Category: Opinion

AS THE haze that has been suffocating Borneo continues to hang around, some members of the public in Brunei Darussalam have reached out to us to raise their concerns about a different kind of affliction.

Open burning, and the resulting air pollution that’s near identical to the haze, but in almost all cases a dramatic and more upfront affect to those that are in direct proximity to it.

For Mrs Rose Rahman, it became all the more real because of how a wreckless and lazy effort to clear an open plot of land meant that it came within meters of the fire reaching her home. A video was shared with TNBD, and along with this article you will find the screencaps from the incident.

A close call

“My son could hear the fire crackling from the living room upstairs. He was with my husband at the time, and my two-year-old asked him, ‘Daddy apa tu?’”

“We were so startled because when we looked out our window, there was a man rushing about with a stick, trying to beat the brush and control the spread of the flames.

“He was not very successful, and we grew even more concerned when two other people joined him to try and control the fire,” she said. It seemed they were part of a crew or team of people that were asked to clear the area. Thankfully, they were able to put out the fire that they started, but such a scenario could have turned worse. (Several days later an excavator was brought in to dig up the burnt area – Ed)

Which begs the question, why would someone spend so much effort beating out a fire with some branches, so much so it took several people frantically moving across the area to clear the land when a machete or grass cutting equipment would take about the same amount of time, cause less environmental harm and significantly less danger overall.

Mrs Rose stressed that it wasn’t the first time in her neighbourhood, and her husband Ismail, said it is almost comical that its taking place during a time where the whole country is having to deal with the transboundary pollution that has been ongoing for several weeks now.

Since the haze has been affecting Brunei Darussalam, she said the open burning takes place each time there has been an easing of the haze, and once even when it was very hazy. However, even without the haze, the open burning would take place every other week in their residential area of Beribi-Jangsak on the edge of Bandar Seri Begawan.

Openly burning

Mrs Noor Ramli is a fellow TNBD reader that shared how her young family, she is also the mother of a two-year-old child, went for a Sunday drive at the end of last week, and were dismayed at seeing a large number of people open burning.

“It irks me on a normal day, but with the haze and all the health risks that come with it, seeing people just burning away really gets on my nerves.

“From Jerudong to Muara with a few detours here and there, it was just shocking how many people were doing open burning along the way,” she said.

In the Lambak Kanan National Housing Scheme area alone, it seemed there was one every few houses. “Granted, we had a good few days before that with a relatively good (air quality) index, but that shouldn’t give people to just openly burn,” said Mrs Noor.

Her opinion is that some members of the public are not taking the long term health risks of the haze seriously, even though in other countries there have been numerous reports of those getting significantly ill in the more affected regions in Southeast Asia dealing with the haze. “It isn’t just the toxicity of the air we’re breathing or the health risks that come with it, we (in Brunei) have been blessed with some rain recently, but what happens if we have an actual dry spell? Most of this island is already burning, we can’t afford to have our own country burning too, it’s an ecological disaster,” she said.

Not just organic material

Ask any Bruneian about it, and especially the older generation would have told you that it is something that would typically be done to get rid of rubbish and waste. Before, perhaps 50 years and beyond, that would have meant far more organic material. Grass clippings, twigs, branches, leaves green and dead, anything that was swept up around the gardens would be put into a quasi-compost heap, and then literally torched.

I remember riding my bicycle and seeing someone do all of that and gather the ashes and spreading them around their garden and vegetable patch, except windy days, as it would just be absolute pandemonium with dust and soot flying any which way or how.

In the years since then though plastics were also thrown into the equation, and at a time I remember PSA and advisories for people to not burn aerosol cans and batteries. I told my elder children about this some time ago, and I was met with a ‘bruuuuhhh’ and eye roll combination so savage it almost knocked me off my chair.

They (my daughters) think it was incredulous that people would be burning such things, with the toxic smoke and air to come from such fires literally poisoning all things living.

Sadly, the year is 2026 and attitudes remain unchanged.

Escalate to JASTRe

Just as concerning is that both readers, when informed by TNBD that incidences usually need to be reported, said that they have reported their respective incidences in the past, with not much to show for it.

In fact, Mrs Rose explained that in the first instance she complained to the Darussalam Hotline (123) and complained again a second time when she believed her home was in danger.

