IT's a three-syllable word that weighs tonnes. "Transition" -- the buzzword of the year. It means the passing of one stage or phase to another, something not unfamiliar to Malaysians this year. The nation has gone through much change in leadership and administration, and the phase has not ended yet with the imminent transition of power from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to his deputy, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, next year.

The problem with transition is that it is mostly viewed within a political paradigm. The sticky reality is that transition is often a burden to the administrative sphere here. This is not about partisan gains or losses. Rather, the concern is about the differences of vision, effective implementation and time or financial wastage.

We don't have to look too far back for the pains of transition and past promises. There has been the Nurin Alert case, where Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen has said the ministry was not in charge of the alert system (where it was practically given birth).

There was the blistering earful given to Tourism Minister Datuk Azalina Othman by parliamentary backbenchers over her unfulfilled promises as the former youth and sports minister to build a mini-stadium in every constituency.

The two ministers had fingers pointed at them, and they pointed out that certain decisions related to such projects was not theirs to make.
The blame game is quite frankly, pointless. Over the last year, we have become familiar with comments that either blatantly state, or defensively insinuate, that the responsibility for current issues of administration are to be laid at the doors of their former managers. "Responsible" being a euphemism for "not me".

It's already painful to hear how things get mangled; we don't need to delve into a mystery about who the mangler really was. Of course, if there is corruption or abuse, it would be necessary to haul the evidence through the law and settle it there. If there isn't, then the political theatrics should be left aside.

Instead of the usual protests that "it wasn't me", it would be rather charming and novel to be told exactly what the successors are going to do about it.

This, of course, would first require homework. Homework for an entire ministry with thousands of staff and hundreds of projects, departments and policies, however, takes time.

It is fortunate that most Malaysians are generally willing to give that grace period. There has been no baying for blood in the midst of transition thus far.

But there have been victims. The creation of the Higher Education Ministry (or rather, the branching off from the mammoth Education Ministry) in 2004 was lauded by many.

Fast-forward to 41/2 years later, and the ministry has had three ministers. First was Datuk Dr Shafie Salleh, who made way for Datuk Mustapa Mohamed in 2006, who was succeeded by Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin after the election this year.

It is pretty gruelling for an important ministry to face such changes in such a short time. Other ministries faced changes too, and expect to see more come next March.

When transition comes, homework will be essential. Politicking must take a backseat. To justify taxpayers' money, transitioning managers must ensure several key things. New leadership does not necessarily require new megawatt plans. Blueprints, master plans and thorough studies on issues should be used efficiently and not merely to mark one's territory.

Such plans often take time, labour and financial resources. They can be tweaked, not terminated. Then again, if it's old, stagnant or a plain bore, the projects that are given classic status can also be thrown out.

How much money has been pumped into revitalising and repackaging the Rakan Muda programme, for example? Are we persisting with it because it is a success, or is it because it has become part of the furniture -- too much trouble to remove?

The 14-year-old Rakan Muda has been called a failure by many quarters over the years, and yet it is defended equally often.

In 2000, there was a nationwide study on the programme's efficacy; in 2002, the government mulled giving it a new "Information Technology" edge to make it more appealing; in 2003, they thought about promoting it in Felda schemes; in 2004, they wanted to tie it in with the National Service programme; and last year, it was announced that it would be repackaged and rebranded.

Certainly, youth programmes can only be a good thing, but what about the resources that go into the constant revamping and refitting? What greater proof of failure could there be than the snubbing of a youth programme by youths themselves?

When it comes to the civil service, bureaucrats and technocrats who know the ins and outs of their ministries' functions and running must be more empowered, respected, and given the confidence to know that they can advise, lead and when necessary, say "no". The public administration at large must be apolitical, even if its most senior appointments remain political in nature.

If those truly in the know are given rein as effective managers, the country would see less ad-hoc and knee-jerk reactions in public administration. We would also see fewer civil servants twiddling their fingers waiting for the next transition, blueprint, strategy or master plan.