Defining public interest

In a legal framework, third-party interests are quite well-known and clearly understood. But in national governance is the same concept as well understood? Do we have a clear concept of what is this third-party interest or the public interest?  

Who speaks for this public interest? Is national interest and public interest one and the same concept? Who defined the national interest? Does an elected government in power always only work for the national interest? These questions guide my reflection in this column.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was the PM who set up the first-ever Parliamentary Committee on Integrity in 2005. It was a recognition of concerns related to the heretofore denial of public interest amongst common and ordinary citizens.  

Their first mandate was to travel the nation and hold town hall meetings to listen to woes and concerns of the rakyat. Concurrently with the parliamentary committee, he also set up the only one-of-its-kind in the world Malaysian Institute of Integrity (IIM) to articulate and communicate this concept of Integrity. The IIM also served as secretariat to the parliamentary committee for the town hall meetings and their report.  

The goal of both these institutions was to upgrade the quality of integrity in this nation. But as Pak Lah soon found out; there is a vast gap between the PM’s good intentions and the actual works, of hidden processes, and overt actions of Little Napoleons and their political dalang in the very nature of governance. What do I mean?

Agenda lost steam along the way

Bernard Dompok, the current third senior-most ranking minister in Najib Abdul Razak’s cabinet, was the appointed chairman of the Special Committee of the Parliament in 2005. I believe that the committee did some excellent work, but somehow the entire agenda lost steam along the way because first-party interests began violating third-party questions, concerns, and issues. Again, what do I mean?

For example, I understand that the parliamentary committee invited the DGs of Immigration and Registration Departments to answer questions on the Project M Identity Card accusations and allegations in Sabah. The Umno minister in charge (i.e. the first-party representative in cabinet) told his officers that they need not appear before the parliamentary committee.  

That action insulted the parliamentary committee and therefore the dignity and integrity of our august Parliament. The integrity, honour and dignity of the Parliament was compromised by the same PM and his colleagues in Umno.  

The chairman of the parliamentary committee could not do his work as directed by the cabinet who agreed to his appointment in the first place. Political will was defined.

Premised on this insult to the “office of the Parliament,” Dompok ( left ) resigned as chairman of the Parliamentary Special Committee. His public statement defined inability to assume the role and he took full responsibility for failure in the task.   

The next office-holder completed his term but to the best of my knowledge the findings and report of the Parliamentary Committee on Integrity has never been tabled in Parliament till today. Whose public interest is the national agenda?  

I believe the reasons for this conscious compromise of the integrity of the Parliament are simple and straightforward. We, in Malaysia, lack a clear and complete concept of what makes for good governance.

The lame Mahathir Mohamad argument that to have good governance one needs a two-thirds majority is pure rubbish and plainly stupid. In fact, such is only needed within a dictatorship which pretends to be a democracy.  

In any real and true democracy or in a maturing one, or like those of the UK or Australia today, even a small majority government is good enough so long as reason and logic are the order of the day. Does one really need excessive authority and power to run a good and effective government?

In fact what is probably true is that within a two-thirds majority that there is always the temptation for the abuse and misuse of power and authority, as we have seen and experienced in the last 15 years or so.

One clear case of the PKFZ demonstrates this amply. Today all the truths that matter are unfolding in spite of what the first-party would really like; to cover up such truths. The 12 deaths on the highway are simply a case in point. The Malaysiakini headline of Friday about the Mahathir Empire is another case in point.

For that matter, even mainstream media channels are now beginning to open their minds and hearts and reveal and address all such truths that matter. We now even have a journalist from Utusan Malaysia who is the president of the NUJ and intends to usher in a better democracy with the media assuming a more professional and informational role of the fifth estate.

New civil society leadership rising

New civil society leadership is rising to respond to all these challenges. Civil society in Malaysia is become edgy.

Third-party interests are therefore the basic interests of the common man as articulated by any side or small group but which can only be agreed upon and executed when all relevant stakeholders give their undivided support. Such public interest good may never be executed in record speed but must always receive the consensus needed when all requisite parties support the agenda. Citizens know.

Usually the first-parties within governance are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary which are given the delegated authority to undertake their work legitimately. Second-party interests are usually the interests of the object of focus or the subject who become clients and beneficiaries of the first-party services and legal undertakings.

Third-party interests are the uninvolved community interests within the periphery whose indirect concerns are usually articulated and expressed by non-government actors under the rubric of civil society. Civil society then provides the small voices of individual citizens who articulate their sectarian or parochial interests and concerns but who are not often organised into a political party for the purpose of public governance.

Malaysia is currently at the stage where third-party interests and voices must be facilitated and encouraged for improved governance of this nation. The two-party system that is slowly but surely forming is an excellent form to usher in greater maturity in our democratic system. But that alone is not enough.

As proposed at the last SABM inaugural lecture, there is now a clear and present need for a third-party force of influence for growth and maturity in our fledgling democracy. Citizens must give support and voice for the third force mobilisation.

Allow me to extend this wishful argument. Can both contending parties allow NGO or civil society representatives to stand as “third force candidates” in the next general elections?” Why not? These must be individuals who have high integrity and hold to principles but are not “jumping frogs”.

Can these individuals be selected to represent the legitimate interests of marginalised groups, whether we call them Hindraf or Orang Asli or whatever is of primary concern. Their only mandate is to speak for the voice of the small man.

It is time for Malaysians to innovate our own brand of democracy. We R Malaysia! Can our governance community consider how to reinvent and initiate a system wherein the third force can becomes recognised, conjured up and supported by all parties for the public interest of the nation and to grow and evolve our own public interest democracy? May God bless Malaysia with a maturing democracy.