There is mutual frustration between those in government and those who identify themselves as ordinary citizens in Malaysia. The frustration originates from the incapability of both to understand the other side’s challenges. This makes the gears of a huge machine — the government — stuck. It needs to work again.
The period immediately after the March 8, 2008 was supposed to be an opportunity for major reforms. The machine was supposed to work again after years of abuse that exhausted its credibility. The filters were supposed to have been washed, even if partly. Rusted wheels replaced. The joints, oiled.
That was not enough, apparently. Skepticism against the government — or perhaps more generally, against the state — not only persists but also grows. It has grown so much that it is disconnecting the government from the people, and the people from the government. It is threatening the idea that the government is the people, and the people are the government.
Given the record of the Barisan Nasional federal government, however, that skepticism is justified. In fact, skepticism against the state is a good thing to have. It is the first line of defense against tyranny.
Yet, skepticism is healthy only up to a certain dose. If there is too much skepticism, the central functions of the state cannot be carried out. Too much skepticism erodes the reason for a state. And there are signs that skepticism has become a monster in Malaysia, devouring too many regardless of agenda.
In the current political and economic climate, that skepticism has grown to a point that no reform can take place. The size of government is big so that it needs to be cut down so that there is less opportunity to repeat abuses of the past. Unfortunately, efforts to reduce it and put public finance in order are widely seen by many as a deliberate attempt to short-change citizens.
The problem of a big government is very real. Its effects on individuals and society are observable. Its growth over the years in Malaysia is something that cannot be missed. The Abdullah administration committed gross gluttony while the supposed benefits of big government were unseen. Something has to be done now, but nothing moves. Loud popular opposition stands in the way.
Part of the reason is that the challenges associated with big government are far removed from the ground. Public finance, for instance, means little to men and women on the streets. Individuals do not directly face it and hence, they do not see it as problems to solve, at least not soon.
Incapability to see it does not mean all is fine and dandy. The tragedy is this: Efforts to solve it inflicts relatively immediate pain while its benefits will only come relatively later. Furthermore, benefactors of big government will obviously defend it. Coupled with those is the fact that most of us enjoy the idea of instant gratification, so the loud popular opposition is not a surprise.
In justifying their opposition to initiatives to cut the size of government, they do raise very pertinent questions. What about corruption, what about leakage and what about inefficiency in the public sector? These are among the questions many have asked. Why should we pay for their excesses?
Recent allegation by the civil servants’ union, Cuepacs, that nearly half of civil servants in the country were suspected to be involved in graft does not instill confidence. The size of the civil service suggests that the government is uninterested in cutting down its expenditure seriously. Purchases of overpriced defense equipments suggest unwise spending. The investigation of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) is going unsatisfactorily, if there is any progress at all. Recent large losses of enterprises linked to the government exacerbate the image of the government of the day as incompetent.
Slammed with the idea of a goods and services tax along with the withdrawal of subsidies, rightly or wrongly, taxpayers get the perception that they are picking up the tab for somebody else’s mistake. As far as critics are concerned, the government is swimming in excesses, disconnected from the concerns of the masses.
The boilerplate answer to this two-way disconnect is commitment to democracy: Voters should till the land. Get a completely new captain and crew to staff the bridge.
It is an attractive solution as it removes one disconnect. As with any boilerplate argument however, it is insufficient. A libertarian fear revolves around this: Such a democratic solution solves only one part of the equation. It may build the trust that is required to run the machine smoothly again. What it may fail to do is to address the problem of big government.
The alternative in the form of Pakatan Rakyat has not demonstrated their grasp of the issue. They are happy with mere populism so far, such as promises of free water and bigger subsidies.
They really cannot be blamed for that. It is only expected. The truth is that Pakatan Rakyat needs to run a populist campaign to enter Putrajaya.
That does not negate the fact that economic populist policy tends to run a country down. That does not negate the fact that unpopular moves are required to solve the problems. Clearly, political capital is required to run unpopular policy.
But who has the political will? Who has the political capital?
Putrajaya, so far, lacks at least one of them.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on June 14 2010.
