February 1, 2013
Reigniting Professionalism in Malaysian Diplomacy
by Datuk Dr. Ananda Kumaraseri @www.nst.com.my (01-31-14)
SHORTFALLS IN STATECRAFT: Government must establish whether training provided for diplomats is comprehensive enough
IN the decades following the achievement of sovereign independence, Malaysia had reasons to stand tall among the international community of nations for the high calibre of her diplomats in conducting the country’s external relations.
One Wisma Putra
The sophistication and excellence by which Malaysian diplomacy unfolded won the respect and admiration of not just our neighbours and Third World countries but of the far bigger and more powerful developed nations as well.
Fortunately, this high watermark in the performance of our pioneering generation of diplomats was consolidated as a result of the early realisation among our leaders of the importance of ensuring professionalism in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy, and in conducting international relations.
They recognised early in the life of the nation of the imperatives of improving the knowledge and work skills of public officers, both those serving at home and in our overseas diplomatic missions, whose task is to promote and develop mutually beneficial political, economic, trade, social, cultural, scientific and technological relations with the global community of nations.
Such proactive thinking aimed at ensuring professionalism in handling international affairs was uncommon among newly independent countries. Small and developing states, in particular, had tended to place little attention on improving professional skills in diplomacy and international relations. Some simply sidestepped this important state responsibility that followed on the heels of becoming a sovereign independent nation.
Against this international backdrop, Malaysia stood out as an exception to the somewhat laissez faire attitude. Despite various handicaps encountered, the government responded positively to demands and challenges of professional training in this significant area of statecraft.
It demonstrably met this responsibility and requirement in the bureaucracy, inter alia, by instituting policies and initiating concrete measures, and most important of all, committing the resources to this end.This manifested in the landmark decision of the government to set up a Centre for International Relations and Strategic Studies (CIRSS) in the National Institute of Public Administration (Intan), which was the precursor of the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations (IDFR).
I was posted to Intan on a secondment and entrusted with the unenviable task of setting up the CIRSS in 1978. There were, as it was to be expected, many teething problems and shortcomings in the processes involved to establish and consolidate the centre, as well as in developing and conducting the professional training programmes.
However, the shortfalls encountered by the nascent training outfit do not detract from the contention that the government deserves credit for its positive response to the challenge of professionalism in this sector of statecraft.
In viewing from hindsight the formative years of the CIRSS, one could without exaggeration state that the Malaysian experience serves as a valid and interesting study of the institutional framework and administrative systems that are required for developing, conducting and managing training in international relations and diplomacy.
Several factors are identifiable that made the difference for Malaysia. Among the more significant are the country’s long and rich historical heritage of foreign contacts and of having an extensive network of relations with the outside world, its ever-expanding and entrenched interests in the international arena, the unprecedented and dramatic expansion of its diplomacy and diplomatic machinery virtually upon the country’s birth, and the enlightened and dynamic leadership role of the nation’s founding fathers.
In this regard, the impact of the country’s second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, is a fact of cardinal importance that made the difference for Malaysia to ingrain professionalism in the bureaucracy in conducting Malaysia’s international relations and diplomacy.
Thus, in comparison to most other newly independent developing countries, Malaysia enjoyed a head start in terms of ensuring professionalism in conducting its foreign relations and diplomacy. But somewhere along the line, Wisma Putra seems to have lost its way and has not been able to sustain the high professional standards that the country had earlier garnered.
It is an irony of sorts that Malaysia had a head start over most other newly independent nations in meeting the challenges of professionalism in international relations and diplomacy by providing professional training.
This means that we should justifiably expect a sustainable crop of competent diplomats to serve the country for generations to come. Yet, rather oddly, our present generation of diplomats has fallen short of such an expectation envisioned at the time of setting up the CIRSS.
The irony begs the question: where have we gone wrong in terms of ensuring professionalism among our present generation of diplomats? This brings us to two pertinent issues pertaining to professional training. The first is for the government to establish whether the training provided for our diplomats is comprehensive enough. An equally important issue is to establish whether the professional training is effective, especially in terms of the soft skills needed for our officers to perform as a pakar (expert) diplomat.