I applaud the call by Dr Rais Yatim to redefine the concept of neutrality. While I do not want to speculate his intention for bringing up the issue, I firmly believe that such a call should have been done much earlier.

The current understanding of the concept of neutrality among government leaders is far-fetched from the notion of neutrality as widely understood in Europe, North America, Latin America, and even in Japan.

In Malaysia, neutrality often means loyalty to the government of the day. If civil servants are found to have supported the opposition, then they will be severely criticised or even reprimanded. Thus, neutrality has become synonymous with supporting the government.

Unlike Malaysia, civil servants in French, Chile, Japan, the US, and Britain are more political in their orientations. This does not mean that they are actively involved in politics, but they also play important roles in politics, whether for the government or opposition. In France, civil servants are allowed to hold public offices while still serving the government. In Japan, a majority of parliamentary leaders are former civil servants and in fact the relationship between bureaucracy and government is closely intertwined. In Britain, higher-ranking civil servants are often described as "protean political" rather than party political.

In sum, the concept of neutrality calls for impartial treatment of the citizens when carrying out government policies. It should not be misconstrued as to mean loyalty to the government because if bureaucracy becomes an instrument of the government in power with its own ideological proclivities, then the notion of a neutral bureaucracy receives a severe blow. The question is, whose interests should the bureaucrats serve: those of the government or the citizens?