政治不能無視倫理道德

前言：
記得總是有一些社運朋友對另一些社運友人用政治道德語言批判政治人物和時局，感到不滿。其中前者批評後者企圖用‘聖人政治’從‘道德高地’評論時局。

這些都看在我眼裡，激發我本身再專研深入探討政治、目的與倫理之間的關係，以及國際政治歷史發展的演變。美國知名哈佛大學政治哲學學者Michael Sandel, 尤其是他的TED talk: 'The lost art of democratic debate' 是我的切入點。他點出，亞里士多德教導我們的是，我們要追溯和探討某樣事物的原始目的，舉例說笛子存在的目的是悅耳的笛子音樂，所以笛子最好還是給會吹奏笛子的人（所以其他分配笛子的方式並不relevant，例如財富標準、社會地位或隨機派送）。追溯原始目的有助於了解為何近年代的民主社會討論頻頻出現了問題，比如說政治語言被市場經濟語言騎劫，再不然或被‘表面象征化’成為偽民主言不由衷的政治表演。當政治已不再是人民想象的原本目的，就失去了代表性和作用。民主辯論也變得蒼白空洞。

在政治與倫理課題上，給我最大啟發最深影響的是，反而是當代基督民主學者Robin Lovin 在2014年在美國國會圖書館的一場相關課題的講座“Ethics, Politics and Institutions: A Moral Vocabulary for Modern Democracy”。就如他的前輩Reinhold Nienbuhr如此告誡，在政治世界裡沒有任何東西可以自我延續或自我修正（'nothing in politics is self-sustaining or self-correcting'），政治與道德詞彙的運用也隨著世界政治思想和時局演變，產生了根本性的價值變化。當我們看到使用（憲政）民主制度的國家在冷戰後處於政治正確影響的巔峰狀態當兒，卻看到各種民主亂象開始出現包括人民對主流政治越感失望、疏遠，導致極右極左以及玩笑政黨開始顛覆系統。其中一個最大原因，不是制度問題，而是道德語言和權威的喪失，使人們失去了對政治的原始目的應有的想象。這是現代民主政治在多國面對的正統性(Legitimacy)挑戰。

在我國，雖然剛‘改朝換代’了，會不會讓人民朝向現代民主國家的問題發展趨勢走去？我擔心不是無理的，一旦越來越多原本有期望‘新政治’可以‘救國’，最後若到頭來發現情況差不多還是在原地踏步，那麼那種失望可能導致絕望，會讓他們難以重拾對政治的信心、信任和期望。如果政治人物不再根據過去的信念和原則做事，而讓人一再地給人抓到前言不對後語、反反復復政治立場的痛腳記錄，政治道德倫理危機將可能導致民主的倒退。我認為，目前的情況是，不是普遍社會論述上充斥太多的‘道德’，反而是在台上的政治人物缺乏道德辭藻論述，不是言不由衷就是言而無信，才是最大的問題。

所以我寫了這篇文章支持人民繼續給政治人物大力度的道德批判，同時也要求政治人物正視‘道德倫理’缺陷/缺席給民主帶來的危機和後果。不是評論人站在道德高地的關係，而是有些政客的所作所為真的太low了。

P/s: 我與同伴們聯手創辦的非政府組織Agora Society Malaysia 群议社 ，其中我們相信和秉持著類似文中的哲學性思考，要民主社會回到政治的原始真諦和目的，就是政治為眾利益，為人民創造更美好生活。Agora本來就是個公共市集場所，民主和政治應該就發生在日常生活的地方，成為大家可共同議論的生活事物。

我們一再堅持政治要遵循道德原則做事的重要性——如果作出有違從政的目的，若真的為了‘大局/現實’而妥協，到底哪裡才是真的止損線？不喜歡給人道德批判又想要招搖撞騙誤導人民，我們奉勸他們回頭是岸，回歸原始的政治目的和理想吧，不然就等著別人‘拆招牌’，還是‘關店’算了。

