Categories
Politics & government

[1743] Of political competition for better institutions

Unity is a popular concept nowadays. It began with the Malay unity talks and in response to that, M. Kulasegaran of the DAP called for Malaysian unity talks to bring the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat together. How close is still unclear.

Meanwhile, the harsh bipartisanship that exists at the moment has prompted fears that this country is falling apart and real issues are not being addressed. All that, however, is nonsense. The political competition we are seeing today is one of the few good things that have happened to this country in a long time.

The uncertain political climate brought about by the ongoing political competition has been cited every now and then as being detrimental to economic growth. I agree with this premise to some extent but that does not necessarily make me wish to turn down the volume. On the contrary, I am excited to witness this chapter of Malaysian history.

Opinion on whether this uncertainty is unfavorable really depends on the time horizon one wishes to adopt as a frame of reference. In the short term, the political uncertainty caused by various factors — from allegations of sodomy and the Altantuya trial to political defection — does indeed shoo away business. The simplest indicator would be the Composite Index. Each time another factor amplifies our political scenario, the Composite Index takes a nosedive.

Looking beyond the hills, beyond instant gratification and beyond quick bucks, what we are experiencing provides us with the best chance to improve our institutions, from the courts to the legislature and to the executive branch of our government. A chance to fix our institutions is a chance to take our economy to greater heights. Laid out in front of us is a rare opportunity to fix our illiberal democracy.

We Malaysians have proven our capability at building skyscrapers, dams, bridges and cities out of nowhere, though cracks do emerge from time to time. At this juncture, I do believe we are in need of abstract rather than physical developments. Among these abstract developments is the strengthening of our institutions.

Strong institutions are an important check-and-balance mechanism and its importance is self-evident. Strong institutions enable the state to play out its foremost function and that is the protection of individual liberty. Strong institutions keep the state honest and true to its citizens.

A strong government, however, has no incentive for such a mechanism. History has proven this; after years of having a strong government, this country has seen its institutions weakened and subservient to the executive. If this country had continued to see a strong government, the chance to fix our institutions would be delayed further into the future while the decay continued.

That has slowly eroded credibility in our institutions as their independence has been continually suppressed for political purposes. As a result, trust in our institutions is probably at its lowest point ever. The civil service, for instance, once the pride of this country, is now a laughing stock.

This is especially worrying if the judiciary is involved. If the system is perceived as incredible and not neutral, it would be incapable of dispensing justice in the eyes of the public. Peaceful arbitration would be hard to achieve and might even give rise to a culture of vigilantes with gross disregard for the rule of law. Having that happening would be far worse than going through whatever we are experiencing at the moment.

This scenario may suffer from a little exaggeration but the first sign of trouble and the rationale for vigilantes is when the citizens themselves begin to frequently question rulings passed by the courts, believing that the institutions are unable or refuse to do their job.

Contrary to strong government, a small government does not have the power to undermine various public institutions such as the courts even if it wants to. A small government, in fact, gives a chance for these institutions to regain their independence once robbed by the executive.

The current political competition also puts pressure on these institutions to become more neutral, as they should be. Whereas once our institutions under strong government had only one political master to answer to, now the monopoly of power is broken.

With stronger institutions, people would have greater confidence in doing business in this country because they know that their rights would be secured. Corruption could be weeded out and this would bring the cost of doing business down as individuals feel empowered with credible public institutions. The improvement and newly rebuilt trust in these institutions could be one of those structural changes which would only benefit us.

To achieve that possibility, it is imperative for us to continue to fuel the flame of bipartisanship. Let the politicians squabble and continue to weaken the government. I am more interested in the rejuvenation of our institutions.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Society

[1430] Of trust between individuals and institutions

As I was racing toward the final pages of Beinhocker’s The Origin of Wealth, among the public, there was a growing distrust against the judiciary in Malaysia. Coincidentally, the final chapter of The Origin of Wealth discusses how trust is an important component in building a successful society. Trust is one of many important ingredients toward cooperation and greater economic activities between individuals.