“In both instances 123 said they would escalate to JASTRe (Department of Environment, Parks and Recreation at the Ministry of Development) and were very apologetic that such a thing was happening to me and apologized for the inconvenience caused.”

And the outcome? 123 asked if there had been any further open burning after the 1^st and 2^nd complaints were made, as well as the day of their final conversation. Mrs Rose responded with a no but explained that she couldn’t possibly tell because she has been at work following the first two instances and when they called her to ask.

“The Darussalam Hotline staff said they would close the current ticket number, and that if there was any other open burning witnessed, to call 123 again and they would open a new ticket. I would’ve just preferred for JASTRe to reassure me that the matter had been dealt with,” she said. “Otherwise how do I know whether or not I’ve been taken seriously.”

Call 123

I think another question that is on a lot of people’s mind, or at least those who care, when they hear talk of open burning is “how come people still do this?” There have been strict bans and advisories in the past by JASTRe.

And it must be a pertinent enough of an issue well known to them, as their website lists under their FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section, “Who to complain (to) when I see an open burning activity?” and the answer on their website is “Please call the Darussalam Hotline 123.”

In 1998, an order was put into place for offences relating to open burning could be punishable with fines and imprisonment, in particular where “such offence causes pollution to the atmosphere or endangers human life or property the punishment is of unlimited amount and or imprisonment of up to 5 years.” To me that sounds like a convincing argument to not light up my grass clippings, compost heap or rubbish, but I guess someone forgot to tell the frantic stick carrying brush fire beaters.

Judging from the timeline, it seems like it was put in place around the time when the transboundary haze issues were first experienced in the Sultanate.

For Mrs Noor, it seems a moot point, and asks even further, why aren’t more people getting penalized for the open burning. She asks, “How many times can they do this before getting fined? Will they even get fined?”, adding that people have been reported but nothing seems to be done.

“When will there be a real shift in attitudes and behaviours?

“They can put out as many notices as they want but without any consequences, nothing will change,” she said.

(Editor’s note – The names in this story have been changed and real names withheld to protect the identities our sources from the potential backlash of angry neighbours. While we feel any unsavoury action to follow should be reported accordingly, we also realise that prevention is better than cure, and as such have taken the necessary steps to ensure their safety.)

AI has become part of everyday life so quickly that I am not sure we ever stopped to decide what we were comfortable with.

We have all seen event banners where the images are so obviously AI-generated that we can almost spot the usual signs immediately. Faces that look slightly too perfect. Hands that do not quite make sense. Backgrounds that look impressive from a distance but become strange the moment we look closer. Sometimes even the wording feels generated, polished in that very familiar way that now seems to appear everywhere.

And this is not just happening online.

We see the same thing at food streets, pasar malam and small vendor stalls. Large printed banners, menu boards, posters and promotional materials using AI-generated images. Some are simple. Some are actually quite good. But once we start noticing them, we begin to see them everywhere.

Then we go back online and the pattern continues.

LinkedIn carousels with the same kind of structure. Instagram captions that sound oddly familiar. Long reflective posts that feel polished but somehow empty. Promotional copy, campaign messages and even words written to support a cause that sound as though they came from the same place.

Sometimes it is not just the words. The entire thing has been generated.

The image. The caption. The headline. The carousel. The video.

And it is not only small businesses or individuals doing this.

We have seen large organisations use AI-generated videos and images for advertisements, health promotions, safety messages and public awareness campaigns. We have seen presentations at major conferences filled with AI-generated visuals and AI-written text. Speeches can be drafted by AI. Talking points can be generated in seconds.

Then there is the workplace.

I am sure many of us have been in a meeting where someone asks a question and another person checks ChatGPT or Gemini.

Or an idea appears in a WhatsApp group and suddenly everyone is discussing it. Maybe the person came up with it. Maybe AI did. Sometimes we cannot really tell.

Someone wants a slogan for a programme, a message to promote a cause, a response to an issue, an explanation for a decision. AI gives them something quickly, and that answer becomes part of the conversation.

Perhaps that is why the change has been so easy to miss. None of these moments feels significant enough on its own for us to stop and question it. We see one AI-generated banner and move on. We read a caption and keep scrolling. Someone quotes ChatGPT in a meeting and the discussion continues.

