We must ask more questions

The sad thing about Malaysia today is that attempts to ask serious questions often risk being censured. As a result, accountability in public services is very low. Attempts to question public servants are often met with distrust and disdain.
by Wan Saiful Wan Jan

EPA PIX

• 

  Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak (L, white shirt) meets Malaysian soldiers at Felda Sahabat near Lahad Datu, Sabah on March 7. Najib said the operations against the Filipino militants will continue 'for as long as it takes' or until 'they lay down their arms unconditionally.'

<>

• 
• 

WOOLWICH, a district in southeast London, is not a place well-known to most Malaysians. It is not exactly a tourist attraction. If I remember correctly, in the 18-years that I lived in the UK, I only went there twice. Once, because of work and the other time, I fell asleep on the train to London City Airport.

But Woolwich attracted international attention earlier last month when a soldier was brutally butchered with a knife and meat cleaver in broad daylight. The suspected killers were filmed saying they killed in the name of Islam. I followed the story closely and I am amazed at how British society reacted to this tragedy. Various questions were raised about how the authorities responded.

Questions were raised about the speed with which the police responded to the murder. It was reported that uniformed officers took nine minutes to arrive at the scene, despite the police station being quite close by. And the armed response team only arrived five minutes later.

To us, having the police arriving in less than 15 minutes may sound very quick. But to the British public, this is not good enough and they openly questioned the police's efficiency. More questions were soon raised, this time about the British security services. The media discovered that the MI5 – the security agency tasked with protecting Britain against terrorism – had been monitoring the two suspects for several years. Stories even emerged that the MI5 allegedly approached one of the suspects not long ago, inviting him to work for the agency.

Several parties accused the intelligence services of failing to protect Britain from terrorists. They suggested that if the security services had done their jobs properly, the brutal murder wouldn't have happened. The BBC, Britain's public-funded media, even questioned Eric Pickles, a cabinet minister, if he thought the security services had let people down.

The British prime minister was not let off the hook either. David Cameron visited MI5's headquarters the day after the tragedy, and he thanked staff there for their work in the investigation. He was immediately criticised for doing so, especially as the public was still querying the alleged failures of the MI5 to protect the country from this brutal murder. 

Nevertheless, Cameron did announce that the Intelligence and Security Committee was asked to independently investigate the allegation that the MI5 knew about the two suspects before the killing. This is a committee of nine parliamentarians that oversees the British security services, with members from both the government and opposition parties.

As I read the developments, I cannot help but to compare how the British reacted to this tragedy and how we in Malaysia reacted to problems on our own soil. Take the Lahad Datu invasion. Our brave armed forces did well to flush out the militant invaders, killing many of them over the course of Ops Daulat. The heroes deserve all the praises we can give. But the burning questions are: did our intelligence services fail in their duties and why were the invaders able to step on our soil in the first place? Unless these questions are answered, how can we be sure that our country is safe?

There are not enough questions being asked openly or debated on this matter. If this had happened in a country like the UK or Japan, I suspect several ministers would have resigned.

Perhaps some would argue that these questions cannot be asked due to national security. This is false. As the British example has shown, there are mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure every aspect of public service can be scrutinised. But more important than that is our unquestioning attitude is not limited to security matters alone. It is far more widespread than that.

Let's take the alleged irregularities during the last general election. The Election Commission (EC) has been accused of failing to perform its duty. The most obvious way to solve the problem is by appointing a bipartisan committee to investigate the allegations. But why hasn't such a body been formed? And, worse, why is it that every time someone questions the integrity of the EC, they are quickly labelled as "opposition"? It has always been the case to attempt to portray the opposition as the enemy.

The sad thing about Malaysia today is that attempts to ask serious questions often risk being censured. As a result, accountability in public services is very low. Attempts to question public servants are often met with distrust and disdain. We are gradually turning into a society that does not value making public servants more accountable to the ultimate master – we, the public.

Former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi once said that "the malaise affecting Malaysia that may well jeopardise our way forward is a case of having first world infrastructure and third world mentality". 

An important first world mentality is the continuous questioning of the actions of those entrusted with power, and not letting them off the hook easily. Of course, there are people who would benefit if Malaysians remain stuck with a third world mentality. These people would do their best to quieten those of us who ask difficult questions and they must continually be challenged.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs. This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not represent the view of fz.com. This article was first published in The Edge Malaysia June 3 - June 9 issue.