On May 6, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took the oath of office as Malaysia’s 7th prime minister before King Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah at the National Palace. Prime Minister Najib’s coalition, Barisan Nasional, returned to power when it won 133 of the 222 parliamentary seats to form the Federal Government.

After a violent campaign period, Malaysians headed to the polls to elect the 7th prime minister. Photo/Flickr user alanalew

For many Malaysians, there were mixed feelings on the result. On the one hand, they are tired of politicking and want to move on with their daily lives. On the other hand, one cannot help but to be upset with how the elections were conducted in general. Among a myriad of other issues,  the “indelible ink” marked on voters’ index fingers, a new procedure to prevent people from voting twice was easily washable, party workers continued to campaign on Election Day, and various reports of phantom voters persists. While many observers have reminded the Malaysian public that the Election Commission must not be blamed in full for the shortcomings in the electoral process, many still question its credibility, which has in turn put the result of the election in question.

Despite this, brave young Malaysians saw this election as a new beginning for Malaysian politics.

When interviewed, a young voter said: “Leading up to the GE13, in my mind, I did not think the opposition would win. While I felt that they could win more seats in the parliament, I had a feeling that they would not be able to get the seats needed to form a government. And because it wasn’t a change in government, it is currently being viewed as a total loss, especially by the younger generation of voters. With the result of this general election, the government has a lot more work to do to convince the public that they deserve to be in power. As part of the younger generation of Malaysia, I do hope for better transparency and fairness on the elections and the voting process and information that is being put forward from it. There should be more equality between incumbent and opposition parties, in terms of freedom of speech and expression and rights to a fair campaign especially in the press and media. These are all being championed by Pakatan Rakyat with the help of the Bersih movement. I do want to see this change happen, and I believe that our aspirations will be carried on beyond this elections.”

One thing was clear: the real winner in the Malaysia’s 13th general elections is the people. They have firmly entrenched a two-coalition system in the country and have given the opposition votes that would enable them to solidify their partnership and play a meaningful check and balance role in the parliament. More importantly, the voters have decided to end the days where Barisan Nasional enjoyed unfettered power. The younger generation of voters have stood up, and are showing that their voices are equally as important and that they carry weight no matter where, who, and how old they are. And if this trend continues we can look forward to a better Malaysia.

Amir Shariff is The Asia Foundation’s senior program officer in Malaysia. He can be reached at amir@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Following the news on environmental issues here in China can be a grim business. The first months of 2013 alone brought coverage of January’s “airpocalypse,” when air pollution in Beijing reached historic levels; news of thousands of dead pigs floating in the Huangpu River, a primary source of Shanghai’s drinking water; and a new report indicating that China sees 1.2 million premature deaths each year due to outdoor air pollution – almost 40 percent of the world’s total of such deaths.

Air pollution in Beijing reached historic levels in early 2013. Photo by Matthew Pendergast.

Amid such bleak headlines, it can be easy to miss any kind of progress. However, a report released in late March does show progress on an issue that many experts consider crucial to long-term and sustained improvement of environmental outcomes: environmental information transparency.

The Pollution Information Transparency Index (PITI), published each year since 2009 by the Institute for Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE, a Chinese NGO founded in 2006) and the Natural Resources Defense Council, rates the performance of 113 Chinese cities on criteria reflecting standards for environmental information disclosure set by China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) in 2008. In crucial measures promulgated that year, MEP authorized public access to environmental information, and required local environmental agencies and businesses to disclose information on environmental protection plans, environmental conditions, and environmental investigation results. The next year, in 2009, China’s State Council issued a regulation that obliges planning agencies to solicit public opinion on government plans that may negatively impact the environment or public interests.

2008 and 2009 were milestone years for environmental law in China. The work of IPE and others has shown that public disclosure of the sources and types of pollution in China can lead to real changes, whether by placing direct pressure on polluters or, in the case of manufacturers, by providing citizens and civil society organizations with information they can use to encourage multinational corporations to pressure their suppliers to clean up. And, encouragingly, the PITI score (averaged across all 113 cities) has improved each year since 2009. However, progress is uneven:  the scores show a wide gap between the best- and worst-performing cities, and the scores of several cities actually declined between the 2011 and 2012 reports.