But after a while, these are no longer isolated little things happening around us. Together, they start to show just how much AI has quietly entered the way we communicate, create, work and even think through decisions.

We are no longer talking about AI as something that might become part of everyday life.

It already has.

And I am not sure we ever really stopped to ask what that means.

Where Does Assistance End?

I should probably make something clear here. I am not against using AI. I use it too, quite a lot actually. I use it to explore ideas, challenge my thinking, organise things, help me understand something unfamiliar and sometimes improve something I have written. I understand why we use it. It is useful, fast and often incredibly convenient.

But when I went back to the data from my 2025 Brunei and Generative AI survey, one finding started to interest me more than the adoption figure itself. Among the 431 respondents, 73.3 per cent said that whether Generative AI is ethical depends on how it is used.

I think that is worth stopping at for a moment.

They were not simply saying AI is good. They were not saying it is bad either. Most were saying, essentially, it depends.

Depends on what?

That becomes more interesting when we look at what those respondents considered acceptable. Among those who said ethics depended on how AI was used, 82.6 per cent were comfortable with AI assisting in writing, content creation or brainstorming. More than seven in ten accepted it for personal learning or tutoring.

But only 10.4 per cent accepted AI fully generating academic or workplace essays and reports. Only 14.9 per cent accepted decisions being made without human oversight. Replacing human jobs unfairly was accepted by just 5.4 per cent.

Don’t you think that tells us something?

The respondents did not seem particularly afraid of AI helping us. What they appeared much less comfortable with was AI replacing human judgement or responsibility.

And once I looked at the findings that way, I started thinking again about all those things we now see around us.

The AI-written LinkedIn post. The presentation that may have been almost entirely generated. The advertisement made without a designer. The speech that sounds good, but perhaps the person giving it did not actually write much of it. The idea from ChatGPT that enters a meeting and suddenly becomes everyone’s problem to discuss.

Where does assistance end and replacement begin?

Perhaps that sounds like an easy question until we try to answer it for ourselves.

If AI gives me ten ideas and I develop one of them, that feels like assistance. But what if AI develops the idea, writes the argument and gives me the examples, and I mainly edit the wording? Is that still assistance?

If AI helps a designer explore different concepts, that seems very different from a company deciding it no longer needs the designer at all. But where exactly do we draw that boundary?

And if most respondents in my survey seemed to believe that how AI is used matters, who is helping us decide what responsible use actually looks like?

So Who Decides the Boundaries?

This is where another finding becomes uncomfortable.

In the same 2025 survey, 81 per cent of respondents were either unaware of or unsure about organisational or national guidelines on the ethical use of Generative AI. Only 19 per cent said they were aware of such guidance.

Think about that for a moment.

On the one hand, people were telling us that the ethics of AI depends on how we use it. They were clearly distinguishing between AI helping people and AI taking over work, judgement or responsibility.

But at the same time, most were either unaware of or unsure about the guidance that might help them navigate those choices.

So what happens in the middle?

Do we simply work it out for ourselves?

Perhaps that is exactly what has been happening.

One person decides it is fine to generate an entire post without disclosure. Another person thinks that is dishonest. One organisation uses AI-generated images throughout a public campaign. Another refuses to do so. One manager is comfortable allowing AI to draft a recommendation. Another wants every AI-generated claim checked first.

We may all be talking about “responsible AI”, but are we actually talking about the same thing?

The workplace data raises another question. Among the 341 employed or self-employed respondents in my survey, 70.7 per cent said their workplace or university did not provide Generative AI training. At the same time, 86.3 per cent of the overall respondents said they would use Generative AI more if more training were available.

Again, this was 2025. I am not claiming those percentages describe Brunei today. Workplaces may have changed. Awareness may have improved. More guidance may now exist.

But surely the picture from that moment still deserves some reflection.

People were already using AI. Many believed responsible use depended on context. Many wanted more support. Yet structured training and awareness of guidance were limited among the respondents.

Is it any surprise, then, that the way we use AI in everyday life seems to be developing faster than our shared expectations around it?

Are We Only Teaching People How to Use AI?

And perhaps training itself needs to change too.

We are very good at showing people what AI can do. How to prompt it. How to generate an image. How to make a presentation faster. How to summarise a document. How to save time.

Those things are useful.

