The Return of Government
By Brian Yap
Governance is what differentiates Canada from Afghanistan, Sweden from Zimbabwe, and some Malaysians might say, one side of the Causeway and the other.
The contrast between nations with good governance and those without are both obvious and far-reaching. More than anything else, be it religious or ideological orientation, the standard of governance is what affects the lives of a nation's people.
Governments have always had an important role to play. For the past thirty plus years, however, the belief in unfettered free market principles as a solution to any and all problems has given governments a bad name. The man some might call the father of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, famously said, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."
The boom times made it easier to ignore this philosophy's obvious shortcomings. Coupled with the decline of socialism as popular movement, the belief in unfettered free market prevailed. Privatisation and deregulation became the order of the day, from capitalist USA to "communist" China. In Malaysia, then prime minister Tun Mahathir espoused Malaysia, Inc., his vision of the private sector taking a bigger role in governance. In other words, good governments were those that got out of the way of the private sector. The result, it must be added, is that the government has become less interested in actual governance, and more concerned about the politics that surround it.
But the world today is facing unprecedented crises, from economic to environmental. These are problems exacerbated, if not downright caused by, the private sector and their deregulating enablers in government. Multi-national private institutions once held in such high esteem and thought to be infallible have revealed their corrupt, greedy and worst of all, dangerously incompetent ways.
The relentless privatisation drive of the past few decades have also proven detrimental, whether in the rescue efforts of Hurricane Katrina or the tone-deaf manner in which privatised utility companies in Malaysia have increased their rates in the past few years while enjoying record profits. Even wars can be farmed out to the private sector, as the Bush administration did when it used private militia Blackwater in Iraq.
Thankfully, crises, as the cliche goes, come with opportunities. And one of these opportunities is for governments to reconfigure its role in society. Actually, governments, even the most right wing, have little choice but to take an active role in facing the challenges ahead. If they are not to squander the political mood of the times, governments have to radically transform the way they operate. To borrow the Penang government's motto, people expect competency, accountability and transparency.
But this call for governments to play a greater role must not be followed by a return to the bureaucratic, unresponsive monoliths of the past that made relentless privatisation seem like a better alternative. Nor must it mean a return to a patriarchal model in which governments dictate every aspect of citizen's lives.
The role of the government should be defined as doing what individuals cannot do for themselves. Things like managing the economy, personal and public security, creating an environment for its people to develop their full potential, and ensuring justice, equality and opportunity for all.
However, the tendency of the government in Malaysia, be it in the municipal, state or federal level, is to neglect many of those areas while poking its fingers in social and cultural issues. DBKL might still be struggling to make KL a clean and safe city, but that didn't stop it from deciding to censor theatre productions instead.
In Malaysia, reforming the government is a task of almost revolutionary order. While the pillars of good governance, such as a dynamic civil service, an independent judiciary and media, and oversight agencies with prosecution powers, are a source of pride and unity in many countries, in Malaysia it is the opposite. Here, people of all creeds are united by a dim view of the government.
Here's a simple example of how the Malaysian government does business. Every once in a while, the police carries out an operation to punish motorists who fail to pay their summons for traffic offences. It's a much-publicised affair involving a lot of manpower, as officers sometimes visit unsuspecting offenders in their residences. A simpler solution is obvious, albeit less media worthy: Vehicles with outstanding summons should not be allowed to renew their road tax until all payment is settled. With one simple change in approach, costs can be cut, while efficiency and effectiveness are increased exponentially.
But this is not the Malaysian way.
Even the man who practically shaped modern Malaysia could not reform the government machine. Almost immediately after he took power, Tun Mahathir introduced his ABCs of "Amanah, Bersih dan Cekap," which brought, among other things, the name tag and punch clock. Almost 30 years later, not much has improved.
Those who argue against big government would have a field day when they look at the Malaysia as an example. In last year's federal budget, the government expenditure was RM207.9 billion, up from an already high RM176.9 billion from the previous year. Yet, for all that money spent, Malaysians usually prefer not to deal with government agencies unless they have to. Putrajaya, with its imposing, Kremlin-like buildings is almost the perfect analogy for our government-imposing, disconnected and unwelcoming.
The truth is, while the lack of good governance is dire in these times, it has long been an albatross around Malaysia's neck. The solutions too are nothing new. A civil service that is nonpartisan. A strengthening of institutions such as the media, judiciary and watchdog agencies. Local elections. A more vocal public and civil society. Stricter laws on corruption, more accountability for public officials, and yes, public tenders for all government projects. Logically, a two coalition system would help improve governance, though it might take awhile before the ruling BN understands the concept of politics as a competition of ideas.
The tools we use to get there might have changed, but the road to good governance is still paved with the same stuff-democracy.
In light of the challenges ahead, there is little doubt that governments, including ours, have a big role to play. It's not about size. After all, the size of the Malaysian government has been inversely proportionate to its calibre. Instead it's about using the best tools and minds to getting the job done. And that job isn't to constantly harp on racial and religious issues, nor is it to worry about the movies showing in the cinema or the neckline of a pop star. Instead, good governance is measured by the government's ability creating an environment for all Malaysians to live healthy and happy lives, to develop and prosper to their fullest capacity as individuals. The private sector cannot carry out such a task. Individuals on their own cannot either. Only a capable, forward-thinking government can do that, and it is high time for one to take leadership of Malaysia.
Brian Yap is a journalist with an unhealthy addiction to the news. If useless information were a currency, he'd be so wealthy he could run for a position in UMNO. At 31, he has written for KLue, The Malaysian Insider and the New Straits Times.