Malaysia and Governance: A Historical Perspective
By Julian Teh
When one thinks of the term "good governance" one usually associates it with political stability, fairness and of course strong economic growth. Lately, we have been seeing a lack of good governance within our country. One only has to look at the local headlines in the newspapers to see several examples. What has led us to such a precarious position of political instability and a distinct sense of foreboding for the future? This article seeks to examine a historical context of governance in Malaysia through a comparison of the past and the present. By this, we may be able to identify the malady that affects Malaysian governance and try to prescribe a remedy to it.
One lesson that we can take from our own local history on good governance was that of the Malaccan Sultanate. It had a strong and effective administrative hierarchy and a set of written laws which could be equated to a form of Constitution that we see common in most governments today. These factors, coupled along with its strategic geographical location helped the Malaccan Sultanate thrive and prosper to become the illuminating example of good governance.
A few centuries later, British colonialism had also played an important part in the development of governance in the country. Their administration of the country had effectively caused the transition of the Malay states as a collective of lands governed by feudal rulers to a more Westminster-type federal constitutional monarchy. This was realized and cemented with the birth of the Federal Constitution on Merdeka Day.
All was not smooth sailing however, and the blight on our nation's history that is the May 13th riots - was a dark mark for the future as the government became more executive centred, as was clearly illustrated with the NOC rule which held sole power in the country for 21 months. The NEP was introduced shortly after to address the causes of the May 13th riots, most notably racial inequality and the stated goal of eradicating poverty. The NEP was more successful in the latter rather than the former as evidenced by present day racial tensions.
Malaysia's definitive style of governance came when Tun Dr Mahatir Mohammad became Prime Minister in 1981 and ruled for an unprecedented 22 years. During his premiership, the government was again very executive centred, continuing the system that had worked for Tunku Abdul Razak in 1971.The other organs of the government, specifically the judiciary, had their independence reduced, most significantly after the Judicial Crisis of 1988. Consequently, dissent from the opposition and from within the ruling coalition were also silenced. The ISA was used liberally to crackdown on dissenters and oppositions members. Perhaps the most significant of these crackdowns was the removal and subsequent arrest under the ISA of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim which led to the birth of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat.
The Constitution itself was amended several times during Mahatir's reign, most notably to the judiciary, divesting the courts of its judicial power of the Federation and giving them only such powers as Parliament might grant them, marking the end of judicial independence. The federal and state monarchies were also affected by the constitutional amendments with their royal veto and immunity from prosecution being removed. The checks and balance which the Constitution had guaranteed were effectively usurped and the Constitution has since found its importance greatly eroded.
There were also alleged widespread corruption and cronyism within the government. There was less transparency in the government dealings and many government tenders were purportedly given to government linked companies. The NEP and its implementation was under much scrutiny as it was widely believed that members of the ruling party had benefited from it more than the poor it was intended to help.
Despite these breaches in civil liberties and abuses of power, Mahatir's popularity was buoyed by the fact that under his reign Malaysia had experienced unprecedented economic growth and modernization. Through dynamic and unconventional economic policies, Mahatir had managed to guide the country through the Asian financial crisis of 1997 relatively unscathed These factors gave the people confidence in the government as evidenced with the government winning the majority in the General Elections in 1998 and illustrated that Mahatir's reign was a stable, if not a widely popular one.
After Mahatir's retirement in 2003, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over the reigns of government. In his first year in office he had promised a clampdown on corruption and had also advocated Islam Hadhari as a form of moderate Islamic governance. These factors had led to an overwhelming majority victory for the government in the 2004 election and this was seen as an approval from the people for his vision on Islam Hadhari and his anti-corruption policies.
Following the 2004 elections however, controversies started surrounding Badawi. His claims to clampdown on corruption had not been followed through and the government efforts to combat corruption became less transparent. Badawi was also criticised for nepotism by allowing his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin to become unduly influtential in UMNO politics. There were also public disputes between Badawi and his predecessor Mahatir following Badawi's cancellation of projects started by Mahathir. The latter going so far as to state that he regretted his decision to appoint Badawi as his successor. The controversy surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shariibu, along with the rise in crime and inflation and the lack of transparency in the government and Badawi's inept leadership had led to massive civil demonstrations in 2007 and was only the calm before the political tsunami that engulfed Malaysia in the following months.
If we were to compare and contrast the style of governance between Mahatir and Abdullah Badawi, one can see that Mahathir had brokered no dissent from within and without. He was undoubtedly a strong and dynamic leader which led the country to a period of economic stability and growth but also made a lot of unpopular decisions which are unfortunately coming back to haunt his successor and the country.
Badawi on the other hand has shown that he did not have the dynamism and strength of his predecessor and allowed his rule to be undermined from within his own ranks. He furthermore did not keep to his mandate which had won him the 2004 elections and under his reign, the economic and social problems rose to the surface in such an extent that the people finally decided they had enough and make this obvious by the unprecedented loss of BN in the General Elections of 2008.
The current political climate is one of uncertainty. Through the last few years we have seen a sharp increase in race politics, corruption, and a decline in education, health and welfare. These problems will only magnify tenfold with the current economic crisis. It is encouraging however, to see that the opposition has now been given a bigger mandate from the people to play the role of watchmen of the ruling government with the hopes of someday being given the ball to run with. Whether they succeed in doing so, or if their vigilance makes government perform better, it can only be a good thing for the people.
However, the sins of the past have not as yet been addressed as the judiciary is still under the yoke of an executive centred government. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism, in concert with money and race politics are still in effect, if not more than ever, and the MACC has become a toothless dog. If the government is still very much intent on fighting corruption as it says it is, then more steps must be taken to ensure the independence and purity of both the MACC and the judiciary as the guardians of our morals and ethics. The lack of transparency is also one that must be solved. Government must be like an open book to the people it serves. In this regard, again, only a strong, independent and effective MACC, other agencies like it and the judiciary have the power to effect such a change.
Malaysia is now neither here nor there in terms of being a nation with good governance. For every step forward that we attempt, we are pushed back another ten by the corrupt and the immoral. The emergence of the new politics in Malaysia can only be a positive catalyst for change but that remains to be seen. It is only if we, the people, advocate and force such a change that the much vaunted dreams of Vision 2020 can be achieved. As of now, time's running out.
Teh Ju-Lian is a law graduate from the University of the West of England, Bristol with an interest in Malaysian current affairs and journalism. He is currently working as a writer and research assistant at Project Malaysia.