Bila pembetulan dasar jadi modal politik

There's something intriguing about the way we view change. The public complains, the issue garners attention, leaders intervene, action is taken and a resolution is announced. At first glance, this appears to be a positive process. Leaders should listen and responsive governments should be prepared to rectify situations when things don't turn out as expected.

However, there's an important question: what if the issue ultimately resolved is related to the government's own decision or the failure of a system that should have addressed it earlier? Take the recent issue of new electricity tariffs. Following public concern over rising bills, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim convened a special meeting on September 17 with relevant ministers and agencies.

The government subsequently expanded electricity tariff protection for domestic users from 600 kW per month to 800 kW from September to December 31. There's nothing inherently wrong with this decision. In fact, a government willing to make adjustments as circumstances change suggests the baseline may not be as rigid as initially thought.

However, the baseline analysis should not stop at the story of leaders listening and the issue being resolved. We must also ask how the problem arose, what initial assumptions led to it, what unintended consequences occurred, and why a final intervention was necessary. The fertilizer shortage at the Malaysian Agricultural Development Agency (MADA) provides another example.

On August 18, MADA announced that only 22% of the 616,015 bags of fertilizer needed had been supplied, with a delay estimating at around 38,000 metric tons. On September 6, Anwar directed the SPRM to investigate the delay, a probe that has since been opened. Once again, the question is not whether the Prime Minister should intervene.

If a problem is causing significant hardship, leaders at the highest level should act. The larger question is: why did a problem take so long for the system to respond? We need responsive leadership, but we also need a responsive system. Leaders must act when a system fails to notice an issue, but a mature system should not rely on the discretion of a single leader to detect and solve every problem.

This is where both the fertilizer shortage and electricity tariffs intersect. These issues are not just about leaders listening to the public; they also challenge us to examine what happens before an issue receives political attention. Are warning signs visible? Are concerns heard? Are data showing something not working as planned?

What mechanisms for correction are in place, and why have they failed to function earlier? The hallmark of a good system is not merely how many problems are ultimately resolved after a leader's intervention, but how many problems can be detected and resolved before reaching that point. In the age of social media, this issue becomes even more critical.

Traditionally, we speak about evidence-based decision-making - decisions made based on data, evaluation, and experience. Yet today, there's another reality: an issue can become viral after receiving attention. Public concern spreads, public pressure rises, political attention follows, and the system begins to respond. Social media can indeed serve as an early warning system, alerting decision-makers to issues that may have been overlooked by bureaucratic radar.

The danger arises when an issue must become viral before being deemed vital. What goes viral measures attention, not necessarily importance. A small issue can become significant due to its easily accessible narrative or the influence of individuals, while serious problems in less media-savvy groups may continue unnoticed. Therefore, seemingly minor complaints should not be ignored as isolated cases.

They may be early indicators of larger problems. The real challenge for government is not just demonstrating the ability to act after an issue goes viral. A good system should be able to identify what's important before it becomes viral. Accountability and credit go hand in hand. A government that doesn't easily change its stance isn't necessarily consistent; it could simply be unwilling to learn.

So when a baseline is changed, the more pertinent question is not "why the change?", but rather "what do we now know that we didn't know when the original decision was made?" This could be new evidence, new information, a realized assumption, or unexpected outcomes from current implementation. If presented openly, a change in baseline can be seen as a learning process.

However, politics has its own logic. Any leader wants to appear attentive to the public, act promptly, and resolve problems. It's natural for a leader to claim credit when correction is made. However, credit for correction should not be separated from accountability for what happened before the change. If both questions are asked, we can see the full story.

The true measure of a good system is not just how many problems are eventually resolved after a leader's intervention, but how many problems are detected and resolved before they reach that point. In the era of social media, this becomes even more crucial. The real question is no longer just who can respond to viral issues, but how issues can be detected and resolved before they go viral.