文章：

有人主張不談個人道德或人治，要談制度和法治。但立法和設計制度過程中，無可避免涉及目標和其中價值取向，並非是道德空洞論述。二十年前「烈火莫熄」政改運動，不是矢言大破大立嗎？為何如今堅持信念卻招致「站在道德高地」之譏？若要人民繼續關心政治，打造一個有活力、永續的政治共同體，先決條件就是這個社會要有可以憑靠的道德辭藻，成為政治理想信念的原動力。民主社會應該樂見有道德原則者持續臧否政治人物，反而要担心為政者變質、失去道德原則卻不再有人批評，才對！

---

【文／林志翰】

希望聯盟執政超過八個月，越來越多選民失望。競選承諾跳票或久未推動，政府豈能戲言敷衍人民？首相馬哈迪承認「希盟宣言是指南並非聖經」後，民間不滿情绪開始發酵。根據「The Harapan Tracker」最新統計，希盟宣言裡的545項大大小小的承諾，至今只落實了23項（4.2%），411項（近四分之三）紋風不動。華社擔心統考承認事宜，可能是永遠走不完的「一哩路」，情感上難免受傷。

民權組織非議政府不只無意廢除煽動法令等多項惡法，還繼續援引來調查去年杪的興都廟騷亂事件。在某些政策頻頻急轉彎、出爾反爾U轉（如簽署反歧視國際公約ICERD），那些惡評如潮的政策如第三國產車計劃卻一意孤行。政府漸漸少提「改革議程」，常歸咎「都是前朝政府的錯」來當擋箭牌。希盟要員忙著招兵買馬搶奪資源，安插親信入官聯公司。

當政治人物言而無信，終日盤算利益，卻有支持者辯稱希盟政府經驗尚淺，還在邯鄲學步，批評者要有耐心不得操之過急。更有者反唇相譏指「聖人」總愛在道德制高點指指點點，沒有顧全大局，不諳實際政治操作就是要下場「把手弄髒」（Dirty Hands）。

從政者需有倫理誠信

問題是，若視政治本質為黑箱作業、赤裸裸的權力鬥爭，當初就不會相信選票會帶來改變。回顧歷史，政治不能也不應離開道德倫理的討論。古希臘哲學家亞里士多德認為政治乃一切事物所繫，引領我們活出美好生活（to live a good life）。那本應是政治的目的、從政者追求的基本價值。就如醫生要有醫德，為了治好病人，以病人為先。我們可以接受醫生教師等專業人士欺騙、忽略我們的要求嗎？那麼對政治人物也應有基本職業倫理與誠信要求，以人民利益為本。

根據遠景研究中心（CENBET）2018年最新民調，馬來西亞政治人物的公眾信任度僅有16%。72%受訪者認為一個有信用的政治人物應誠實問政；63%認為應有處理複雜國是的勇氣，至於有無高教育程度（29%）或財富（19%）並不重要。

對亞里士多德來說，人類是「政治動物」（political animal）——政治是眾人之事，並不「外包」給專業政治人物。透過政治實踐，可獲取生活技巧、辨別是非，培養美德。打從西方文明開始，政治就是攸關眾人的大規模倫理實踐。除了需商榷最好的方法和手段，也需靠各方合作，相互支援（尤其是那些既得利益及支配者），才能共同達致美好生活。春秋戰國的中國是政治思想最百花齊放的時期，儒家思想也強調以倫理政治為核心。所謂「遊文六經之中，留意於仁義之際」，「仁義」是儒家的中心思想，常用來規範自身行為。

有人看到的盡是負面教材，因而認為亞里士多德太天真、太理想主義、太「離地」，政治豈可能扯上倫理道德？他們誤以為，有人起初是追求正義的理想主義者，赫然發現原來政治是為了權力鬥爭，後來無不變成「現實主義者」（realist）。這裡頭可以想像的代表是马基维利（Machiavelli）、霍布斯或列寧，論述的秩序總是理想在先，權力現實在後。可是，公元前四世紀的古希臘雅典人並不是這麼想，他們熱衷反思批判，假設可以不再因循前人，就能釋放自我、改變現狀。年少輕狂的我們不也曾想這樣改變世界？二十年前「烈火莫熄」政改運動，不是矢言大破大立嗎？當時政治論述、道德判斷可曾缺席。為何如今堅持信念卻招致「站在道德高地」之譏？

