Leadership, especially in government, is always under public scrutiny. It comes with the territory. However, when evaluations are based on shaky data and questionable methods, they often cause more harm than good.
Take, for instance, a recent online survey carried out by the academician Datuk Prof Dr Jayum Jawan. The survey evaluated the performance of 18 Dayak leaders in the Madani and Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) governments.
With just 183 respondents, it concluded that only three Dayak ministers and deputy ministers received approval ratings of 50% or higher, while others were rated poorly.
It’s no surprise these results sparked criticism — not just for what they claim, but for how they were obtained. Why focus solely on Dayak leaders? And why base such sweeping conclusions on such a small sample size? Let’s not forget that the Dayak community accounts for around 40% of Sarawak’s population of over 2.6 million people.
This selective approach has understandably frustrated both leaders and the public. It raises serious questions about the survey’s fairness, intent, objectives, and the potential negative ripple effects on public perception.
Sarawak’s Minister of Tourism, Creative Industry, and Performing Arts, Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, was among the first to challenge the survey, calling it “unfair and selective.”
Karim, who also serves as the Minister for Youth, Sports, and Entrepreneur Development, questioned the narrow focus of the assessment.
“Why focus only on the Dayak ministers? If you are going to assess performance, then assess all ministers—whether they are Malay, Chinese, or from other communities,” he argued.
Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Henry Harry Jinep, in a separate interview, emphasized that leadership performance is better measured through structured and standardized evaluations.
“As a learned person, you cannot have an en bloc conclusion just by asking the opinions of some 180 people,” he pointed out, referring to the government’s established use of key performance indicators (KPIs) to gauge ministerial effectiveness.
These responses highlight the inherent flaws in the survey’s methodology, particularly its small and unrepresentative sample size.
By selectively targeting Dayak leaders, the survey risks unfairly tarnishing their reputations while ignoring their significant contributions.
Beyond these methodological concerns, the survey raises broader issues about its potential to mislead public opinion. Leadership is not a popularity contest, nor can it be accurately reduced to numbers derived from such a limited group.
Public perception, often shaped by biases and incomplete information, rarely offers a true reflection of a leader’s effectiveness.
Dayak leaders, like their peers from other communities, shoulder a range of responsibilities, many of which are complex and confidential.
As Henry pointed out, these roles are often evaluated internally through KPIs, which provide a more objective and nuanced assessment.
In contrast, the survey reduces leadership to approval ratings, painting an incomplete picture that does a disservice to both leaders and the public.
Abdul Karim suggested that the survey may have been conducted with an agenda in mind, particularly given its timing — a sentiment I tend to agree with.
“Why focus solely on Dayak ministers? Why carry out the survey with such a small sample size? Maybe he has his agenda, especially with the upcoming elections,” he remarked.
Are the respondents truly qualified to assess the performance of Dayak leaders? What criteria establish their competence to, for instance, evaluate the effectiveness of leaders serving in rural constituencies?
Are their assessments merely based on what they see on social media or influenced by the comments of one or two individuals? Or are these leaders being evaluated on their leadership style, their performance as ministers or deputy ministers, their roles as elected representatives, or how effectively they serve their constituencies, the Dayak communities, and Sarawakians as a whole?
Regardless of intent, the survey’s impact is clear: it has created unnecessary divisions and unfairly cast Dayak leaders in a negative light.
Such selective assessments are not only unproductive but also undermine the principles of inclusivity and unity championed by the Madani government.
This controversy serves as a timely reminder of the need for fairness and balance in evaluating leadership. Dayak leaders have made significant contributions to Sarawak’s development and deserve to be judged by the same standards as their peers.
Instead of relying on flawed surveys, we must pursue constructive and rigorous methods that reflect the complexity of leadership and its real impact.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that people should refrain from criticizing their leaders. Democracy thrives on free expression, and everyone has the right to voice their opinions. However, this should be done responsibly and with full transparency.
The recent survey by Prof Jayum, who is a Fellow and Member of the National Unity Advisory Council (MPPN), highlights the risks of selective assessments and their potential to erode public trust. Leadership should not be judged through the lens of popularity but by tangible outcomes and objective measures.
As we move forward, let us advocate for evaluations that unite rather than divide, fostering a culture of fairness and understanding in Sarawak and beyond.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune.
