There is a worldview that assumes that good governance is about satisfying the requirements of the shareholder at all costs. Is this a valid or relevant way of understanding private or public governance?

Or, is there something wrong with such a way of framing the worldview of good governance? The recent Star Publications annual general meeting (AGM) brought out all issues and concerns related to this false framing of such a modern worldview.

Good governance is about management and development of any organisation so that all shareholders and stakeholders, plus the served constituency who all receive their share of both risk repayment and reward reinforcement, plus opportunities provided for allocation of goods and services; both served and not served.

Yes, there are always three distinct constituencies served at one and the same time for all organisations.  Therefore, I have always failed to understand why business people only talk about win-win, but not win-win-win instead? Yes, the final beneficiaries of any product or service are the third win, always. If the beneficiaries do not like the service or goods, then the organisation is a losing concern over the longer term.

The three-stakeholder model

In any organisation there are three critical and important stakeholders. There are producers of the service or product, and then there is the target audience or market for the service or product, usually called the clientele for the service or product. There is also a third party, the licenser of the product or service, usually an approved authority.

Within the capital-based development model, the producers are made up of those who create the service and those who finance the creation of the product or service called investors. These usually form a business incorporated under the Companies Act, either as a limited or unlimited company.

Those who put money down take more financial risks with their investments, but those who create the product or service also take risks which are equally financially valuable and they can be valued especially if their service “can be registered or recognised” in terms of their unique intellectual property contributions. Silicon Valley optimises on this knowledge economy model.

In the second category are the potential clients or customers of the product or service. They are made up of at least three categories of people. There are the targeted customers of the product, the non-customers, and the never customers of the product or service.

\"\"

If we take the auto industry as an example, the car-owners are the first category, the pedestrians the second, and the tribal people in the hills or the green environment are the never-users of this product or service. The current focus of the “green agenda” is really an admission of the existence of the never customers, but who may also become the “victims of the abuse of that industry”, like for example, the pollution of the environment.

The third category is the licensers of the service or product development. Whether it is the automotive industry or the tobacco industry, some public authority must agree to or approve the existence of the industry, and to ensure that the industry is not simply “a licence to kill others.” Even the commercial production of clean water or oxygen has to be moderated for the same reasons.

Does ‘ownership’ abuse good governance?

Under our current capitalistic model of business, too often, the false assumption is that capital investment creates the de facto law of “ownership”. The managers, who are always recruited as professionals, are subsequently and therefore reduced to “obedient servants” because of the presumption that “ownership equals authority”.

The resultant model of capitalistic governance is the abuse of good governance under this “ownership model.” For me, this was what was made obvious with the criticisms about the abuse of good governance during the Star Publications AGM.

What if we switch to a stewardship model of governance? Whether the 40 percent owners of The Star , or the minority shareholders who attended and spoke up at the AGM, or even the former employee who spoke for the management of The Star ; are they not all only “stewards of an opportunity” for “fulfilling the publication licence privileges awarded by the government?”  

What then is the role of any media in a democracy, but to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

On the truth-telling count, the governance of The Star failed; both in terms of the Malaysian interest and public good delivery, of both non-customers, and never-customers. I have always been a never-customer of The Star. I used to buy only The Star on Saturday for a few years because a friend was editor of a pull-out, but even that I have now stopped doing as of before the general election because of failure of this value of truth-telling by Star Publications.

I would therefore urge all Malaysians who are customers of The Star to move their vote, as did 51 percent of Malaysians at the last GE, to communicating with the governors of Star Publications  that all Malaysians can stand up for truth seeking and truth telling.

Let us, as a Malaysian people, tell Star Publications that customers are more important than either the so-called owners or even the management when it comes to stewarding the public interest and public good of all Malaysians. May truth seeking and truth telling become a way of life in Malaysia. May God bless Malaysia.