公民社會應參與決策

亞里士多德認為，我們可以為個人及整體社會生活抉擇，養成好習慣，多培養美德，有了歷練才能確保作出好的選擇。換句話說，公民社會得積極參與決策，才會有良好的選擇結果。這就是亞里士多德所謂的「審議政治」（Politics of deliberation）。縱使審議政治不在於所有人需達成共識、同意某項說法，但過程中得判斷抉擇，說服其他不同意見者。

現代政治論述最棘手的是道德詞彙匱乏，逐漸被市場和經濟語言取代。後者貌似中立客觀，其實不然。大學掌舵人盲目追求提升大學國際排名，衡量政策能否帶來更多投資回酬，卻已遺忘大學之本必須是教育與學術機構；社會也不能用捐款多寡，來決定是否值得支持公共圖書館；藍領階級勞工領取低薪，可能與他們的「生產量」或「效率」提升與否無關。道德詞彙如說「公平」（薪資）和「自由」（意見表達），更能反映出主體事物的目的、功能與社會價值。這些不是經濟數據和市場價格可以反映出來的。

有人主張不談個人道德或人治，要談制度和法治。但立法和設計制度過程中，無可避免涉及目標和其中價值取向，並非是道德空洞論述。若要人民繼續關心政治，打造一個有活力、永續的政治共同體，先決條件就是這個社會要有可以憑靠的道德辭藻，成為政治理想信念的原動力。民主社會應該樂見有道德原則者持續臧否政治人物，反而要担心為政者變質、失去道德原則卻不再有人批評，才對！

原文鏈接：http://contemporary-review.com.my/2019/02/03/1-145/

让民主声音更多元化

长年在野的反对阵线，去年可说是个政治「惊喜」年。在现有的选举制度下，特別是在天平原本就相当倾斜的系统，人民怨气积深，选箱一开竟然在多处狂吹反风，大至跨了执政门槛换政府。有人说，这是「简单多数」选制依然可取的证据，只要选区划分得体、选民册弄「乾净」、选委会中立，选举舞弊一旦减少，换政府不再是不可能的事，一人一票的民主就会显露发挥出来。事实上真的是如此？

希望联盟新政府已执政了超过半年，这个联盟的合作模式或许就是这个选制的產物。为了入主布城换联邦政府这梦寐以求的目標，倡导和推崇多元种族文化的人民公正党和民主行动党，不得不重审局势允许以高喊並主张土著权利的土团党加入希盟。更令人大跌眼镜的是，他们推举马哈迪医生重作冯妇当首相候选人。

后来的选举成绩显示了希盟的胜利，而土团党以小刀锯大树姿態斩获13席国席，以小党主导政府內阁行政，拿下6个部长职（包括首相、內政部长和教育部长）。我投下的选票是否意味著我支持或默认如此的局势安排？假设我不同意，当初我还有什么其他选择?

票票不等值

在「简单多数」选制之下，主要的在野阵线政党为了不要分散选票而败给当时佔优势的国阵，选前联盟佈侷促成单挑互换票成了主流选举策略（唯有单飞的伊党成为能左右选情的「第三势力」老牌政党）。基本上这造就了三个问题：一，选民未必能在选区內直接投票给自己心属的政党；二，选民未必认同出战的伙伴党和其候选人；三，选民不能拥有更接近他们政治理念的政党在该区上阵，由于目前选制胜出的门槛过高而仍未面世。

坦白地说，身为梳邦区选民的我，深深地体会到目前选制並未赋予我的那张选票同等价值。我的国会议员黄基全狂风扫落叶地狂胜9万2353多数票，贏的也仅是一席。而同样在雪州大港国席，土团党贏714多数票，总得票仅1万7350。

固然当中的问题是选区划分的大小，但我的选票「价值」仅能决定一席。输家的票以及狂胜的多数票，对全国选情已没有其他作用和影响。所以你手上的票如果是属于其中一项，难免你会觉得你的选票「没价值」或「浪费」了，特別是当你的选区是某党的堡垒区，选情已毫无悬念。

