Better ‘eminent’ in service

Professor Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
My View - The Sun Daily
June 3, 2015

AFTER being away for some weeks, the tendency is to immerse oneself with news from local dailies to have a feel of what was missed. This I did on the flight back, devouring news from six newspapers – two Malay and four English (including theSun). The prime minister's rebuttal against what is termed as "unfair criticism" seemed to take centre stage. My eyes chanced on a headline: "Eleven more join G25 seeking review of law". G25 is now G53!

Of the 11, eight names listed were preceded by the word "former". So was the first cohort, where a number belonged to the "former" club too. I am not sure of the other 17, since I missed the news. Many of them are respectable colleagues and friends who have been the "pulse" of the community for a long time, and are themselves role models. They are sincere and selfless and I am convinced the rest are as well. It is therefore not about the persons or the personalities, neither is it about the group.

What boggles the mind is: where are the "current" eminent people – that is those who are holding influential decision-making positions here and now. Why this is important is because the bureaucracy anywhere in the world is a formidable barrier. Some more than others. One can shout your lungs out, but if the bureaucracy is impervious, the status quo remains. This is evident with the setting up of Pemandu, the highly successful juggernaut, with the chief secretary in the driver's seat. Without it the bureaucracy is too powerful to be shaken. In fact, at times it responds with an intimidating vengeance. Arguably, by being part of the "eminent" group the bureaucracy can better effect real and permanent changes on the fly. After all, the issues that are of utmost concern are all too familiar to the bureaucracy. Indeed the solutions invariably lie somewhere in the system as Pemandu's work illustrates. Therefore why not be recognised as "eminent" while in service rather than having to wait after retirement in trying to make a real difference!

What is more we were reminded that such "eminence" did exist at one time when the bureaucracy was progressive and influential; giving appropriate professional advice to the ministers on policy matters. With the interest of the public coming first, they effectively dispensed their duties without fear or favour. They earned the respect of everyone who listened in earnest and acted accordingly with a high level of confidence. Those days apparently have largely disappeared and the reverse is true. Today, there is much more nodding from the bureaucracy, something like the BBC comedy, Yes, Minister – except that it has gone long enough and is no longer a laughing matter. There seems to be little room for those in the "current" group to assert their professionalism and independence that can bring back the much deserved shine and "eminence" to the bureaucracy.

On this point most would remember Tan Sri Sidek Hassan who recognised this and advocated the mantra of "challenge the status quo". On the higher education landscape at least, many intractable issues were amicably resolved during his tenure as the chief secretary through his own initiatives and enlightened decisions. Periodic meetings were jointly held between the Vice-Chancellors' Council and his office, with him personally taking charge to ensure that the collective decisions taken were implemented. Though this initiative irked several ministry officials and bureaucrats, his message was clear and unmistakable: the status quo can be challenged and changed for the better; that the bureaucracy is not deaf or blind. It is alive and responsive to the current needs and times, especially in higher education where demands for changes are unrelenting. As knowledge expands exponentially, the structure must follow function and change accordingly. It must be flexible, which is why institutional autonomy and academic freedom is imperative for universities to be credible. Otherwise, universities will sink further into a situation so alien to the world of knowledge with the vice-chancellors lording as bureaucrats, rather than as respectable intellectuals and academics.

It is time to take the bull by the horns and challenge the status quo with the interest of the rakyat at heart. Otherwise, one will be embarrassed when asked: Why now? What were you doing when you were in service? I vividly recalled this was one reason why Sidek led the charge to challenge the status quo, and stay "eminent" long before he retired with a clear conscience. This is a useful lesson to emulate to save the situation.