OUR problems, and resolutions, must be structural and not superficial. Too many Pakatan Harapan programmes today are merely superficial. My three reasons for arguing so are:

1. Most Malaysians cannot keep time. Almost every event never starts on time. The core and root word for time is “Kronos”, the other word is “Kairos”. From the first, we get chronometer, or what we call “watch”. We have very expensive watches, but still, we do not keep time. As Malaysians, we did make that change, but we do not understand the full implications and the real hand that defined the paradigm shift.

2. The ministers and officials with executive authority still appear to do things in a drip-drip way, making plans without forethought, although it is obvious that all of us had fought hard to usher in the major change. The change we experienced on May 9 is like the challenge of repairing a car and changing its defective parts, but while the car is still in operation, and we are driving it. Can we really and fully comprehend the quality of such changes? In simple terms, the definition of change itself is, in fact, changing.

3. After 61 years of continuous, aggregated wrongdoing, it is never enough to try and rearrange the chairs on the Titanic. We need what Hammer and Champ called “fundament and radical change for business process re-engineering”. For a fact, we are not even certain about how many true resources are available, and even Dr Mahathir Mohamad does not know the car we are now driving.

Nevertheless, the promises or commitments must be kept at all costs. Rakyat Malaysia, or RM, expect that the value of the ringgit will rise again. We are Malaysia 2.0!

If the PM gave only 50% for ministers’ overall performance, I do not think the PM is lying. My concern is whether the cabinet heard his evaluation. The PM was gracious, though. He said they are fast and eager to learn.

My honest hope is that the cabinet does not take more than three years to learn and correct the mistakes that it will inevitably make. We need a radical new way of doing things.

As I told one MP at a Foundation for Democracy event hosted by Parliament, the executive authority in Malaysia has only about three years to deliver real change. Otherwise, all RM – me included – will conclude that the “New Malaysia” is not new.

To me, it is obvious that the cabinet currently lacks teamwork. Each minister is experimenting with failure, and we, the RM, can see it – at least those of us who have a lot of work-related experience.

The cabinet does not know the different project roles assumed by different players and actors. What or who is the real party discipline authority for PH today? Who defines and determines that structure of discipline? Can the attorney-general or Election Commission really work without the cabinet’s support for and appreciation of their specific roles and agendas, and what are their priorities?

Is there an explicit hierarchy of authority? Who defines this, when the older model of “Ketuanan Melayu” does not work any more and their actors are working full-time to propagate fear and lies? Is there anyone else who can define and specify the different roles assumed and enacted by ministers and other authorities? Whose role is that now?

New budget as new policy parameters

This new cabinet, the budget and the declaration of assets are all good initiatives, but what are the issues and concerns of “the intelligentsia of Malaysia” i.e. those who rationally articulate for change with words and not swords?

The last six months can be considered the honeymoon period. The executive authority has had its holiday or learning break, and to me, at least, the budget was the real and serious cut-off date. The policy agenda of the budget must become the financial plan for the core direction, for the next few years will define all such change.

I see three serious initiatives:

1. First was the creative and focused budget, which addresses both macro and micro issues and concerns. I deem the housing agenda an excellent and seriously innovative proposal.

2. The innovative nature of the budget, which offers three wins, is creative, unlike the win-win of the past model of governance. The third win is always the RM or a matter of public interest, whether it is the environment or civil society.

3. The methodology to deal with National Higher Education Fund Corporation loans is more realistic and not a false promise, and I am confident that any real reason for the inability to pay up in time will be given due consideration. It is obvious that we are moving towards a rule-of-law state from a rule-by-law state. – November 10, 2018.

* KJ John worked in public service for 32 years, retired, and started a civil group for which he is chairman of the board. He writes to inform and educate, arguing for integration with integrity in Malaysia. He believes such a transformation has to start with the mind before it sinks into the heart!

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.