Judging from the recent euphoria, the phrase 'first-world' should be the latest buzzword in Malaysia - 'first-world mentality', 'first-world parliament', 'first-world education system' et cetera - depicting our aspiration to be a first-world nation by any measurement or denomination.

However, what is clearly lacking here is a definitive consensus on the meaning of 'first-world'. What should it be like if we are a 'first-world' nation? What is the probable benchmark, of which we can emulate or measure against our progress towards the achievement of a 'first-world' nation? What should we do in order to reach the level of a 'first-world' nation?

In most instances, our response to these questions is muted or mired with confusion. This is a critical dilemma. My intention here is to highlight the problem of 'conceptual inflation', whereby we allow ourselves to be easily overwhelmed and influenced by grandiose concepts which are often not supported by a solid theoretical, intellectual and practical foundation or reasoning. Many of these concepts, when introduced, also lacked the will of enforce-ability.

Hence, it is not only necessary but also essential to test and evaluate the plausibility of a concept. A concept, when introduced, should be because it is sincere and not because it is politically correct to do so. The sincerity of the concept can be judged from its methodological rigour, objective, implementation process and evaluation mechanism.

However, the most crucial test of a concept's potential as a normative paradigm involves the test of character. In this test, it is necessary to indulge in moral judgment to a certain extent.

For example, a concept on 'trustworthiness', if introduced by a compulsive criminal-breach-of- trust offender, would have failed the morality test. This renders both the introducer and the introduction of the concept as being insincere.

Whether we realise it or not, we have been fed constantly with an overdose of highly inflated concepts which often hold little credibility. These concepts, which are relatively limited in will and sincerity, are only good at creating an imagined reality.

For instance, if we are really serious in wanting to achieve a first-world nation status, by any measurement, the people who are responsible for the governance of this nation should demonstrate, at least, the will and sincerity to do so.

Next, of course, we would also need a mix of other elements such as capability, know-how, technical knowledge and capital and technology to ensure a smooth progress towards the attainment of that status.

In sum, we need not only material and physical abilities but also mental and emotional strengths, which can only be generated through our genuine will, sincerity and belief in wanting to achieve progress and emancipation.

Hitherto, the actions and responses of some of our policy makers, who want to impress upon us the concept of 'first-world governance', have failed to convince us that they are capable, or at least sincere, in their pledge.

Instead the quality of our governance is suffering from the consequence of 'reactionary policies' policies that are made and implemented without any prove that they have been carefully thought through.

In many instances, direct policy responses to some of our problems are actually more detrimental than beneficial to our society. For example, the demonstration of public caning to students who are barely in their formative years in order to deter sexual offences is definitely not an ingenious one.

The show of brute force and punishment is not educational at all in educating our boys to respect the dignity and rights of the fairer sex. What needs to be inculcated is a sense of respect for all human beings regardless of sex, age, colour or creed and that no amount of force or coercion is to be used to force any human being to do something beyond his/her will.

There are many more examples of 'reactionary policies'- most of them missed the core of the problems which they should be addressing - which have robbed us of a quality governance.

A critical example here is our government's quest to promote national unity and a Bangsa Malaysia (Malaysian race). But the argument for the quest is at best anecdotal.

Coming back to the morality test, is this concept sincere when the government that introduces it is composed of racially defined political parties? The core of the political alliance and the basis of the policy-making process rest on a racially-motivated methodology of a social contract.

This social contract features very much in each and every political bargaining and power-sharing formula. With the consciousness of race so deeply embedded in our democratic system and our society, can we be convinced that national unity can be achieved with the recently implemented three-month National Service programme?

Can we become a truly united first-world nation when our politicians are still hugging tightly to the post-colonial relic of racial politics?

The fact is national unity can only be attained when we fulfil the identity-condition of democracy, whereby a sense of belonging among members of a political community - which is key ingredient to unity - requires a collective identity of its citizen.

The proponents of national unity and a Bangsa Malaysia should consider the conditions and requirements that allow for a Bangsa Malaysia to come into being and a process where individuals in the community can exercise their political freedom.

The situation of a lack of common identity can only be resolved if a public realm supporting the concept of national unity can produce a realistic sense of political equality and a common world amongst individuals. This public realm does not breed homogeneity but in its diversity, plurality and political freedom are respected.

Therefore, we will continue to live in a world of imagined realities and inflated concepts if we refuse to interrogate, analyse and evaluate these concepts to ensure that promises and pledges made are sincere and enforceable.

Those who are tasked and entrusted by the people to govern our nation should be held responsible for propagating inflated concepts.