选举无可厚非要选为当地服务发言的代议士，但目前的选制並不鼓励跨区域单元课题斗爭如环境正义、性別权益、劳工课题等的领袖和政党。要贏得当地国会议席，候选人的深耕服务与否未必是指標，因为主流政党的知名度、財力撑腰势力和动员支援力量通常更为关键。社会主义党在本届大选的惨败结果是借镜，说明了目前的选制不利第三势力小党自力更生进入议会。

小政党难生存

首先，地方选举仍未被恢復，小党无法在获胜门槛较低的民主平台取得突破，展示问政甚至执政地方的实力。地方选举也是小党深耕服务最有可能被认同的舞台。一旦没有地方选举，到了州级和全国级的选举，小党的劣势就明显浮现。

试问为何我国没有出现类似国外的绿党？当绿色盛会的前领导人黄德都选择加入主流政党，独立在外的小党真的有希望能取得零的突破？成立政党，若非为了贏得席位获得代表权发挥政治影响力，就没有其他道理了。

要知道，一个全国性政党竞选需要涉及一笔不小的预算经费和人力。即便是地方政党，要维持一党持续运作和保持党员的士气，若政党贏不到议席而要等五年再重来，这將会是一个重大考验。人生苦短没有太多的五年蹉跎。这点，问问马华和民政党就知道了。

再说，目前我国並未制度化公费拨款补助符合资格的政党。这让有希望执政的大政党较容易被利益集团「投资」和「绑架」，小党要维持若不仰赖財主不然就是眾筹。即使要靠眾筹来维持一个政党的生存和发展，尤其是一个没有议会代表权的「蚊子党」，委实不容易。

联立制更民主

要在简单多数决的选区击败传统大党谈何容易？即使有潜在的支持者，小党总担心选民最后会否因「大局」而弃保。有了比例代表选制的政党票，这將能鼓舞小党另闢蹊径爭取散落在全国（或州內）各地的支持者把票投给该党，以让他们能跨过最低门槛进入议会议政。有了这个选择，选民不必因青睞政党没在该区上阵而「含泪投票」给他人。

若比例代表选制採取类似德国或纽西兰的「联立制」，政党票还可產生互补作用，弥补「简单多数」选区议席数目的不足。如此一来，政党之间也就无需选前结盟，各政党竞爭发展对地方民主建设有好处。选民也因有了更多开放多元的政治选择，而找到了更接近自己政治意识的政党代表。这样的局面不是更有利于民主的多元发展，更能反映民主声音吗？

有者担忧比例代表选制將提供「温床」给极端右翼份子进入议会。事实上，目前在国会里，狭隘的种族宗教右倾的议员们还会少吗？

我不认同「极端」这个標籤，如果说一个右倾政党能获得大幅度的支持票，这代表了一个不容忽视但真实的民主声音，即便这不是你认同的。这可能是集体对现实政治不满的警讯，需要其他政党正视並如何爭取回支持。

反之，比例代表制开了一个契机，让民主自由进步的理想型政党有了一个希望的据点，集合各地志同道合的支持力量跨过门槛进入议会將民主更多元化！

刊登于《東方日報》東方文薈版2019年1月13日

Facebook43TwitterMessenger

Public policy and the role of the public intellectual

How can the government encourage more people to adopt public transport so as to solve the problem of traffic jams?

Should local elections – if these are re-introduced – consider the issue of racial composition and representation?

Would the proposal to transform our current healthcare system into a social insurance model enable more people to have accessible and affordable healthcare?

Out of the various models of sustainable development, which would be the most suitable for particular places in Malaysia to adopt, in order to preserve our natural environment and also promote our cultural heritage?

Finally, would changing our country’s electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation give our citizens a more democratic voice?

The questions above involve public policy discussions to a certain extent. Some may be ideologically oriented, while others may be more technical.

The influence and consequences of public policy may vary, from issues with huge implications that might potentially decide your individual rights as a citizen or foreign resident, to basic needs such as a right to shelter and food; or its impact might appear to be so insignificant that you feel it has nothing to do with you.

