E&O, Penang
June 25, 2012
The Universality of Clean Governance
by Zairil Khir Johari
The great statesman Sir Winston Churchill once noted, with customary astuteness, that a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, while an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. In this vein, I posit that the current global financial crisis, though potentially perilous, may in effect present a golden opportunity to us in ASEAN.
While it is true that the traditional consumer markets of the West are now sinking in a sea of debt, thereby causing direct and substantial impact to our export-oriented economies, it is also true that industrial production and exports have begun to cautiously accelerate in this region. Momentum in the last one year has been positive, with contracting demand from America and Europe offset by growing regional demand, especially from China.
In fact, statistics from the last three quarters of last year reveal that Southeast Asian consumption expenditure had expanded by a healthy 4.7 per cent. This interesting trend suggests that domestic demand in East Asia is not only able to withstand the financial pressures from the West, but also reveals the potential of this region to become the next major consumer market.
This is particularly significant to us. Geographically bridging the rising giants of East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, and with more than 600 million people or nearly a tenth of the world’s population living in ASEAN countries, we are well-poised to take advantage of this emerging development.
However, it is imperative that we tread carefully. This promised opportunity is doubled-edged. While we must be prepared to realise the prospective benefits of economic growth, we must also take great care in leveraging on this opportunity to ensure that any development that results is one that is equitable, just and inclusive.
This is where our public institutions are critical. If our executive, legislative, judicial, financial and electoral systems are not robust, durable and even more importantly clean, then we will not be able to safeguard the fundamental rights and well-being of our people.
That said, economic opportunities – and this also applies to conditions of economic uncertainty – are rife with pitfalls. In a capitalistic environment unfettered by the absence of strong, functional and accountable public institutions, it is only too easy to fall into either one or both of two traps.
Firstly, corruption and abuse of power usually thrive in such circumstances. As a result, state monopoly capitalism and rent-seeking behaviour will lead to an inefficient economy that benefits only politically-connected capitalists and those adept at the art of bureaucratic lubrication. In this case, economic development will occur, but corruption will produce inequitable development.
The other trap is known as the tragedy of the commons; a dilemma characterised by independent, rational actors in singular pursuit of their own self-interest. This behavioural pattern is unsustainable and will ultimately result in long-term ruin as resources are greedily exhausted without regard for collective consciousness. In this case, “every one for himself” will mean that the biggest, strongest and richest will amass the lion’s share, while everyone else will be left fighting for scraps.
In the context of ASEAN today, with some member countries in a state of transitional flux and others still entrenched in the old habits of patronage, corruption and abuse of power, it would be only too easy to fall into either one or both of these traps.
The only way to prevent such adverse circumstances is to provide the necessary institutional protections through good and clean governance based on the rule of law, legitimacy of power, consistency and integrity in public service delivery, and participatory processes that will provide every man and woman with a real and lasting stake in their own future.
There are of course those who argue against the need for values such as freedom and democracy as a basis for clean governance. In their opinion, the peculiarities of “Asian values” make democracy and human rights incompatible with the genetic makeup of our society. They instead argue that economic needs are more important than human rights and political freedoms, and that development can in fact be achieved without freedom.
This is of course the hypothesis of the “absolute benign dictator”, most recently postulated by a prominent former (Malaysian) Prime Minister. Such a leader would indeed be powerful and strong enough to engender efficient and effective functioning of public institutions. The system will work as intended, so long as the dictator is inclined to be benign and benevolent. Unfortunately, no one has told us what will happen when the dictator is eventually replaced or when he or she decides one day that being benign is not that fun, after all.
Advocates of this thesis often point out that development and freedom are not necessarily mutually inclusive. After all, some Asian economies have been able to achieve development without necessarily giving due regards to freedom and human rights. However, here we must ask ourselves two important questions. To whom does development benefit, and what do we mean by development?
To address the first question, it is often the case that economic development in authoritarian regimes, even with double digit expansion, results only in one-sided distribution and widening inequality. In other words, while the pie gets bigger, the crumbs for those at the bottom of society do not increase. It is only the elite that enjoy the excesses.
Secondly, development should not only be measured in material terms. While the escape from income poverty must be a goal, development should also entail the release of the shackles of “unfreedom”, to use the term made famous by Amartya Sen. In other words, societal development can only be achieved when people are empowered with the freedom to live their lives to their fullest capabilities. That is the only way to ensure sustainable and equitable development.
The “Asian values” thesis is a fallacy and at best a justification for authoritarian regimes. We must remember that democracy, which is the structural manifestation of freedom, is founded upon the derivation of legitimacy from the masses. Though it is a Western term, it is not a Western concept.
