapa kawan sementara. Siapa musuh dan seteru abadi dan siapa pula musuh sementara.

Mengenal musuh dan mengenal kawan adalah wajib dalam ilmu politik. Asas ilmu politik juga mewajibkan kita mengenal kontradiksi sosial. Mengenal kontradiksi sosial manusia adalah ilmu awal wahid sebelum membuat apa apa kerja politik. Gagal mengenal kontradisi sosial maka segala kerja politik adalah kerja mencurahkan teh tarik ke batu nesan.

Kontradiksi adalah pertembungan atau pertentangan dua unsur untuk melahirkan unsur ketiga. Kontradiksi adalah ibu segala-galanya dalam dunia ini. Dunia ini berputar dan bergerak kerana kontradiksi. Manusia wujud kerana kontradiksi. Politik wujud kerana kontradiksi. Wujud tidak akan wujud kalau tidak wujud kontradiksi.

Kerja politik ialah kerja untuk mengenal, mengurus dan menyelesaikan kontradiksi.
Justeru dalam kerja politik wajib di ketahui apa dia kontradiksi utama dan apa dia kontradiksi sampingan. Mana yang primer dan mana yang sekonder.

Kecelaruan – tidak dapat mengenal musuh dan tidak dapat mengenal kontradiksi - muncul kerana fikrah tidak terdidik untuk berfikir secara tersusun rapi. Sampa larau dan porak peranda – raba sana pekik sini - memperlihatkan daya fikrah yang tidak terurus.

Kecelaruan ini juga lahir kerana otak mereka tidak dilatih untuk berfikir secara kritikal. Otak - sama seperti program komputer – hanya akan mengeluarkan kembali apa yang telah dirakam. Perakaman yang tepat bukan dengan mendengar surah dan labon tetapi dengan membaca dan mengkaji.

Ilmu pengetahuan yang telah dikaji dan di baca akan disimpan dalam template dan program otak. Jika program itu tidak wujud berapa ratus kali pun diklik yang muncul hanya angka 404. Ini dunia ilmiah – yang berasaskan ilmu pengetahuan yang dikumpul melalui kajian, cubaan di bilik makmal dan penulisan pengalaman terkumpul. Ilmu pengetahuan yang
ilmiah ini bukan datang dari mimpi atau angan-angan.

Hari ini musuh utama rakyat satu Malaysia ialah gerombolan United Malays National Organisation. Musuh sampingan rakyat satu Malaysia ialah Barisan Nasional. Malah dalam gerombolan itu sendiri tidak semuanya perlu dianggap musuh utama. Bagitu juga Barisan Nasional - bukan semua mereka musuh utama kita – banyak juga sering tidak sebulu dengan gerombolan United Malays National Organistion – ini kerana ada kontradiksi antara sesama mereka.

Contohnya rakyat Sabah dan Serawak ingin bebas dari cengakaman United Malays National Organisation. Parti Gerakan ingin menjadi lebih demokratik. MCA ingin lebih banyak mendapat projek. Semua ini adalah kontradiksi dikalangan Barisan Nasional sendiri yang wajib kita ekploit untuk menguntungkan orang ramai.

Sekarang mari kita fahami siapa pula musuh utama rakyat dunia. Jawapnya tidak lain dan tidak bukan ialah kaum imperialis Anglo-Amerika. Kuasa ekonomi Anglo-Amerika inilah yang sedang mengancam rakyat dunia. Kuasa ekonomi Anglo- Amerika sedang mendominasi ekonomi negara-negara dalam dunia ini. Inilah kontradiksi induk. Inilah punca segala masalah yang sedang menghuru harakan dunia.

Satu ketika nanti jika gerombolan United Malays National Organistion bangun menentang kepentingan ekonomi kaum imperial Anglo-Amerika kerana kepentingan ekonomi mereka terdesak maka kita patut bersama menyokong. Musuh kita yang menjadi musuh kepada musuh utama kita adalah kawan sampingan. Semua ini adalah asas taktik dan strateji
politik yang paling minima.

Inilah penting memahami kontradiksi. Inilah pentingnya membaca dan mengkaji bukan hanya mendengar surah dan labon. Justeru apabila Thunderbirds tim bala tentera tentera udara Amerika datang membuat pertunjukan mereka di Kuala Lumpur – tim ini wajib dicap sebagai musuh utama. Air Force America adalah pendukung utama kuasa Anglo-Amerika. Manakala Beyonce seorang penyanyi adalah manifestasi budaya dari sistem ekonomi kapitalis Anglo-Amerika bukan pendukong utama. Dalam politik yang wajib kita tentang dan lawan bukan manifestasinya tetapi punca yang melahirkan manifestasi itu.

Sistem eknomi kapitalis melahirkan banyak manifestasi budaya. Adalah bangang untuk melawan manifestasinya. Kita juga akan dilihat sepuluh kali bangang dan bodoh politik jika berjuang menuntut agar kedai toto di Jalan Yap Kwang Teng ditutup. Ini kerana perjudian adalah manifestasi utama dari sistem ekonomi kapitalis. Malah bursa saham itu sendiri adalah sarang perjudian utama. Justeru apa yang harus digudam bukan manifestasi kapitalis tapi sistem kapitalis itu sendiri.