Some policies could have long-term impacts on groups of people several generations down the line, such as the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the 1970s.

Some policies also could bring about permanent and irreversible changes, such as certain forest land management policies which permit oil palm plantations to convert and replace primary forests.

Knowledge is power

In Malaysia, policymaking decisions seem to habitually stem from a top-down process. Sometimes, it could be rooted in a certain political actor’s will or out-of-the-blue ‘creative’ thoughts, such as the third national car and property ‘crowdfunding’ policy.

To many people, the ability to influence public policy debates seems to be confined to the political elite. 

Some may believe that the realm of public policy is out of their reach, leading them to forfeit any opportunity to participate in meaningful public policy discussions.

This self-defeating mentality probably has to do with the impression that policymaking is technically too complex, or that they are unable to fully grasp the nuances of policy debates.

Furthermore, others may have lost faith and hope in the country’s political system. The euphoria that has been generated from witnessing the change of federal government for the first time in history has long gone.

Instead, they are more inclined to believe that policy discussion would change nothing, because it is politics akin to Game of Thrones – whereby politicians would act in a similar way to serve their self-interest by keeping the status quo when it comes to politically advantageous policies.

Former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan once said: “Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family."

The statement should also apply to our political and civil education. This is because if the people can understand the issues and policies better, then they could be more aware of their own rights, and will not be easily swayed or cheated.

In that way, public opinion could be recognised and turned into a formidable force to oppose and resist unreasonable or unjust policies. It would also help to promote a rational, progressive, democratically mature society.

Policy discussions may take place in a kopitiam, grassroots style, or be held in a posh and premium hotel ballroom and rigorously debated by fellow academics. Despite all that, the outcome still has to go back to the discussant, and whether he or she has conducted any study.

Serious public policy work must show professionalism and integrity in taking account all possible facets of evidence (within a reasonable limitation), that would determine whether the analyses and deductions can convince the public.

If a public policy does not go through a deep and thorough research process, or does not rely on facts and evidence for future projections, it would lack robust theoretical support and a foundation in widely accepted international best practices. The probability of such a policy failing to reach its intended goals is high.

In the end, who should answer for the consequences, cost, and responsibility for such policy failures? Instead of delegating the task of scrutinising government policies to opposition parties, could the public themselves effectively monitor the government’s performance, and directly hold them accountable?

A learning process

Public policy research is a learning process. As a member of the Penang state government’s think-tank and a public policy research analyst, it is my duty not just to amass knowledge but also to spread the seeds of thought, hoping that a new perspective could influence or change society or at least create public discussion.

In order to gain the public’s trust and confidence, what is most important is to be persistent in maintaining the standards of one’s objectivity and professionalism when expressing and defending one’s research outcome in a fair and transparent manner.

If public policy research is publicly funded, it should imply that public interest is very much involved, and thus the research outcomes should be shared with the public. In other words, I believe that I should be seen as an employee of taxpayers, and therefore held accountable to the public.

So, here I am in my position of influence, and therefore I have to honour my obligation as a public intellectual. For that reason, I have to walk out of my ‘armchair and air-conditioned room’ comfort zone and walk into the daily lived experiences of the man on the street. Only then would my proposed policy be worth anyone's salt.

If policymaking were to be compared to a battle of ideas, policy advocates pacing around this ‘battlefield’ must recognise the current situation and be well-versed in the ‘topography’ of issues that one feels strongly about.

He or she could then be in control of the defensive-offensive strategy in winning the battle of influencing and implementing the said policy. There could be room for the omission of menial details, but policymakers or advocates must ensure that the crux of a policy should be steered in the right direction.

Penang is my base, and my work as a public intellectual originates from there. However, my work should not be constrained within the aforementioned locality.

In what is being identified as a strongly federated nation such as Malaysia, the most contentious policy ideas are arguably centred around Parliament in Kuala Lumpur and the corridors of power in Putrajaya.

We have witnessed the historic moment in the 14th general election when the peaceful democratic transition of federal power took place in Putrajaya. The new ruling coalition was named after ‘hope’ and consists of parties which fought for a long period persistently on the ideals of Reformasi and an overarching multiracial philosophy of ‘Malaysian Malaysia’.

