The state of Malaysian diplomacy
Yap Yok Foo
17th Nov 1998
The state of Malaysian diplomacy
STANDARDS MUST BE IMPROVED AT INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL
LEVELS
By ABDULLAH AHMAD
FORTY-one years ago as the result of the passionate desire and much
sacrifice (albeit bloodless) and hope, we became independent whilst
remaining a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Subsequently, on September 17 1957 we became the 82nd member of the
United Nations (UN).
At the start of Merdeka, thirteen commonwealth and foreign countries
established diplomatic missions in Kuala Lumpur. We opened nine
diplomatic missions overseas.
There were then, 6,276,912 Malaysians, based on a preliminary census
report at midnight June 17/18 1957, made up of slightly over three
million Malays, 2,366,656 Chinese, 740,436 Indians and Pakistanis and
95,658 others. The Malaysian population (with the inclusion of Sabah
and Sarawak in Malaysia in 1963) now is nearly 22 million, sixty per
cent of whom are bumiputras.
The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), better known as the
Foreign Office, oversees British activity in the fields of diplomacy
and international relations. Wismaputra does the same for us.
Running Wismaputra is not like running the Ministry of Education or
the Ministry of Agriculture because the very nature of diplomacy is
not quite as straight forward. What we do or don't do depends on many
factors which in many cases - no matter how good the Malaysian
diplomats are - cannot be foreseen, much less controled. This is even
true for a superpower like the US. It was true in 1957 and even more
so now with 185 independent nations and a hundred international
organisations in the world.
There are 85 foreign diplomatic missions including a UN representative
office in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia has 79 diplomatic missions at various
levels overseas: 54 ambassadorial, two Permanent representatives, nine
charge d'afaires, 10 consuls-general, two consuls and one deputy high
commissioner.
Despite the economic meltdown, we can't close any of these embassies,
although we may delay in opening new ones and we coulod reduce the
personnel in some missions. Some of our missions are directly
concerned with political and strategic interests imperative to the
furtherance of our foreign policies and security and these missions
may even have to be strengthened and consolidated.
Diplomacy is the art of persuasion, accommodation and compromise. Not
even the only remaining superpower - the US - can attempt to impose
all its desires in the hostile international environment in which it
functions.
The American attempt to devastate and prostrate Iraq is a good
example. I have no doubt that Washington has the military power to
further devastate Iraq and other means to deprive the Iraqi people. At
the same time, it will not try to deteriorate the situation unless it
has substantial support from the international community through the
UN.
The life of a diplomat, whether one likes it or not, revolves around
dinners, receptions, visits, games and in some countries the
participation in customs and rituals no matter how antiquated and
wasteful they are. Few people without imagination can be expected to
comprehend this.
Because diplomacy is an art, like all other arts it eludes scientific
analysis. Nevertheless, its successes and failures can and are
quantified. When the Malayan Foreign Service was established in 1957
(a few officers were sent for training a year before independence to
Britain, Australia and India) it was run by Datuk Nik Ahmad Kamil
(later Tan Sri) with Ghazali Shafie (later Tan Sri) as deputy
permanent secretary (now called secretary-general). The first Minister
of Foreign Affairs (then called the Minister of External Affairs) was
Tunku Abdul Rahman himself. Until the late seventies the Foreign
Ministry had always been headed by the Prime Minister except for a
brief period when it had been lead by Tun Dr Ismail bin Abdul Rahman.
In 1957, the total personnel (diplomats and supporting staff) of
Wismaputra was less than 100; now it is 1,039 including 282 diplomats.
The first home of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the Federal
Secretariat housed in the Sultan Abdul Samad Building (now the Supreme
Court) opposite the Royal Selangor Club in front of Merdeka Square
where Tunku declared Merdeka at midnight on August 30 1957.
Our greater wealth, the increase in the number of bilateral relations,
the involvement in multilateral organisations, increased trade,
commerce, defence and security interests and other subjects which have
been inextricably woven into diplomacy and international relations,
have made us grow rapidly, especially in the eighties and nineties.
Wismaputra, like the civil service as a whole, has had to increase its
staff to cope with its growing responsibility and the growing
complexities of international (and national) life. Staff grow. It is
natural because new responsibilities and tasks have emerged which must
be tackled. In fact, the number of Malaysian diplomats has grown far
less proportionately than most other ministries although their
workload and areas of coverage have grown almost beyond the
imagination of their founding fathers.
It is a great credit to these diplomats for a job well done. There is
still vast room for improvement if Malaysia wants to be taken as a
consistently serious player in international, regional and
sub-regional diplomacy.
The one thing which we lack is expertise or specialised skills in
several crucial areas such as nuclear disarmament, human rights,
international finance, law, land mines, weapons and treaties, nor do
we have a section which deals exclusively with economic affairs. We
should have an economic section as the emphasis of international
relations today has moved from politics to economics.