As Kim Dae Jung pointed out in his seminal rebuttal against the notion of “Asian values”, Chinese philosophy dating as far back as a few millennia ago have been advancing the idea that the “heavenly” mandate bestowed upon rulers were not only derived from the will of the people, but also predicated upon good and righteous governance.
And this was long before John Locke articulated the foundations of modern democracy. In other words, the fundamental values and traditions for democracy are not peculiar to the West, or the East for that matter. They are in fact universal human values.
Therefore, Asian cultural heritage is not an obstacle but in fact a platform to foster and encourage the values of freedom and democracy. In this regard, the challenge for us is to ensure the embodiment of these values into our public institutions. And this is something that only we can do ourselves.
The responsibility to exercise clean, efficient and accountable governance in ASEAN cannot be imposed or imported from the outside. After all, it is our own freedom, our own development and our own livelihood that is at stake. Thus, it is entirely incumbent upon us to meet this challenge of ensuring that our public institutions embrace the universal values of truth, freedom and democracy.
In a turbulent future that promises both challenges and opportunity, it is critical that we get our foundations right. We must resist the urge to retreat into our own comfort zones. We need to recognise that only by a collective regional effort can we build a substantive force to face the coming shift in the global order.
The key to building sustainable development is to empower our people through the adherence of the fundamental principles of truth, freedom and democracy. It is our duty to ensure that development and its distribution is not only fair materially, but also inclusive in terms of access and opportunity. To do this, we must avoid the pitfalls of selfishness and corruption.
We must also take heed that freedom and democracy are not concepts that are anathema to our culture; they are in fact symbiotic values that must be embraced in order to achieve the ultimate goal of human development.
At the end of the day, whether we call it clean governance, good governance or judicious governance, it is about building strong, functioning, accountable and transparent public institutions. Only then can we reduce the avenues for corruption, provide representation at all levels of society, allow meaningful space for democratic participation and be responsive to the present and future needs of our society.
_____________
Clean governance is akin to having a good home to grow up in isnt it? In a good home, children have the opportunity to develop their skills and talents, the children have the opportunity for learning about freedom within the boundaries of mum and dad’s rules, in a good home chidlren learn about actions chosen have consequences , in a good home we learn about economics to make sure we have food to eat, fuel in the car, spending money for holidays, toys , in the home the members of the family contribute in cleaning up their own rooms, taking care of each other, protecting each other, in the home we learn respect for the elders, for the rules laid down. Mum and dad provides each one of us with the opportunity to have a good education to ensure we can live independently when we grow up.
All this is the foundation of good governance and a healthy society. This naturally affect the happiness index doesnt it? In that we have a long and fulfilled life one hopes with good values. The other hope is to continue with this cycle of good values which brings about happiness of the nation. It is not an alien concept is it? It should be in us by the time we put up our hands up to serve the people.
So whats gone so wrong?
It is also time perhaps that certain issues that should be taken out fo the political arena. Issues of human rights, the real problem of modern day slavery, human trafficking which SEA is acutely vulnerable too, and independence of religous thought and practice. These areas should be taken off the political agendas and separately dealt with , with sound policies .For it is the fundamental birth right of every human person , that every one should be safe and have their chosen personal journey of faith.
Yes, the theory is nice and easy to have it written in beautiful words. Accountable, transparent, corruption-free and good governance with maximum participatory opportunities by the masses is more likely to be made available if the government is kept pliable and not strong. NGOs of all colours and interest groups will then rule the waves. I wonder then if this situation will benefit the people.
A strong government of whatever ideology will tend to be dictatorial and arrogant – say whatever else you like as the stronger the power, the more it corrupts.
___________________
It is not theory. It is being done in Penang. Read Lim Guan Eng’s speech at opening of the conference carefully.–Din Merican.
Finally some bright spark in EPU when asked if Malaysia is a first, second or third world country proudly announces that Malaysia is a third world country. Unbelievable !
What has gone so wrong? Some of the homes have not been taken care of properly like what our parents and grand-parents do in the forties, fifties and sixties. The women were full-time housewives. They had all the time to care, love and cherished their children and grand-children.
To-day the children are being cared by foreign-maids and they (the children) learn a lot of the good, the bad and the ugly things from the Internet. The parents are busy with their jobs etc. Some spend extra hours (2 to 4 hours) on the road – from home to office and office to home everyday. The parenting-hours become less.
Well young man, you’ve said little about what democracy really means. I would beg to disagree that the concept of “Mandate of Heaven” was anywhere near the Greek idea of “Demokratia”. But, i’ll not nit-pick.,
Broadly speaking, the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India or China and until to day, were largely ruled hierarchically, with mighty Monarchs and Octo like creatures holding sway over extensive empires/estates, administered by large bureaucracies, standing armies, priestly class or religious authorities. The ancient Greeks otoh, were essentially ‘freaks’ with their ideas of an autonomous ‘poleis’ where citizens staffed the army and collected public funds with a premium being placed on self-reliance and self-control. Perhaps, their past is coming to catch up with them – Grexit and all..
