THE Pakatan Harapan government has recently passed its 100 days of administration. The euphoria of change has dissipated a little, although that isn’t unusual as a political phenomenon.

The high hopes that came with a political transition tend to be unmet in most cases, as seen in the popularity dip for Trump, Macron, or even Jokowi (although his ratings have recovered somewhat). The only elected leader I know of today that has maintained his popularity is President Rodrigo Duterte and I am not sure replicating his methods is a good idea.

That being said, the apprehension shown by some of the rakyat should not be taken lightly. After all, Malaysia is in uncharted waters now with its first regime change in over 60 years. The 100-day promises, and the manifesto is evidently not enough to drive the confidence of a much-battered nation after an intense election.

This is not surprising, considering that manifestos are more like your shopping cart if someone else offered to pay rather than a coherent political vision. One tends to take more than one can or need.

The frequent allusions to austerity are not very soothing to the public either. While it’s true that the profligacy of former leaders contributed to Barisan Nasional (BN)’s downfall, the straw that broke the camel’s back is likely to be the previous administration’s cutting of funding in basic services such as healthcare and education, atop the increase in cost of living commonly attributed to the goods and services tax (GST).

In other words, even if some short-term pain can be accepted by voters in repairing the system (such as covering for the revenue shortfall after the GST is abolished), no one would vote for a new government thinking that things will not get better in a foreseeable time.

And that is why it is probably a good idea to consider having something like a State of the Union address by Merdeka Day. One might argue, we already have our yearly budget speech, but I think they are two very different things.

A budget speech is supposed to outline the anticipated revenue and planned expenditure of the government for the coming financial year, normally organised in themes so as to not make what is technically a ledger – even though the budget speech is not the actual budget – sounds too dull.

In fact, Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s landmark speech that introduced the Vision 2020 wasn’t a budget speech at all. It was a working paper delivered to the Malaysian Business Council.

For the State of the Union address, it ought to be something that encapsulates an honest assessment of the present, an optimistic vision for the future, and a realistic outline as to what we have to do to get there.

Considering we are still at the cusp of a transition, the speech need not be a long-gazing one, nor should it be occupied with policy specifics, as there will be another time and setting for that.

For the address, a 2-3 year projection would be good enough. A shorter timeframe would also avoid unproductive forays into contentious territories, such as identity and language, and keep the vision crisp and clear.

Above all, it should begin with an honest assessment of our finances, domestic conditions, geopolitical situation, global trends, and anticipated shocks and returns. Any good projection begins with a correct diagnosis of the present. It is from which the government’s worldview is outlined.

Malaysians can certainly benefit from a glimpse of the worldview of the current administration, for the people would be more confident of a government that is highly perceptive of its internal and external environment.

This, of course, comes with the hope that the worldview is a cosmopolitan, sharp, and timely one, not one that is naïve, hollow, and stuffed with hackneyed terms like “inequality” and “industrial revolution 4.0” without actually knowing what their implications are.

Then, the address should speak of a (near) future where the government’s priority is no longer about paying off debts but laying the foundations for greater goals. Within this vision, the state’s role in the economy, healthcare, education, innovation, welfare, urban planning, and climate change control should be addressed.

The address should be candid about the tensions that may arise from the state’s involvement or lack thereof. After all, neither the state nor market holds the monopoly to the solutions to all our problems. It’s often a case of careful balancing, close cooperation, and at times healthy scepticism between the both that delivers the best, and more importantly, fair results.

With the vision outlined, the government can then use the opportunity to inform the rakyat of the compromises the government will have to make (and the timeframe for it) and the compromises they will not make no matter the cost, so that the rakyat have an idea of where the moral centre of the administration’s philosophical worldview lies.

It can then earnestly ask for the patience and understanding of Malaysians for its policies for they will know the rationale and long-term thinking behind it. This will help to transcend the “checklisting” nature of manifesto politics, although this does not mean the administration gets a free pass to abandon it.

I understand some will say this is nothing but merely a rhetorical strategy. Well, as social creatures, our politics are never above the discursive anyway, which is why Martin Luther King Jr’s oratory skills made him such a formidable figure in the Civil Rights movement.

Understandably, supporters of the government will think that being so transparent about the state’s limitations and plans will automatically open it up to the opposition’s attacks under our current polarised political climate.

But on the balance, being transparent is always better than the contrary, as long as you have made the effort to think about current issues critically and how to communicate your ideas. The reason that Tharman Shanmugaratnam, current deputy prime minister of Singapore, emerges to be arguably the most popular politician in the country is never that he’s a demagogue, but because of his ability to give articulate, sincere, and non-reactionary views about the country and the world.

I think our voters are always underestimated due to the way our political issues are framed, and the antics of those who claim to represent us, no less. If the prime minister can help set the tone for our political debates this coming Merdeka Day, perhaps we can then wish for a better class of politicians. – August 26, 2018.

* A Forensic Science-Asian Studies hybrid, Nicholas Chan is interested in how authority is shaped, exercised, and more importantly, resisted in Southeast Asia.