Salah satu dari kejayaan manifestasi budaya kapitalis ini ialah melahirkan warga yang tumpul akal dan bonsai fikrah hinggakan tidak dapat mengenal yang mana kontradiksi utama dan yang mana kontradiksi sampingan. Tidak berupaya untuk mengenal apa manifestasi dan apa yang melahirkan manifestasi itu. Akhirnya muncul perjuangan menuntut pengharaman penjualan buger kerana terdengar cerita adanya gelatin tak halal dalam burger. Tetapi tidak berjuang untuk melupuskan Mac Dogaldan Burger King . Ini tanda awal bahawa fikrah yang bonsai tak kesampian untuk berfikir

The civil service and politics - Azhar Harun aka Art Harun


OCT 7 — Each day I continue to be confounded — and, not to mention, amused — by statements issued by people in the mass media. It has come to a stage where I am beginning to seriously doubt my mental well being.

Is it me who has become a cranky old man? Is there a conspiracy among men in black robe, yellow trousers and torn Pagoda singlet, whispering in the darkness of night while seated at a round table in a dungeon somewhere to confound me every morning? Or has our public forum been full of various innovative new concepts which challenge the old, established and soon-to-be outdated concepts as understood by oldies like me?

Consider the report in The Star yesterday titled "PAS is a desperate party, says Hisham". While the report made reference to Minister Hishammuddin questioning the act of quoting the Quran by a non-Muslim who "does not understand Islam", it also cited statements attributed to Tan Sri Isa Samad and Cuepacs chairman Omar Osman.

To Minister Hishammuddin, I only would like to say, with respect, that applying his reasoning, there are many Muslims who should be banned from citing Quranic verses too, particularly those who cite the Quran for their own political mileage. Added to that are those Muslims who only cite the Quran at a drop of the proverbial hat and when the situation demands that they do so while deep inside they care not whether what they are doing is in accordance with God's wishes or otherwise. These are the hypocrites!

Having said that, the following is what which has confounded me:

In Port Dickson, Barisan candidate Tan Sri Mohd Isa Samad said civil servants who denounced the coalition were condemning themselves.

He explained that politicians were democratically elected as their leaders, and thus civil servants would need to work as a team with the politicians to ensure that the national administration runs smoothly.

“You should know that you are part of the Government,” he said.

“You don’t condemn policies that you yourselves have helped implement. You are also the ones who reaped the benefits brought on by the Barisan leadership,” he said at a Hari Raya gathering organised by the Defence Ministry and armed forces civil service employee unions of Negri Sembilan.

Cuepacs chairman Omar Osman, who was present, called on civil servants to show their undivided loyalty to Barisan by voting for Isa.

“Continuity is important and being a former mentri besar who knows the civil servants here, Isa is the right candidate who knows the needs of the people in Bagan Pinang,” Omar said."

It is getting a bit tiring for me to be moved to write about something as basic as "ABC" or in Arabic, "Alif, Ba, Ta". We have achieved independence from the evil colonialist for more than 52 years. We have submarines. We have a F1 team. We have scaled biotechnological advancements at such an alarming pace. We have sent our Angkasa 1 to do stupendous experiments with teh tarik, roti canai and giant tops in space. But back on earth, we do not even understand the basic concept of a democratic government and administration. Houston, we have a problem, quite obviously.

In our system of administration, the government, first and foremost, consists of the prime minister and his Cabinet. These positions are filled by politicians who are elected in a general election. There are many reasons why these politicians are elected.

The people may elect them because they are good looking. Or perhaps they are charming. Or because they speak well. Even because they pay the people to vote for them. And, of course, sometimes they are elected because the people genuinely believe that these politicians can actually work for the benefit of the nation. It goes without saying therefore that in actuality, the fact that the politicians are elected does not necessarily mean that they are the most qualified people to hold a political office.

The prime minister and his Cabinet govern the country. They make policies. They decide to implement the policies. They set the targets. They prepare and allocate the budget for every plan that they have. And the system requires and expects them to act in a fiduciary manner, namely, all their actions are done with the best interest of the nation in mind.

How do they implement all these plans? Who actually crystallises the plans into action? Here comes the civil service and the civil servants. They are the machinery of the government. They are the doers. Sometimes they provide inputs to the government in formulating policies. Some other time they suggest changes to the plans. But most of the time they implement what the government has, as a matter of policy, decided to do.

Herman Finer, the political scientist, defines civil service as a "professional body of officials, paid and skilled." They constitute the permanent executive in a modern state. Finer classified the British civil service into three broad categories, namely,

administrative — those who help in policy formulation and execution.

technical — those who carry out technical and specialised works such as the doctors, lawyers, economists, scientists and engineers.

manipulative — those who just carry out orders given by officers in the above two categories.