Of course, Wismaputra has several officers who are knowledgeable but
there is a vast difference between an expert in nuclear, biological,
chemical weapons as well as nerve gas and someone who is merely
knowledgeable.
The other aspect which needs to be looked at seriously and urgently is
the proficiency in foreign languages and even Bahasa Malaysia of our
diplomats. There is no doubt, on the whole, of the unquestionable
ability and intelligence of most of our diplomats, However, if they
lack language proficiency and social graces, their confidence will
suffer.
I am never worried about the size of an organisation as long as it is
not wasteful and out of control. As long as it produces what the
Government and national interests deem absolutely imperative we should
not be pound foolish and penny wise.
It needs to be remembered that all significant changes in the sizes of
staff (upwards or downsizing) of any ministry or department follow
changes in national policy and changes in functions, responsibilities
and the state-of-the-art technology in multi-media and communications.
As a result of the currency devaluations, Wismaputra has also suffered
like any other
organisation. Wismaputra has borne burdens before, although this one
is a little heavier due to the economic crisis.
Malaysia, despite the bad publicity and the difficult political and
economic situation, was easily elected for the third time to the
powerful UN Security Council. This is a great honour for Malaysia.
Thailand and Indonesia were members of the Security Council twice.
The Malaysian diplomats have a good reason to congratulate themselves
- I know because I have been involved with Wismaputra since the days
of the Indonesian Konfrontasi. By and large, our diplomats have
scrupulously been suppressing their own individual political
viewpoints - especially during the Indonesian confrontation, the
separation with Singapore, the race riots, political developments in
the eighties and the current Anwar Ibrahim crisis - to loyally
represent the national policy and attitudes as instructed by the
Government.
So long as this is always sustained there is no compelling practical
nor political reason not to choose our potential diplomats from the
most intelligent and socially well-adjusted; however restricted and
rarefied it may appear.
While knowledge in politics, history, economics and philosophy is
essential as is social adequacy and grace, they are not everything in
foreign affairs and diplomacy. The true impact of these possessions is
enormous, and certainly cannot and must not be ignored.
Over the years and more so in future, the attitude of Malaysian
diplomats will count for much in their work. What I mean is that while
they are Malaysian nationals, they must have no religious or racial
prejudices. They must be forward looking while simultaneously not
ignoring the realism which exists at home.
Diplomats live in a succession of different nations and cultures and
the skilful ones will never ignore the non-economic and non-political
factors operating in the world diplomacy and international relations.
All members of Wismaputra, branch 'A' officers in particular and their
wives are liable to be called upon to make speeches in public. This is
something most ambassadors and special envoys have often and
sometimes, these speeches are carried by the mass media.
What's worrying, according to a very reliable source, is that neither
the civil service, the police, the military, Wismaputra nor the
political arena are getting quality recruits. It would seem as if
every top graduate, both foreign-educated and home-grown, shuns the
Govermnent service because of the poor pay, conditions of service, the
slow and poor prospects of promotions as well as the yards of
bureaucratic red tape.
If you are liked, it is not unknown for an officer of average ability
to be promoted, bypassing ten to sixteen senior officers above him.
Resentment against increasing bureaucratism, rigourous protocol and
wasteful ceremonies causes frustration for those already in the
service and keeps talented Malaysians from joining the Government
service.
There will be enough recruits who find it hard to get jobs in private
sector, but they will generally be of poor quality. And unless we get
candidates of quality, we may in the long run suffer and be satisfied
with the average Malaysian who may lack, amongst others, urbanity,
poise, a quick wit and toughness in negotiations.
I would like to recall a fair observation made by the late Tan Sri
Zain Azraai, a good friend of long standing. Zain, one of the
prominent and distinguished civil servants, the epitome of a pukka
diplomat of any nationality who was schooled at the right institutions
- Victoria Institution and Oxford - was offered to the creme de la
creme of postings (the UN and Washington), once said to me: "You know,
the civil service may appear to have suffered because of many reasons
but make no mistake, there are some exceptionally able young officers
in both the Home and Foreign Service. Several are of high calibre."
The Civil Service is the oldest, costliest and most influential of all
our institutions. I have observed with fascination the civil service
for over forty years; got to know several top personnel very well; the
key people who made up the profession, including those latent officers
who discreetly mould public policy just like the "back-room
pliticians" who formulate and influence the direction of our various
policies.
I absolutely agree with what Zain said. However, I would like to add
this; we should improve this standing army of power in order to
enhance and sustain the survival of the nation it serves.
All diplomats, especially when overseas, are expected to socialise,
entertain and be entertained. They should build up personal as well as
official relationships with officials of the host country if the best
results are to be obtained and friendly and cordial contacts
maintained.
I was for thirteen years an operative in the Prime Minister's office,
holding various ranks (1963-76), four years a backbencher in
Parliament and many years an Umno divisional leader and in the private
sector until I became the Special Envoy of the Govermnent of Malaysia
at the UN in 1996.