The remaining question is, what are the policies and strategies in place to build a progressive and hopeful new multiracial Malaysia?

I would argue that policies that truly solve the needs of the public are the real backbone of reforms that are badly required in a country which had been mismanaged for decades. 

For the coming weekends, my colleagues from the Penang Institute will talk about issues and policies, and share their stories in this space, hopefully to continue inspiring new narratives in the new political era of Malaysia.

The article was published here at Malaysiakini, Opinion, Jan 6, 2019

Phone interview with SCMP on diabetes in Malaysia

When the journalist from South China Morning Post wanted to arrange a phone interview with me on a favourite health-related subject which I am doing research and my expertise and interest could offer, I just said yes. And I remember I talked to Meaghan for more than half hour on this when she called from HK and wanted to find out the situation in Malaysia.

Below are the parts she quoted me. For the record, I do praise Singapore for what they deserve. On public health and urban planning, Malaysia could learn quite a lot from them.

***

// While doctors and scientists now know more about the disease than ever, their expertise has not yet translated into effective, coherent policy across the board. As a result, millions remain at risk.

“This challenge reflects what society values,” said Lim Chee Han, senior analyst at Malaysian think tank Penang Institute. “If values don’t change, how can public health change?”

...

In Malaysia, where most citizens rely on public health care, the cost of diabetes is mounting. More than 3 million Malaysians have diabetes, and Lim reports Malaysia spends 16 per cent of its health care budget on treating the disease. Lim’s research identified Malaysia as the most sedentary nation in Southeast Asia.

“Malaysians really love their cars and would prefer to be in a traffic jam instead of walking,” he said.

...

Type 2 diabetes can be prevented or delayed through early detection, healthy diet and exercise. But experts note the diet and exercise decisions people make are often constrained by their environment – proximity to parks, pricing of healthy food versus unhealthy food, and time off from work to cook and work out.

“Behaviour change will not just result from taxes,” Lim said. “It will also result from urban planning, advertising and government interventions in limiting the market for unhealthy food.”

For example, local officials should work together with the Ministry of Housing to build more bicycle lanes and parks.

“Comparing Malaysia with Singapore, there’s a major difference because of urban planning,” he said, noting Singapore prioritised walkability in its urban development, with better connected public transport options.

...

Lim said that in Malaysia, people of all incomes are buying sugary food. His research indicated age, rather than income, determined levels of sugar consumption. Lim said the government should intervene in the market to make healthier options, such as brown rice, more affordable for consumers.

“The government needs to take concrete steps to intervene and not simply let the free market dictate food consumption,” Lim said. “Like cigarette smoking – why not do the same with junk food?” //

Original article: Death by sugar: Can South-east Asia win the war on diabetes?

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2179776/death-sugar-can-southeast-asia-win-war-diabetes

Review of my 2018, outlook for 2019

What did 2018 mean to me? to me it signifies big changes in many ways.

To my immediate family:
Xiao Hui has finally got back to workforce in June but also undertaken a very challenging (and demanding) job as a country project manager for an international health organisation. My knowledge could help her only a little bit, more was to cover her and shoulder more responsibility in terms of taking care of Yee Chern. She had made quite a number of travels for her project operation, and will continue to do so in the coming year.Likewise, I thanked my wife for covering me at night sometimes when I had to deliver a talk in public forum or make a talkshow appearance or had important activist meeting to attend!
Yee Chern was sent to childcare centre when he was barely 2 years old. But he is doing very well there, and widely liked by teachers, staffs and peers. In a way, I dedicated more time to be with Yee Chern on one-to-one basis, and had more bonding time together. His personal development in skills and language has grown leaps and bounds, he never stops amazing and surprising us with his new abilities.
Also, now we have to plan for the arrival of Yee Chern's meimei in next May =) 