Beinhocker states that a society of trustworthy individuals encourages cooperation. He strengthens his assertion with a correlation between trust level of societies and level of gross national product or roughly in layman’s term, wealth of societies; the correlation is positive. The rationale is quite logical.

In any dealing, especially under which past dealings are considered, many would try to avoid entering into any agreement with those of low reputation or untrustworthy. This scenario could easily be illustrated by a repeated game with players utilizing adapted tit-for-tat as a strategy. In this scenario, bad reputation or untrustworthiness leads to uncooperative behavior by the cheated player. The behavior acts as a punishment by the cheated onto the cheating player.

Although Beinhocker is referring to trust between individuals in his book, his conclusion could be adapted to accommodate relationship between individuals and institutions.

Referring to the alleged corruption of the Malaysian judiciary, the players in the game could easily be comprehended as civil society and the judiciary. When the judiciary exhibits actions which lower its reputation, the civil society has little reason to trust with the judiciary.

The judiciary is the arbitrator of conflict between individuals and the perception of neutrality is important to convince relevant individuals of the trustworthiness of the judiciary. Without neutrality, there is little reason for individuals to trust and approach the arbitrator to solve any conflict. If such outcome which the perception of neutrality is absence is repeated overtime, individuals, who may initially grant the arbitrator their trust, will update their expectation and become distrustful of the arbitrator. The final result will be a complete disregard and dismissal of the arbitrator.

The lack of trustworthy judiciary takes away a reliable neutral arbitrator from the society. Without a good institution to govern relationships between individuals, transactions between individuals will fall in volume, as each individual now becomes wary of being cheated by the other without recourse to justice. Economic activities will decrease, making the society as a whole worse off.

Distrust against the judiciary may even lower the possibility of peaceful resolution to any conflict. When the law through the judiciary is unable to dispense justice, one will take justice into his own hands. This among others would give way to the rise of vigilantism. If vigilantes patrol the street, then it will challenge the state’s monopoly to legitimate use of force.

The integrity of the state itself is at stake, adversely affecting stability and in turn hurt economic growth in compounding manner.

Categories
Activism Politics & government Society

[1390] Of Nurin to Chief Justice: A Collapse of Law and Order? by IKD

So okay. Right after I had my first real outing my new best friend, the Nikon D40, I gave an Institute for Policy Research-organized (Institut Kajian Dasar; IKD) forum a visit. I do not think I would like to write too much about it since one of the panels talked about what I wanted to blog in the first place; I am a little bit disheartened when somebody made the point public first. Anyway, he mentioned how trust is important and to some extent, the impact of lack of public trust to state institution. It is a little bit blurry whom spoke of that — it could only be either Mr. Cumaraswamy or Tunku Abdul Aziz — but that point is the most important lesson for many to take note from the big picture-kind of thinking.

On general however, the forum was about how, allegedly, rotten the judiciary is. From there on, the panel tried to convince the audience on why a royal commission is required to not just investigate the authenticity of the scandalous video made public earlier by PKR but the state of the judiciary as a whole. The sentiment of the panel was that it has been a downhill for judiciary independence in the spirit of separation of powers since 1988, the year when former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad orchestrated the removal Salleh Abbas from the office of the Lord President of the Supreme Court.

About the video itself, the footage released to the public is just first part of the video. According to Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah and Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, there is another approximately 6 minutes of unreleased clip. In unreleased clip according to Anwar Ibrahim further, Judge Ahmad Fairuz’s name can be clearly heard and more names were mentioned.

That asides, some of the usual suspects were there. By suspects, I meant bloggers! I think, if one attends too many public forums, sooner or later, the most of the faces would be recognizable.

Finally, pictures:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

The banner.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

I apologize for the quality of the photo: I am still exploring the features of Nikon D40 but from the left, Tunku Abdul Aziz of Transparency International, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy formerly of the United Nations, the chairperson Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Secretary to the Bar Council Lim Chee Wee.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

And that is Din Merican.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — Howsy has more.