Most Read
Most Commented

In his book ‘Organisational Theory for Public Administration’, professor of public administration Mike Harmon quotes a real-life story wherein a young five-year-old boy in the US is battered to death by his stepfather. Although most, if not all, of their neighbours had heard of and knew about the wrongdoings, no one spoke up until it was too late.

Harmon’s first book is called ‘Action Theory for Public Administration’, and his second book, mentioned above, is a must-read for all Public Administration students in the US, and (not yet) Malaysia.

The purpose of organisational theory is to illuminate, from a wide variety of perspectives, the organisational contexts within which public administrators act. The book is practical - in ways that are instrumental, moral, and diagnostic. Considering the many schools of thought in organisation theory, they choose an approach which is more modest than synthesis and more useful than merely acknowledging the differences among theories.

Since Harmon was also a teacher-professor to me, allow me to deploy my knowledge, understanding and experience of Malaysian public policy towards the above question. They are guided by learnings and findings from my thesis about “dignity in the workplace”. and now, as applied into the lived spaces of life.

Who is Mohamad Thaqif?

Mohamad Thaqif Amin Mohd Gaddafi is the 11-year-old boy who finally succumbed to alleged physical abuse or punishment under some kind of strict Islamic discipline. The assistant warden has since been charged with murder under the Section 302 of the Penal Code, after the case was reclassified by the police from the original charge under the Child Act 2001.

The day after the murder charge was made public, the school authorities said that they would take full responsibility for the death and not run away from it. I therefore read with some element of personal surprise a column in theSun by Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, former Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) vice-chancellor (VC), basically not holding authorities accountable but rather extending a heartfelt and compassionate goodbye note to the dead boy. Really, sir?

To quote the former VC, he wrote:

“We mourn your unexpected demise at the very tender age of 11. You had a whole future to look forward to as the nation talks about Transformasi Nasional 50 (TN50) and all its promises for your generation. In this regard your parents had the foresight to put you in a school that has values to make you a responsible person whom Malaysia can be proud of. We got a glimpse of the ‘notes’ you left behind. What fine thoughts you penned for us to remember you by.”

Really, former VC, do you really mean the words you wrote in English? Was it God’s design or intent for the boy to die at 11 years young? You seem to imply and accept zero responsibilities and therefore accountability to the parents and the school authorities.

Of course, his destiny would have been reframed and reshaped by Khairy Jamaluddin and younger ambassadors of the Malaysian government by TN50. But were his parents really as wise as you make them out to be? Did they know that he would be killed by the very people they trusted? How then did he die; or why were they too late to save his life? Did they not know him and his true feelings vide his writings?

Sir, you were part and parcel of our educational system; therefore I hold you a little more responsible than his simpler parents. Was this choice of school system and their particular curriculum and system of discipline really the best choice for his future in TN50; especially to become a responsible citizen?

Why not a regular Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan, which all my five children did attend, including three learning Mandarin in Chinese-medium primary schools? Why did the parents reject the mainstream education system in favour of a non-systematised, narrow and religious one? Are we therefore admitting that our primary education system has completely failed in nation-building?

You were VC of USM; do you really think and believe that he would have made it into USM within the structure and education of his religious school? Do you then really mean that his “notes” were good enough, other than as a mere personal journal, but which are now his last and final notes? The content and meanings may be brilliant; but, as my father used to say, “A dead son is no longer a son at all.”

Theory R and responsibility

I have written much about my pet Theory R. In this column, let me simply focus on the important notion of personal responsibility, therefore accountability; both here and in the thereafter. No child is ever born in a vacuum; including orphans. All children are a gift from God; including the unwanted child, or unintended one. We must always care for children, even if not our own.

Once a child is born, all cultures assume that parents are responsible and accountable for raising that child. It is said also, it takes a village to raise a child. But, my addition is that it also takes yet another to kill that child.

To really understand who killed 11-year old Thaqif, we must apply my Theory R of responsibility-relationships of all and sundry who made up Thaqif’s village. Let me therefore make a full list and ask all 360-degree related members to respond in terms of why they failed to prevent this “killing”.

  • Why did the parents “abdicate” the child-raising at such a tender age? Why did he need such harsh discipline if he was already such a sensitive child, as evident from his “notes”?
     
  • Why did the school accept the child if they had no skill-sets to raise the child to become a responsible citizen, and of good upright character? Were all teachers and care-givers selected with similar set of values, standards, and assumptions?
     
  • Is the school authorised and approved as a “learning and teaching system”? Who is responsible for such certification and licensing of such type and quality of such religious education?
     
  • What kinds of punishment are “approved and allowed under our education systems”? Secondary children usually attend school until about 17 years of age.
     
  • Can anyone start any such school without “proper authorisation and further deploy any preferred curriculum of their desire?” Are these then “private enterprises” with full authority to discipline and punish these young Malaysians? Who supervises these public roles?
     
  • If these are designed and developed as a non-family based religious system of education; whose jurisdiction do they come under? Is not religion of Islam a state matter? Do the sultans as heads of Islam have any say? If not; why not?

The above are my public policy issues and concerns, as I reflect on the fact of one more life destroyed without his God-ordained fulfilment of dignity and destiny. We cannot be too fate-full in our theology about such losses, after the boy is dead. My belief is that if as responsible and accountable citizens, we do not ask important and crucial questions about the unique meaning of life; of dignity and destiny in life, we may be living our lives in vain, too.


KJ JOHN, PhD, was in public service for 32 years having served as a researcher, trainer, and policy adviser to the International Trade and Industry Ministry and the National IT Council (NITC) of the government of Malaysia. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at [email protected] with any feedback or views.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

ADS