In my last two columns I argued that only human beings can be held responsible and accountable for elective action choices we make because the options available to us usually define true, honest, and sincere human intentions. Animals cannot do so. Unfortunately though, most of our behaviour theories extracted from classical behaviourism imputes motives without asking the actors about real motives and intentions.
Dismissing behaviourism
Ivan Pavlov and BF Skinner made the study of behaviour of animals and their responsive behaviour the focus of physiology, psychological and behavioural studies. Their studies moved material science from physical aspects and social implications towards non-material and human choices made with moral responsibilities and full accountability for our actions. The brief review of both these scholars is worth an appreciation from public media sources:
In 1870 Ivan Pavlov enrolled in the physics and mathematics faculty at the University of Saint Petersburg to take the course in natural science. Pavlov won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1904, becoming the first Russian Nobel laureate.
During the 1890s Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov was looking at salivation in dogs in response to being fed, when he noticed that his dogs would begin to salivate whenever he entered the room, even when he was not bringing them food.
Like many great scientific advances, Pavlovian conditioning (aka classical conditioning) was discovered accidentally.
Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904-Aug 18, 1990), commonly known as BF Skinner, was an American psychologist, behaviorist, author, inventor, and social philosopher. He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.
Skinner considered free will an illusion and human action dependent on consequences of previous actions. If the consequences are bad, there is a high chance the action will not be repeated; if the consequences are good, the actions that led to it being repeated become more probable. Skinner called this the principle of reinforcement.
Unlike animals and their implied motives assigned by human observers, human choices made by actors, in specified roles and responsibilities can be held responsible and accountable for both; action and inaction, as the case maybe. Let me now apply all of the above theory about human nature to the governance of Malaysia.
Rational policy-making
When I first reported for work at the International Trade and Industry Ministry, I was shocked when I met a senior Malay officer who explained everything in terms of “that is the way things are done here”. What was implied was simply learn to accept reality as we define it. I did not and could not.
Reason and logic are the antithesis to blind and unthinking obedience which created fascism and supported the rise of Hitler. Religion is only a positive value when good practices are adhered to but never when evil is justified in the name of religion.
Personal spirituality which defines true character and personality are therefore important for any leadership and followership role. Wisdom and truth-seeking actions of a spiritual person are usually well-accepted and well-recognised by all.
In the absence of the nature of such truths, rational and public policy-making can easily degenerate to become the framework for public theft, rape, and then reaping the consequent benefits made available by such deception and lying. Lies are deployed as truths for a public narrative can easily be made truth by repeating a million times the lie. It was Hitler’s public relations strategy.
Today it appears that many untruths are equally masquerading as truths in all public mediums. Allow me take one case-story to make my point about public policies and their narratives.
The Proton case-story
Proton was our national car project which all Malaysians were mobilised to support. I remember actually visiting the first Proton car in Segambut at a car distributor. I checked below the wheels to make sure ‘Milo tin cans were not used to make the car’.
Today, more than 30 years later, I am sorry to say I still do not drive a Proton car unless it is a free one issued by the government. Why? I think I can speak for the majority of middle mainstream Malaysians whether Malay, Chinese, Malayalee or Kadazan or Iban or Punjabi.
Proton is not first choice car for quality, respectability and reliability. Until we achieve such branding, Proton will require to be bailed out for time immemorial. The market has still not fully accepted the Proton brand for its national image. Like the batik shirts of old; it as now become a Melayu-made product which appears anti-national.
Consequently, the government announced the newest bailout of RM1.5 billion. That is after the alleged official theft of RM 2.6 billion from public sources. The corruption of any nation starts from the head; that is our serious and severe problem.
Proton has become the visible vehicle of the abuse of the original New Economic Policy or the NEP. It has become the framework for abuse of the NEP to support and grow Umno cronies and other related businesses. Public businesses under the brand of government-linked companies (GLCs) have become the arena for incompetent management of the government-supported policies for disbursement of public funds.
Many generations of Malay bumiputra component suppliers were created and killed by a poor and incompetent group of automotive industrialists who were all non-Malay bumiputras.
Basic humanity and need-based development
All human beings have at least five layers of public identity. Basic and underlying traits and character assumptions define our personality, character, and human nature which define our human choices. An earlier column addressed this.
My pet theory identifies the five factors which help or guide humans make real choices about serious matters of life. Therefore, our complex identities must help us define our Malaysian-ness first and never last.
Since our inception in 1963 we have always been multi-ethnic in structure and composition. Therefore national unity is always a serious consideration and concern in any public policy in Malaysia. All Malaysian politicians must recognise this truthful and practical reality.
It is too late in the day, even for any Islamic Party like PAS (or even with Umno as their ally) to ride roughshod over other Malaysian citizens vide their particular brand of Islamic doctrine and interpretation of Islamic belief premised on an irrational Malay hegemonic agenda.
Such selectively ignores the federal nature of our nation and the legal limitations of the federal criminal laws. Such ignorance redefines the limitation of hudud under state-enacted limitations and ‘hadd’ under Syariah requisites. They are simply in List 1 and 2; one is for the federation and the other for the states. Let us not become blind to such truths. Gurdial Singh has written on this, too.
Need for a consensus-building process
If in fact, the Malaysian federation of three states of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, need to enforce the Islamic system of Syariah jurisprudence for the benefit of Malay Muslims, then the matter must be clearly and consensually discussed, discoursed and never rushed through Parliament. Backdoor tabling of the private members bill is unethical and abusive of legislative control over governance of the Parliament.
What really bothers me as a public servant with 32 years of official and formal public service experience is that such a framework posits institutional ethnic superiority through the abusive Ketuanan Melayu agenda was incorporated into the public services after the May 1969 riots.
Malaysia has thereby became ‘Melayusia’ and no more Malaysia after May 13, 1969. I did not experience such even in Universiti Malaya at First Residential College between 1969 and 1971, but began to slowly realise this new kind of abuse and sidelining of non-Malays and others in many and different forms in 32 years.
The most visible was through the numbers recruited into public services. While 30 percent of non-Malays were the ideal of the Reid and Cobbold Commissions’ preferences; in reality, after ‘Operasi Isi Penuh’ was launched in the 1970s; the numbers of non-Malay recruits into public institutions reduced to less than 10 percent. It was not for the lack of applicants but by a deliberate unwritten public policy. Then it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Historical figures and numbers of recruitment are gazetted and available for all to see. If we focus only at the Grade 1 of public officials, it was made very obvious by the year when I was recruited in 1972. Any public policy institute can analyse this.
Full implications and application
Criminal law in the Malaysian Federation is a List 1 jurisdiction and not a List 2 one. Within such a schedule listing also, it the Federation thereby mandates the inspector-general of police (IGP) and his police force to use force to executes such a criminal code.
But, under Hadi Awang’s Hadd Bill, it does not limit but expands the role and jurisdiction of the hudud criminal enforcement. This means they drag the police force which is a civil jurisdiction into the Syariah jurisprudence and confuses the police and every other public agency to become non-civil jurisdictions and make them an extension of a backdoor system of Islamic governance of the federation.
Is such the unstated and subtle agenda? I think it is disingenuous and mischievous; in fact very fraudulent. No moderate Malaysian will tolerate this, I believe.
May God give all Malay Muslims wisdom as they think and pray through the need for such back-door governance in the full name of Islam.