To my country:
I have to put this first after my family, because it is the main source of changes to my career, activism, circle of friendship, view of nation, society, people and values. The GE14 on May 9th this year was indeed the watershed moment, which its outcome presented more uncertainties, hopes and fears, opportunities and threats to the current way of doing things in governance and politics. We witnessed a peaceful transition of power for the Federal government and many state governments in Malaysia after 61 years of ruling under the same regime via the collective democratic votes (no thanks to the electoral system, though). 
Before the general election, I had already seen how the realignment of civil society groups and Pakatan Harapan politicians to the apex leadership of "The-Return-of-King" Mahathir, in the pretext of 'Big Picture' and desperation to get rid of Najib's cohorts. What the Pakatan as well as certain prominent pakatan-friendly NGOs (and individuals) had conceded, are not only the reformed agendas but progressive ideals conceived since the Reformasi-movement in the late 90s. Principles and moral values, they did not think they were important, as if there were no better solutions and choices; some would be even willing to take unethical approaches to get to the seat of power, nevermind shortcuts. 
Changing the federal government could be one of the means to introduce and implement reformed policies, not the ends itself. The so-called 'New Malaysia' as I observe until now, it has not yet installed the new system yet. I do not want to live in an illusion until I see those very meaningful reforms have taken place. Already I am disappointed with many good policy proposals in the PH GE14 manifesto not being fulfilled (not that I do not have some reservations about the document itself), especially about ICERD and the promise to do away with many draconian and freedom stifling laws. What some activists forewarned about the potential danger and pitfalls about returning Mahathir to the reign, today here I am examining again, yes, they do spot on, and yes, Mahathir is still the same Mahathir. Just look at the recent PPBM AGM, you can see that they gain the political dominance with clever inner-coalition politicking, and worse, the bumiputera/Malay agenda and institutionalised racism have made a comeback to the forefront, with an aim to replace UMNO as the Malay champion. Trust me, it feels like living back in the 90s , and if I take away the speaker names in some of the speeches, you would be mistaken as if that were from UMNO. Mahathir also said the same things strengthening the racial stereotype biases, unashamedly.
If the PH coalition is still dominantly/hegemonically governed by Mahathir's party, the 'New Malaysia' has not born, it is just a change of regime name. My vote was given to a PKR MP did not mean an endorsement to Mahathir's way of governance. I am pessimistic and still worry about the rest of the reformed agenda in this PH government, they have to prove me wrong and cannot blame me for my weak faith in them judging on what has been transpired and happened in the country post-509 until today. My personal hope is, there should be a rise of progressive left-leaning political third force, with the aim of overtaking the current defunct and still hopeless UMNO-MCA-MIC pact. Given the current electoral system is prohibitive for the establishment of new political force, I would hope that there would at least be a reinstatement of local elections and perhaps a change of FPTP system to PR system which gives more surviving space for smaller and local political parties.

To my career/ current profession:
Policy research is my passion and it is something I consider myself rather competent and excel at. Change is only expected ever after the federal government was put in the grasp of PH. Penang Institute decides to expand its capacity as well as influence, talk directly to the power in Putrajaya while the Penang state government has strengthened their grip on the state DUN. The previous General Manager Dr Ong Kian Ming who was re-elected as a MP and he grabbed the opportunity offered to be a deputy minister, thus he resigned from the position. We do wish him well, and thanked him for the guidance and trust placed on us. I believe that we did perform rather well in raising the profile of the institute. The researchers in KL would be more integrated/streamlined with the colleagues in Penang, on research as well as administration. With a few colleagues would be relocating to the KL office (including my good friends Kenneth and Chin Huat), the current cosy office space we occupied in the Uppercase APW Bangsar was deemed too small. In the coming month, we would be moving  to a larger office at KL Gateway, we have to adapt to the new (physical) working environment and administration style. I am also reassigned to the research department called Institutional Reforms and Governance (linked with Political Studies section), given the understanding that the current health-related policy research focus would still be ongoing. I wish that my research works would still be appreciated and supported, for the benefits of the institute, and Penang taxpayers.
I had quite an active and productive yet meaningful year to show for my work performance. Below is the statistics of my work for 2018:

8 TMI articles

9 Oriental Daily articles

4 Contemporary Review articles

2 Media statements

2 Penang Institute ISSUES articles

2 subchapter contribution to the Penang Economic and Development Report (yet to be published)

1 article/chapter contribution to a Singaporean Studies publication (in Chinese, yet to be published)

1 ISEAS Trends in Southeast Asia publication

1 Malaysian Studies Conference full proceeding paper

1 UNU-IIGH's SCHEMA case studies paper

1 Penang Monthly cover story

1 Penang Monthly stats

1 Penang Monthly interview feature

3 paper presentation

2 poster presentation

3 public forum in mandarin

1 workshop in mandarin

More than 16 media-interview engagements on various topics, including 2 video appearance on talk shows.