But should we not also be teaching people when to stop?

When should we disclose that AI did most of the work?

When does an answer need to be checked before it is repeated?

When should a person be able to explain an idea without opening ChatGPT again?

When is the faster option perhaps not the better option?

These questions become especially important when AI starts entering decisions.

My survey respondents were clearly uncomfortable with decisions being made without human oversight. Yet what does “human oversight” actually mean in practice? Does it mean a human being simply clicks approve? Does it mean someone reads the AI answer? Or does it mean someone understands the issue well enough to challenge the AI, reject it and take responsibility for whatever happens next?

There is a difference.

I keep thinking about the phrase we increasingly hear in meetings: “ChatGPT says…” There is nothing wrong with asking ChatGPT. But shouldn’t the next sentence matter more?

“I checked it.”
“I disagree with it.”
“It does not fit our context.”
“I think we should do something else.”
Or even, “I don’t know yet. I need to think about this.”

Perhaps one of the things AI is quietly changing is our patience with not knowing.

What Happens to What Is Ours?

Then there is creativity.

Only 5.4 per cent of those respondents accepted what the survey described as replacing human jobs unfairly. That sounds straightforward until we ask what “unfairly” actually means.

If a small food vendor uses AI to make a menu because they cannot afford a designer, is that unfair? Probably not.

What if a large company that can afford creative work replaces an entire campaign with generated images?

Is that different?

What if an organisation proudly talks about supporting local industries while using generated artwork instead of local artists?

Where should we draw the line?

I do not think there is one answer that works for every situation. That is precisely why I think we need the conversation. Especially in Brunei.

We are a small country. Our creative community is not enormous. Neither are our pools of writers, photographers, designers, musicians, videographers or illustrators. If “good enough and generated in five minutes” slowly becomes the default, what happens to those people? And perhaps just as importantly, what happens to what they would have created?

Would our posters look different? Would our advertisements sound different? Would our stories carry something more recognisably ours?

Would we even notice if that started disappearing?

Maybe this is why I am less interested now in another discussion telling people to “use AI responsibly”.

My own data suggests that respondents already understood something quite important: responsibility depends on what we allow AI to do and what responsibility we keep for ourselves. The bigger gap may be turning that instinct into everyday behaviour.

Maybe it means telling people when AI did most of something that others believe you created. Maybe it is checking an answer before bringing it into a decision. Maybe it is being able to defend an idea instead of saying, “ChatGPT suggested it.” Maybe it is organisations finally deciding what their own boundaries are rather than leaving every employee to guess. And sometimes maybe it is simply asking one question before opening the prompt box:

Do I actually want AI to do this for me?

I do not think we should stop using AI.

But my 2025 survey tells me something I find much more interesting now than I did when I first collected the responses. People seemed to know that there should be a line somewhere. They were comfortable with assistance, but far less comfortable when AI started replacing judgement, authorship or human responsibility.

Maybe this is the part we have missed. AI did not arrive through one big moment where we all decided we were ready for it. It came through small things: a caption, a poster, a presentation, an answer in a meeting, an idea in a WhatsApp group. Each one seemed useful enough, harmless enough, convenient enough. So life carried on.

And slowly, AI became part of how we work, create, communicate, make decisions and even express ourselves.

Have we really stopped to think about what that means for Brunei? If AI becomes part of the way we write, design, speak, decide and tell our stories, what happens to the things that make those things recognisably ours? Our judgement. Our creativity. Our language. Our culture. Our way of seeing the world.

This is no longer about AI becoming normal. It already is.

The question is: what kind of normal do we want, and what parts of ourselves as Bruneians are we not willing to hand over?

Because if we do not decide that consciously, one day we may look around and realise that “normal” was decided for us.

So when did we decide this was normal?

As the haze continues its grip on Brunei Darussalam, the public’s concerns from the last week or so has mounted, resulting in the authorities taking action as the Air Quality Indexed progressively worsened.

Coincidentally, from our office window in the capital, the view of Jame Asr Hassanil Bolkiah in Kiarong served as the barometer for the team at The New Brunei Digest and we saw in real time today the effects with our own eyes.

As the day progressed, the view of the largest masjid in Brunei Darussalam, began to be obscured by the growing thickness of the smog. By lunchtime the looking upon one of Brunei’s most treasured landmarks gave of a very ominous and surreal vibe.