Politics should be in a sense, the direct participation of the general public (of a state etc) in the making of rational choices after discussion in all fields of human endeavor. The basic premise is done by obedience to a System of Law that had been laid down, to ensure the ‘dignity of your fellow man’. Tyrants, aristocrats, autocrats, oligarchs and other similarly minded individuals (ie self justified) have no truck with such logical parameters. So much for our ‘ecclesiology’ (concept of the general assembly).
Btw Kat, what would be a happy society? Is there such thing as good ‘governance’ or merely efficient governance?
Clean governance is akin to having a good home to grow up, yes, very true.
The problem is, managing a home is not the same with managing a nation / state. The main difference I can think of is the people in a home, most of the time have “flesh and blood” tie with the person who manages it and in a nation, the rakyat do not have “flesh and blood” tie with the person who manages it. As a result, the degree of accountability and love is not the same. Similarly, a person who manages public fund rarely manages the money like his/her own hard earned legal money.
lwe, true that is the main difference and the very reason why there is a split and it is all about race because there is no love towards another who is different from us. That is the greatest challenge isnt it. That I believe is the challenge facing Malaysia and that will determine whether Malayia makes or breaks. However the foundations laid at home should be contributing to those who put their hands up to serve . At home we are accountable and accountability in the public sphere ahould be just as strict if not more. Although I agree that everything is open to abuse and so to counter lack of accountability we do need systems in place and we have them . It is the enforcement that is lacking, the will to do so because it doesnt quite serve some purposes/agenda. We need to change that.
CLF, happiness is two fold I believe, working simultaneously together.
firstly, it is the nourishment of our Spirit. So it is iimperative that we have the freedom to go in search for answers about our faith journey and are able to explore with no fear and find our own path towards answering why we are here on earth.
Secondly in our physical form ,we need a purpose. When we find our individual purpose , we are fulfilled, ie happy. That is why Umno is not doing the malays a favour by telling them whether by religion or by emotional guilt, what to do, how to think and consequently are not letting the malays make their own mistakes and learn from and thus grow.
A combination of the first and the second above allows us to evolve daily minute by minute into one day , before our journey in this life ends towards becoming a holistic human person.
How does this apply to good/clean governance? Well then when that person is allowed to evolve fully ( a combination of both above) , he or she will take this experience into the service of others with much thought, consideration, minimum judgemnt and service of others for their betterment as he or she has had to go through their own struggle , if you will in life. So he or she will show empathy and understanding. This will then help make policies that will serve the greatest purpose, ie to help another. This hopefully will result in happiness of other or fulfilment of the other which in turn will result in the fulfilment/happiness of the person serving.
I suppose it isnt strictly clean or good goverance is it but efficient as we can possibly be for there will be abuses. But Malysia is in such a bad shape that we speak of clean or good ( freudian really, an intensely innate need)
ANY form of governance that leaves out REGULATION will eventually be found wanting.
Democracy has been preached to us for more than five decades. Now the preachers are discovering that it is collapsing all around them. All because proper regulation was overlooked.
Like most things in life… the answers are simple. Read the article at the top of today’s blog and you will, hopefully, see what I mean.
How do we make a conclusion that a government is a clean, good or judicious government? What criterias or factors do we use to come to a conclusion? Is it based on the economic, social and political progress of the country or the performances, progress and efficiencies of the ministries and departments and agencies under them? Or is it based on the number of foreign investment companies that come to operate in the country. Or is based on the overall developments in the country – the number of schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, clinics, roads and highways, new towns and cities that have been built and developed and managed; the businesses, jobs opportunities, overall health of the populations etc?
In Malaysia we have the Federal, state and local governments with offices in the federal capital Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya and the states capitals, districts, cities and towns and mukims. Federal officers work with the ministries, federal departments and agencies throughout the country in the Peninsular and in Sabah and Sarawak. Federal officers also work with the state and local governments to serve the rakyat on secondment such as the State Secretaries, DOs and ADOs, the Chairman of the local councils etc.
If a local council is not performing well do we conclude that the local and state government is not a good government?
If there are illegal immigrants working or doing illegal business in the towns and cities or working in the pubs, night-clubs, karakoes, restaurants and hotels do we blame the local governments or the state governments or the Federal government?
You’ve made some good points there. I looked on the net to learn more about the issue and found most individuals will go along with your views on this website.