Mentorship guidance provided for 2 interns.

Peer reviewer for my colleagues for the institutional TMI and Oriental Daily columns

The most unforgetable experience was taking the position speaking up for the abolishment of death penalty in Malaysia. I was cursed, humiliated, belittled, scolded by many individuals/netizens whom I never met before, given the public opinion was standing about 80% against the motion. Nevermind that, I NEVER REGRET for doing what I believe in, and I am super glad about an important piece of legal research I managed to conclude and co-author with a prominent human rights lawyer (also my friend) Ms Ngeow Chow Ying and my trusted intern Harchana. The experience of speaking and sharing the same stage with the new MCA president Wee Ka Siong was also something I can never forget... of course any possible last remaining good impression of him has completely gone after the talk.
I also did something I could not imagine... I was invited as a panelist and spoke in an online talkshow (hosted by PSM)  in almost entirely Bahasa Malaysia for 45 min! I simply just took up the challenge, while it might not be very good but i feel that it was a nice attempt for the first time.
Talking about column writing, next year we will be migrating over to Malaysiakini platform, and hopefully we will make bigger impact in readership in disseminating our policy ideas. One paper on medical tourism in Penang is long overdue, I would have to complete the write up to conclude the project. I have also taken up a challenge to co-write a chapter for the UNU-IIGH on a health-related topic, and this will have to be delivered by the 3rd quarter of 2019! I already look forward to another productive work year ahead, although there could be still some uncertainties await me.

To my activism/ social movement activities:
Many might not be aware (some do), I co-found a NGO called Agora Society Malaysia with a group of activist friends in Jan 20th, 2018. It is a national-level organisation linking up activists, public intellectuals, writers/columnists across different regions in Malaysia, who support democracy values and good governance, ready to be a voice and an influence for progressive, inclusive, just and fair policies reaching out to the general public and policymakers. We are independent and non-partisan, we believe in rational public discourse and policy debates, and we are critical to the things that did not do right.
We feel that it was a right time for doing that because certain rational voices were lacking after the civil society vaccuum created (before and after GE14) when some prominent NGO leaders had either joined/co-opted or become too sympathetic to the new government. Of course, this particular political/activist stand of mine might not be comfortable to some, but I am not apologetic for doing what I believe in. I still keep my cool, rational yet critical head, willing to engage with different political discourse with no bad feelings towards some I still call my friends. I had made my stands clear about the roles of NGO in the post-GE14 Malaysia, in one mandarin public forum representing my NGO. One thing I want to clarify is that, I do not want to interfere certain friendship/relationship with my activist views, so long the person did not speak ill of me in public I would still want to be friendly or diplomatic to him/her (ie. keep my composure).

To my friends:
Time is often limited on my side, as much as i would like to maintain good relationship with many of my friends, often i have to prioritise and distribute time well among family, work, activism, personal hobbies, and many other friends! I treasure/cherish my good working relationship with my colleagues, and I always adopt more inclusive stance and make friend with them as much as I could.
My KL colleagues are all my friends already, and they are awesome! I do also spend increasingly more time with my activist friends, not only for socialising events and random chit-chats, sometimes we incorporated important organisation strategies discussion during our precious meetings. For long time friends, usually my policy is to engage them now and then, and give them some priorities if I was approached too. I have some really good friends from my high school period, I had only seen them a couple of times in 2018, but each time we meet , our hearts grow fonder. I know that next year it will be even more challenging (especially the latter half year), given that my daughter is expected to be due in late May. I know my true friends would understand me.

More responsibilities and challenges to me in 2019, bring it on. Happy New Year 2019, everyone!