Going back to when the haze first started to come about this year due to forest fires in the region, the thin layer of smoke had already made its mark, with more members of the public visiting the clinic. Headaches, sinus and respiratory related symptoms, eczema cases, all sounds trivial on paper until folks started to realise that the Air Pollution Index (API) was still showing green for the most part.

The API Index reads green up to 50, where the air quality is considered good, then the next category of moderate is 50 to 100, and once past 100 we enter unhealthy air quality, and at 200 over it is very unhealthy the beginning of the red zone. 300 and above is considered very dangerous.

By then the API had sailed over 200, eye watering for a country that enjoys almost single digit API during some parts of the year.

Almost 30 years ago, Brunei experienced what is presently an unfortunate recurring occurrence  for the first time. I was back home for the holidays, my friends who were still studying in Brunei were pleased (somewhat) that they didn’t have to go to school, but like me, we were all disappointed at not being able to go out and see each other, play football.

Back then online gaming was still a long way from what it is today, and there was even less to see and do if you weren’t able to go outdoors. Although I do not recall seeing parts of Brunei resembling scenes from Silent Hill, both the video game and movie, but as I drove to pick up my son and wife today, thats what it seemed like from inside my car.

The haze enveloping the sun, making it redder than a blood moon, and the lush jungle greenery taking on a foreboding tint of embellishment. Online, someone in a friends group chat said it kind of looks like Kundasang in Sabah, but the attack on our senses by the stagnant heat and smoky odour outdoors scream otherwise.

Parents have understandably taken their kids out of school, one teacher I spoke to said that at the start of the week he had told his children to stay home, and was concerned about the welfare of the student body en masse.

My daughters have put on a brave face, especially my second daughter. Exasperated but having to sit her most important exams of her Primary School life, she said she would just mask up and do what needs to be done.

Thankfully since that first week, and especially today, the government agencies that had been monitoring the situation have taken steps to update Brunei with Air quality updates, now throughout the day, and also issued advisories on how to handle the situation as it begins to get worse.

As we returned to our office at lunchtime, we again witnessed strange things from our window, the traffic started to become congested, as thick as the haze enveloping it. Visibility in some places in the country had reduced to 100m. And the traffic, it was a result of parents rushing to schools as students were advised to go home.

The latest advisory from the Ministry of Education in the day highlighted that as the Air Quality readings were still in the red zone, schools have been instructed to switch classes online temporarily for the next two days. While some parents may question why this hasn’t been taken into effect sooner, it has to be said the speed at which the directives have been implemented are commendable.

The diligence shown there by the authorities and government agencies will be required, as the news from Kalimantan has indicated that the amount of acreage that is burning has nearly doubled, and most likely when you, our dear readers have finished reading this, that mark would have clearly passed.

I hope I’m wrong, but it seems like this might just be the start of the worse stretch, and one that we need to pulling through together. During such a time pointing out shortcomings and flaws is one thing, but delivering real pragmatic solutions in developing situations is another, perhaps far more required.

‘Hear people’s concerns, respond timely’: as HM ushers new cabinet line-up

RIGHT from the onset of the titah, His Majesty began by praising the Al-Mighty atas nikmat keamanan at a time when much of the world are bracing from the direct effects of the war in the Middle East, and the blessing of tranquility and stability that Brunei Darussalam has achieved.

Now at the implementation phase of the blueprint, first announced in 2007, to achieve the national goals set for Wawasan Brunei 2035, satu mercu tanda penting bagi negara indeed as the much-anticipated titah decreed, that now less than a decade away, the journey still on this roadmap rests on the wisdom and disciplined leadership as well as shared sense of cohesion and liability amongst cabinet ministers.

The monarch then duly abolished the sitting cabinet and approved of several major readjustments beginning with the summary appointment of two princes, after taking into account their natural interest and early exposure to the government’s management systems.

Declaring tawakal before Allah SWT, His Majesty proclaimed the appointments of the new ministerial and deputies line-up starting with the monarch himself continuing as Prime Minister, Minister of Defence and Minister of Finance.

Second in command, His Royal Highness Crown Prince Haji Al-Muhtadee Billah reprises the post of Senior Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office with a new role as Deputy Chair of the Executive Council on Wawasan 2035.  

