Public Service Comes Up Short In The Power Game

---

 

It must be the seasonal madness. Once again, we’re hearing the same old issues of shorts-wearing fellow citizens not allowed into federal or even local government buildings. Some were allowed in after interventions, which in one much-publicised case involved the use of a covering sarong.
Given I like wearing shorts myself – they’re well suited for our weather, and cheaper than long pants (especially if you buy them from bundle second-hand shops) – this matter concerns me personally too.
When I leave home wearing shorts, I pretty much know where I’m going – places that are OK with shorts, such as car workshops, supermarkets (and bundle second-hand shops) or to makan with friends .
I certainly won’t wear shorts to the homes of people such as some of my own friends and relatives who view shorts as immodest dressing. I think that’s what being respectful is all about.
I’ve never been stopped by the police because my wearing shorts was deemed to be a public nuisance or indecent behaviour – for the simple reason that it’s never been such. I might one day be stopped for being an eyesore, but I’ll take my chances on that.
The police themselves used to wear shorts when I was growing up. Chasing after the bad guys in shorts must have been really hard, even comical. That they do that in blue trousers nowadays is a great improvement. More power to the boys and girls in blue!
But as far as I know, the wearing of shorts in public, as long as it’s not indecent, has not been criminalised. So, how is it that wearing shorts can get you locked out of government premises?
There’s the simple answer, and the complex answer.
The simple answer: exercising this kind of power is what makes little people Little Napoleons. They could be the security guards at the gate, wholeheartedly putting their hearts and soul into it. Or they could be the big bosses of the guards, also apparently putting their heart and soul into it.
The solution here is simple. The minister concerned just needs to send out instructions to say that anybody who comes into their premises not dressed in a way that would’ve got them arrested for public indecency must be allowed entry and service.
If the security guard, or even the big bosses themselves, aren’t sure about that they can call the police. Let the police determine whether the person is indecently dressed – and if so haul him (or her) away for breaking the law.
Given such a directive from a minister, not following it should be ground for disciplinary action. In the private sector, this usually means dismissal, though in the public sector it’s usually a slap on the wrist and perhaps a transfer somewhere quiet until things settle down.
If you’re a public servant who does care about serving the public, this shouldn’t be a problem for you. It’s not a sin to carry out your responsibility to serve a fellow citizen who is dressed in ways you don’t approve of (but not illegally so). I’m not a religious leader but on this part I’m certain.
The second answer is that this is a complex matter, unnecessarily tied up to so many other issues. It’s not about procedures and policies, but rather a manifestation of how politics of race and religion has entered the administration of the supposedly neutral public services.
For the majority of Malays, politics now is about identity. You cannot be a good Malay, or a good Muslim, unless you’re “united” and continually ‘fighting” to protect your race and religion according to the dictates of many of our political and religious leaders, who nowadays are often one and the same.
Here, everything deemed un-Malay or un-Islamic is seen as an attack on our rights, or quite often privileges that have been turned into rights, and an affront to the Malays and Muslims. This of course immediately makes fighting such “affronts” righteous and just, and hence beyond debate.
This is what the big minds of Malay politics are pushing nowadays, whether in actual politics such as in Parliament or during elections, or in normal daily interactions that an ordinary Malay, such as a public servant, engages in.
Such issues create for many Malays almost existential risks (from the notion that “they” are taking over…) and give some non-Malays opportunities to express their own latent racism. That means the issue will always be burning away at the foundation of our multiracial existence.
It perpetuates the exploitation of the insecurity of the Malays, many of whom now have become almost paralysed with the herd (and siege) mentality and paranoia and are hence easily exploited.
In a democracy of one-man-one-vote, scaring people is a source of real power. Coupled with the long-running dumbing down of our education system and the creation of an addict-like dependency on the government, it just turbo-charges the creation of even more scared and more paranoid, and hence exploitable, Malays.
It’s useful for the politicians to keep the temperature constantly high so the Malays feel like they’re in crucial battles for the survival of the race and religion. Offering them an opportunity to “fight” and be a “hero” to save the dignity, or even the existence, of race and religion is a clear vote winner, and has taken some people very far.
Keep the rakyat riled up and shouting so loud they cannot think, and keep offering new trojan horses for them. Conflate it with unrelated issues such as Rukun Negara – or the constitution – or some non-existent social contract – and you’ve a winning combination.
This is also very useful for many of today’s leaders given they’ve almost nothing useful to offer the people for today’s real issues that can help them lead a good, productive life in an increasingly chaotic and dangerous world.
If you took an oath to provide a public service, but you substitute your own rules of how to serve the public that causes inconvenience or even harm to those who need the service they paid for, which can include medical or police attention, that means you haven’t fulfilled the amanah expected of you from your oath.
TL:DR – Exercise any dressing standards you want at your own home, but when at work, follow standard procedures and policies and remember the meaning of “public servants”. - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---