(source: Public Administration: Concepts and Theories by Rumki Basu)

In contrast to the prime minister and his Cabinet, the civil service, being a "professional body of officials, paid and skilled" is a permanent body. It does not change every five years or so. Government may change, according to the will of the people expressed through a general election. But the civil service stays. All its officers stay. Their work continues regardless of whom or from which party the government of the day is.

As the civil service is supposed to be professional and skilled, it goes without saying that it must be filled by people who are qualified for the job. There is no election to fill in vacancies. Jobs are applied for. Candidates are interviewed. The civil servants are chosen from the candidates with the best qualification and, in some instances, experience which is required of the job. That is in theory. In practice, however, there may be instances of abuse where candidates of certain race, religion, creed or breed who got the job instead of the qualified ones. But I will leave that for another article.

So, the civil service is filled with qualified people. These people are paid by the government from the taxes collected from the people. The civil servants are therefore officers of the government who work for the government in implementing and executing the government's plans and policies. If they don't work they could be charged before a disciplinary committee and dismissed. If they misbehave, the same thing could be done.

In the current age, the public has high expectations of the civil service. If they fail or are perceived to fail, the public can complain. Law suits may be brought against them. The government itself may question them. The civil service is accountable for whatever they do. They do not exist in a vacuum or in their own impenetrable world.

That is essentially, what the civil service is all about.

Now. Must the civil service be obedient to the government of the day? Yes, they should. Because the government is their master. And they are supposed to do whatever the government wants them to do in respect of the government's plans and policies. However, they must be obedient in so far as their wok requires them to be so. If they are asked to do things which are improper or illegal, then they should not be obedient. They are subject to the law, just as the government is.

Must the civil service be loyal to the government? Well, yes and no. In fact this is not an easy question to answer. Let me explain.

They should only be loyal and faithful to the government as far as their job requires them to be so. If a proper administrative direction is given by the government, they should loyally and faithfully execute that direction. They should not refuse just because they belong to an opposition party, for instance. They should not refuse to do the job because their personal faith is not agreeable with the job which they are asked to do. They also cannot refuse to do something just because they think that to do it would be repugnant to their moral standard.

For example, let’s say Haji Mohd Adam, a pious man, is a licensing officer. He is in charge of issuing licences for business premises. Let’s say the government approves the erection of a casino in his area. Haji Mohd Adam must issue the casino licence even though he believes gambling is haram because of his Islamic faith.

The civil service must be loyal and faithful to the government in that sense.

But must they be ever loyal and faithful to the government of the day to the extent of subscribing to the political beliefs and ideologies of the government of the day to the exclusion of others? The answer is definitely in the negative.

The concept of continuity of the civil service does not mean the civil service and the civil servants must continuously support and vote for the ruling party in every general election. That is a mischievous statement to make. That is in fact a threat.

That concept simply means that the civil service must exist continually in order to carry out its function even though the government changes hand after a general election. It is like in Selangor, for example. After March 8 last year, the state civil service continues to exist. But of course, it now has a new master, i.e. the Pakatan Rakyat government instead of the old Barisan Nasional government.

There is no doubt that the civil service, to a certain extent, is political in nature. That is because the ministers from whom they take orders are politicians. Their policies may therefore be politically driven. The policies are debated politically in the Parliament. Even the civil servants themselves are sometimes politically inclined. That cannot be denied.

However, that should be the limit of politics in the civil service. The civil service and civil servants must remember that they do not serve any political party. They serve the government of the day. They are the instrument of the government, and not the ruling political party, to quote a paper by the British civil service commissioners.

The paper says:

"This is generally understood by Government and by the Opposition, who must also believe that the Civil Service will serve them, when elected. The maintenance of this trust places constraints on what civil servants may be asked to do by their current ministers. For example, presenting government policy in the best possible light while sticking to the facts. And it would be harder to maintain that trust if the Service engaged in writing material openly critical of the Opposition and their policies. It also places restrictions on the political activities in which civil servants may engage in their private life."

The civil service, despite all its close connection to politics and the government of the day, must therefore maintain its impartiality. Despite its required loyalty to the government, this impartiality is required for a smooth transition in the event there is a change of government.

That is, in a nutshell, the correlation between the civil service — and civil servants — and politics.

It is therefore, with respect, not for Isa to implore and urge civil servants not to "condemn" government policies because they are part of it. And with respect too, it is wrong and highly undemocratic as well as unconstitutional for the Cuepacs chairman to ask civil servants "to show their undivided loyalty to Barisan by voting for Isa." That is just unacceptable in a democracy.

As for Isa's statement that civil servants have reaped the benefits brought by the Barisan leadership, I wonder what benefits the good Tan Sri was referring to. Does it mean all their salaries? Or the good life which the government has provided? Well, if it was the former, that is the civil servants' right, not benefit. If it was the latter, why must they be thankful? It is the duty of any government to provide a good life to all the people.

I find all these you-should-be-thankful stuff repulsive. That is because, really, we should not be thankful. We should ask for more. We are the consumers. Should we be thankful to Astro or Maxis or whatever? We should shout and scream for a better service all the time.

It is similar with the government.