I have followed the political situation and developments in Malaysia over many years, from the time I was lawyer working in Kuala Lumpur more that 15 years ago until today, and I have to express my admiration for the way in the current government has managed to alter the mindset of the Malaysian people as a whole, even those reformasi supporters who are opposed to the current government.

The process adopted by the government is akin to the concept of boiling a frog. It is a biological fact that if you threw a frog into boiling water, it will thrash around and try to jump out; however, if instead the frog was placed in cold water and the water was slowly brought to the boil, the frog (being a reptile) adjusts to the heat gradually and then just dies when the water get too hot.

If one small part of the things the government does today were to have been tried 15 years ago, they would have been shouted down, not just by the opposition, but also by the relatively more independent media, judiciary (although there are positive signs of a rehabilitation here), and a range of NGOs. In addition, 15 years ago the government would not have been able blatantly ignore these reactions.

Today, the position is vastly different, and it has been achieved in a systematic and carefully orchestrated way, such that the person in street and in some instances, even the supposedly more informed and involved, often sees no wrong in the government's acts.

The major piece of social engineering the government has attempted is the blurring between the government of the day (which in the best democracies, changes reasonably frequently) and the nation (which is the sovereign entity - capable of being changed only in certain clearly well-defined circumstances, eg. invasion, cession, etc.).

The ISA arrests are blatant cases in which the attempt at blurring, by reference to 'national security', is clear and identified by most observers. However, there are more subtle ones where reactions have been proscribed by the 'new reality' created by the government.

An interesting example of this is the good conduct/loyalty pact which teachers are being forced to sign. The key reason is stated to be the involvement in political parties (not being BN parties), and the risk that they might indulge in mind-expanding discussions with students.

In every functioning democracy around the world, public servants are not required to show any form of loyalty to the government of the day; to the nation, yes, and often oaths pledging such loyalty form a part of the employment contract they serve under.

However, the reaction of the teachers union has not been objection on the basis of the above, rather that all teachers should not be required to sign the pact based on the actions of a "few rotten apples".

Implicit in this response is an acceptance that the current morally, politically and ethically bankrupt government would be entitled to receive such a pact if more teachers lived up to their role in society, being the development of strong, independent-thinking young minds.

I cite this as one example - a much bigger example is that relevant to the behaviour of the police force which has clearly abandoned its primary law enforcement role (refer recent MGG Pillai column) to undertake the role of paid thugs in the hire of the current government.

I suspect that many police personnel (particularly in the lower ranks) consider that there was nothing untoward in their actions in relation to the Kesas incident, believing that that was how police are meant to behave. I am sure senior police officers knew exactly what they were doing in creating an incident justifying the use of force.