I can say with humility that I have seen and done it all or at least
been there, for which I am grateful. Life as a diplomat or the spouse
of a diplomat is different from that of a politician. Just as life for
a Malaysian diplomat at home differs from his life abroad.
For instance, unless the Malaysian diplomat is very senior he is not
expected to devote too much time to socialising with the foreign
diplomats; his social responsibility is left to his personal
discretion. It should ideally be rare whereas abroad it is an
important part of his job.
In our New York Permanent Mission, we have presently a mid-level Home
service officer on attachment for three years. Once this officer
returns to Home service, just like his counterpart in Wismaputra (when
he is transferred home) and unless he is promoted to the top of his
respective bureaucratic hierarchy he leads, I'm afraid, the life of a
civil servant of his rank without much of the "glamour" which he had
enjoyed at the UN. For this Kelantan-born officer, the New York
assigmnent should change his perspective and views and this could only
be good for him. Rarely have there been (one or two maybe) cases of
Malaysian diplomats "losing" their "keperibadian bangsa" - national
identity for having served too long overseas.
They either lacked imagination or deliberately acted as if they could
not imagine the changes that had taken and are taking place at home.
There is no substitute really for regular direct contact with one's
own country and living in Kuala Lumpur after say, three or five years
abroad.
Of course, there should be exceptional cases as in the case of Tan Sri
Razali Ismail, who retired last summer after ten years as our
Permanent Representative to the UN, to date the longest holder ever to
hold the job since we became a member of the UN.
Razali was a special case because he did return home regularly and as
a result was in direct contact with what was going on rather than just
via reading cables and home newspapers. He was perceived to have
changed little. He was the President of the 52nd United Nations
General Assembly, a year before he retired in 1997.
Broadly, the ranks of diplomats at our embassies or missions are
something like this - ambassador, deputy chief of mission (could be an
ambassador or a senior minister depending on where the mission is),
counselor, first secretary, second secretary, third secretary,
attaches while at the Consulate General - Consul-General, Consuls and
Vice-Consuls.
This is an established order of precedence. Where does a Special Envoy
stand? He is given a personal rank of ambassador with specific duties.
A special envoy by nature of his appointment has special functions,
some rather vague and murky as an iconoclast once said.
Malaysia is one of the more progressive Muslim nations. We have always
had women in our foreign service; three have retired as ambassador and
four ambassadors are still in service. Several never went far because
love and marriage intervened and as a result one or two potentially
good diplomats left the service, one of whom was the late Maimun Din,
who became the first woman secretary-general of a ministry.
I do not believe any of the Malaysian female ambassadors was ever
married while in service; two are divorcees, one never married. The
four still in service are all unmarried.
I have lived in Washington DC, London, New York and visited Malaysian
Missions in most parts of the world, some of which are regarded as
hardship posts. To those Malaysian diplomats who are always
complaining, I should emphasise that the degree of enjoyment, interest
and fun does not depend on where they are. The right attitude is
needed.
I have met one or two Malaysian diplomats who are unhappy and
miserable in good postings while at the same titne I had meet many
happy Malaysian diplomats in what is politely described as
"unglamourous" capitals. Realistically speaking there is no nation
which is completely uninteresting. Life, work and enjoyment are what
one makes of them.
No one can make a melancholy and pompous brat happy anywhere. One must
learn to accept life as it comes and make the best of it; taking the
silk smooth patches and going through the bad patches in equal
measure. I know a junior diplomat who is happier than his ambassador
yet he lacks the privileges, perks and social accessibility of his
boss but he is endowed with one thing his boss lacks - the right
attitude towards work and enjoyment.
We have had four Prime Ministers and many Foreign Ministers. The Tunku
was an Anglophile and was pro-Westeen. In the end, though not in the
way that anyone had foreseen, he ended his term with a changed
perspective. Tun Razak reoriented Tunku's domestic as well as foreign
policies with verve, depth and foresight.
He led the nation with forceful enthusiasm. He died young and too
quickly to have finished what he started. Tun Hussein Onn became the
unexpected heir and left office after five years, as the Far Eastern
Economic said, without a ripple. A very senior minister once told me
that Hussein left office because he could no longer cope with high
office.
Datuk Sri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in his eighteenth year in office, has
done much for the nation. He started with some disadvantages which
soon dissapeared. He has, up to now, outmaneuvered two serious
unsuccessful bids for his job. Mahathir's next book should be on how
Malaysian men or women are to obtain power and keep it.
Wismaputra's role - as our first line of defence - at times does seem
limited by internal inertia. However, like fairly inert chemicals it
will not only survive but perform its tasks acceptably and
occasionally, remarkably. Remarkably, we are the first Bahasa
Melayu-speaking nation whose diplomats can sincerely say with a grin;
"what a lovely country we have got to represent."
We cannot let our standards slip now.
http://www.nstpi.com.my/bt