Following the royal hint, it was much expected for His Royal Highness Prince ‘Abdul Malik’s name be called out by His Majesty – as a Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office, whilst also reaffirming HRH’s role as Chair of Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Foundation.   

His Royal Highness Prince ‘Abdul Mateen was indulged a more elaborate introduction in HRH’s appointment as Brunei’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs, “whilst continuing a career in the armed forces,” and as the country’s newest statesman, His Majesty listed out HRH’s additional active roles in the Executive Council for Wawasan 2035, “specifically to push economic development and national trade through diplomatic relations, strategic cooperation and international investment.” 

Three new posts were created – coordinating ministers – perhaps borrowing from the Singapore model; to coordinate national security policies appointed to YB Pehin Datu Lailaraja Maj Gen (Rtd) Dato Seri Paduka Hj Mohd Halbi Bin Hj Mohd Yussof by reinforcing all ministries efforts to safeguard the nation; whilst YB Dato Seri Setia Dr Hj Abd Manaf Bin Hj Metussin will coordinate economic policies by minimising economic wastage within the ministries tasked to advance primary sectors as YB Dato Seri Setia Hj Ahmaddin Bin Hj Abd Rahman coordinates social and manpower policies. The new Coordinating Minister for Economic Policy was also appointed to lead the newly restructured Ministry of Economy, Trade and Investment.

The formerly known as Ministry of Primary Resources and Tourism portfolio now renamed Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, or METI for short, was His Majesty explained, “to accelerate the development of the primary sectors as well as embrace efforts to diversify in order to ensure sustainable economic growth as well as achieve meaningful employment.”  

Seven sitting ministers – namely YB Pehin Datu Lailaraja Maj Gen (Rtd) Dato Paduka Seri Hj Halbi Bin Hj Mohd Yussof as Minister at PMO, YB Dato Seri Setia Hj Ahmaddin Bin Hj Abd Rahman as Minister of Home Affairs, YB Dato Seri Setia Hj Erywan Bin Pehin Datu Pekerma Jaya Hj Mohd Yusof as second Minister of Foreign Affairs, YB Dato Seri Setia Dr Hj Mohd Amin Liew Bin Abdullah as second Minister of Finance (Investment), YB Dato Seri Setia Dr Hj Mohd Isham Bin Hj Jaafar as Minister of Health, YB Dato Seri Setia Hj Mohd Juanda Bin Hj Abd Rashid as Minister of Development, YB Datin Seri Setia Dr Hjh Romaizah Binti Hj Mohd Salleh as Minister of Education – were reappointed to continue on their incumbent functions and duties for cohesion and stability. The second Minister of Finance was also called upon by His Majesty to “be responsible in leading investment portfolios locally and internationally as well as monitor performances of government-linked companies.”

The four deputy ministers appointed to full ministerial rank – YB Dato Seri Paduka Hj Sufian Bin Hj Sabtu as Minister at PMO (Security & Legal), YB Dato Seri Paduka Hj Mohd Azmi Bin Hj Mohd Hanifah as Minister at PMO (Energy), YB Pengiran Dato Seri Paduka Hj Mohd Tashim Bin Pengiran Hj Hassan as the new Minister of Religious Affairs and YB Dato Seri Paduka Hj Mohd Riza Bin Dato Paduka Hj Mohd Yunos as Minister of Transport and Info-Communications – came with a comment by His Majesty that their appointments was also hoped to bring “new perspectives and ideas”.

Over the course of their four-year term, His Majesty urged the new ministers “serve as one team, provide the best services to His Majesty’s subjects, listen to their concerns, provide timely responses, with full commitment and integrity to carry the country forward to achieve the goals of Wawasan Brunei 2035.”

Towards the end of the monarch’s titah, His Majesty read out in clipped procession, the names of the new deputy ministers at the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Development and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry – Pengiran Datin Seri Paduka Hjh Zety Sufina Binti Pengiran Dato Paduka Hj Sani, Puan Dr Nor Imtihan Binti Hj Abd Razak and Puan Hjh Tutiaty Binti Hj Abd Wahab – quietly shattered another progressive glass ceiling for the country, as this 2026 cabinet now includes four women. The highest number appointed at this level, one minister and three deputy ministers, sent in to do what has traditionally been a man’s job.