I skipped my thoughts onLondon for MANY reasons. I meant to talk about it at the end of the course, to sum up my experience and final thoughts altogether. Hence, I shared the lessons I learned from the weeks after the London trip in this amateur attempt of looking at the potential of regulating the watchdogs in Malaysia. A tribute to this week’s lessons theme. 

REGULATING THE WATCHDOGS? My friend, PH who just came back from a Conference in Bangkok months ago confided in me before I came for this course, on how upset she was when the NGOs she met during the Conference slammed the National Human Rights Commissions in Asia from various perspectives. I told her;“Take it easy, we are always answerable to them and the people, so what’s new?”“Sure, and who are they answerable to?” I could invent 1001 comforting excuses for my dear colleague but she just made an important query that left me wondering, “Who are these NGOs answerable to? Their funders? Their target beneficiaries? These questions are not meant to get back at the civil society that has been watching every step that the government made and OUR steps, too, being the creature of Parliament. But is the question of accountability and transparency reserved only for the State and its apparatus? Are NGOs, the watchdogs of the government, free from corruption, unjust practices or any form of misuse of power or abuse of public confidence?  I could swear the moment I throw these sorts of questions to my fellow friends in the civil society, they would immediately conclude that I had lost my mind or was brain washed into thinking about regulating the NGOs.  

REGULATION: A HISTORY OF SUPPRESSIONWell,it is unthinkable. But not without any apparent reasons.  Fear and reluctance of being regulated among the NGOs are not merely impromptu instincts or a display of defensive ego. It is deeply rooted in lost of trust, collapse of confidence and ever growing suspicion that has been marring the relationship between the State and civil society for decades. In
Malaysia, regulation associated to right to association or assembly has evolved as an instrument of control that stifled the voice of dissent in the society. In the 70s, the student movement, renowned during that era for their radical voice and action in resisting unjust State policies were dismantled by the government with the enforcement of Universities and College Universities Act 1974. Even before that, Internal Security Act 1960, an act enacted to prevent Communist insurgency outlived its objective when it is also used to detain social and political activists in the country. In the contemporary era, I remember how the act was affectionately refer to as a counterpart of U.S‘s Patriot Act post 9/11 tragedy.  Dear god, of all things. Many of the senior activists in
Malaysia could also still recall the Lalang Operation, a national level state operation in 1987 where mass arrest of opposition politicians, activists, journalists and human rights advocates was conducted in the name of national security and peace. Historically, state regulation, to the civil society, symbolizes state control, draconian laws and wide arbitrary power. It is difficult then, in such “tradition” to be optimistic about any attempts at regulating civil society. It could only spell “trouble” with capital T.   But the question of regulating civil society must be attended to as an urgent agenda. And the agenda itself must be inherently rooted in the basic principles of accountability and transparency. Yes, regulation of civil society must never attempt to infringe on the people’s human right to association especially for the public good but at the same time, it must also ensure that the civil society is accountable and transparent in the course of their work.  

ET TU, NGOS?Many stories either substantiated or sans evidence, were spread about how NGOs can also be “fallen angels”. Complaints on misuse of funds, improper accounts, corruption or the trend of joining NGOs as a stepping stone to achieve better salaries and elite lifestyle are there on the table. Even though not all NGOs are involved, it actually demonstrate the very fact that NGOs are not immune from wrong doings and just as imperfect as a government‘s ministry or human rights institution and deserve some kind of regulation. A close friend told me excitedly how she got an offer to work in a regional NGO. “The pay is good, gee, and I get to go to Geneva annually!”  I waited for her to say something like “I really want this opportunity to work with people in the slums” but of course who am I kidding? Is it her fault that she approaches her job with a human rights organization just as she will approach a corporate portfolio? Or is that the kind of image and culture that the NGOs are giving to the public? This scenario obviously give rise to the question of NGOs reputation and also credibility. I am not sure how regulation might improve this situation. But this scenario to me reflects that NGOs are a bunch of ordinary human beings doing a great job for human kind but not without human flaws. Hence, they should not get so worked up upon the idea of holding them accountable via regulation. 

NICE .vs. TROUBLEMAKERSOne aspect of regulating NGOs that was discussed this week was registration of NGOs. The formal act of registering NGOs should also be seen as recognition of their work in the society and not an attempt of spying the organization or putting them on a legal leash. I foresee the government opening their arms to recognizing the work of cultural, sports, women, children or artistic organizations. But the willingness perhaps will not be just as great if they have to open the doors to civil and political rights advocate groups. To them, these groups are always the troublemakers and rebellious ones. Well, if that will be the case, I am afraid we will be back at square one. Unless and until the government could reconcile their indifference with these groups and try to seek a middle ground, any attempt at regulation could just aggravate the hostility that the present government and civil society is experiencing in their relationship. In fact, groups approved by the government would be seen as the “nice” organizations whereas the groups government is finding hard to recognize would forever be the social pariahs and troublemakers. It’s a tough decision for both sides. One that if not approached with honesty and integrity, would be recorded in history as another sad case of law that lacks conscience and consideration of democracy and human rights.To gain civil society’s trust, government must be ready to LISTEN and prepare to do some system cleansing wherever necessary. An effort to regulate civil society must also be viewed by the government as an opportunity to reform its laws and policies related to freedom of association.

TO-DO LIST

  1. Must not sit on the research to review Societies Act inMalaysia. There are a lot of great materials gathered throughout this week.

  2. Must check out on the Youth Organizations Act 2006 duly enforced this year.
  3. Must discuss with Commission on the possibility of organizing a workshop exploring NGOs view on the most effective framework to regulate civil society in contrast with the existing law.