For a number of years, The Asia Foundation has worked with national and local partners to strengthen open government information and public participation in decision-making in China. Under a new project focused specifically on environmental information transparency and participation in environmental decision-making, we are working to strengthen the capacity of local regulatory agencies and foster more constructive collaboration between government, civil society organizations, and business. In four pilot cities reflecting China’s diverse geographic, socioeconomic, and environmental conditions, the Foundation will collaborate with research institutes, government agencies, civil society organizations, and business associations to lead capacity-building programs for businesses, their regulators, and the civil society organizations that often serve as their watchdogs; will work with these stakeholders to collaboratively develop, test and refine local procedures implementing MEP’s 2008 measures; and will share best practices between cities and at the national level. The innovative PITI index, which captures a wide range of transparency indicators, is one of the key metrics that the Foundation and its partners will use to measure the impact of this project.

As delegates from around the country gathered in a smoggy Beijing in March for the meeting of the National People’s Congress, environmental issues were – out of necessity – front and center. Although the head of China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection was reappointed, he received the fewest affirmative votes of any minister. Days later, Li Keqiang, in his first speech as the country’s new premier, highlighted China’s environmental challenges and the government’s responsibility to ensure that economic growth does not continue to come at the expense of the environment and, ultimately, the health of the Chinese people. With growing public concern, instantaneous sharing of environmental dispatches from around China on microblogs, and renewed government commitment to progress, the news from China may be looking up.

Anne Mills works with The Asia Foundation on its Environment programs in China. She can be reached at aegillette@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Over the last few weeks, in our blog, our studies, in well-respected surveys, at think tanks and other organizations, and the media, the topic of corruption and transparency seems to be everywhere you look. However, there seems no clear consensus on the extent of the problem in various countries, from Mongolia to Indonesia to Afghanistan, nor what corruption and transparency actually mean for a country’s well being.

For example, a just-released Open Budget Survey from the International Budget Partnership ranks Afghanistan as the second greatest improved country out of 100 in budget transparency. That survey also places Indonesia in the top 25 percent in the ranking. At the same time, a World Bank analyst Peter Blunt, published a piece declaring that patronage remains a defining feature of governance in Indonesia. And a new UN report on Afghanistan found that corruption had dropped nine percent since 2009. It also found that the amount paid in bribes has risen by 40 percent to $3.9 billion, twice the country’s domestic revenue. Here are recent excerpts and analysis from In Asia:

Asia Foundation deputy representative in Indonesia, Laurel MacLaren, reacted to the new Open Budget Survey findings last week: “The survey certainly present good news for Indonesia, which is one of only 17 countries – with peers that include Germany, South Korea, and the United States – categorized as providing ‘significant information’ about the government budget to citizens.” But, she goes on: “Just as we were to let out a collective cheer, however, a copy of the article by World Bank’s Peter Blunt, “Patronage’s Progress in Post-Soeharto Indonesia,” reminded us of the many battles to come. Blunt’s paper credibly argues that patronage remains a defining feature of governance in Indonesia.”

Mongolia was again ranked the world’s fastest growing economy this year, and moved up 26 spots from 120 to 94 in Transparency International’s 2012 “Corruption Perceptions Index,” and up from 88 to 76 in the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business Index.” But, at the same time, local businesses still struggle under rampant corruption, according to a just-released Asia Foundation report. Foundation experts blogged about the direct impact on businesses in the country: “Over 17 percent of large businesses spent over 50 percent of their time overcoming non-productive obstacles, such as obtaining or renewing licenses, facing temporary prohibitions, and navigating an unstable regulatory environment.”

Also, in the Philippines, a new agreement brings two unlikely sides together – the media and political parties – that marks a step toward curbing rampant corruption in the media: “The covenant commits the signatories – both media practitioners and political parties and candidates – to reject engaging in acts that contribute to corruption in the media, which has consistently marred Philippine elections.” Read more from Maribel Buenaobra and Jerryll Reyes in Manila.

And, to the disappointment (but perhaps not surprise) of billions of soccer fans, investigators came out this week and declared soccer to be the world’s most corrupt sport, with the “epicenter of the global corruption in Asia.”

Taken together, this information seems to prompt the age-old question: To what extent does corruption really determine a nation’s economic and social livelihood? Join the discussion.

Alma Freeman is The Asia Foundation’s global communications manager and editor of this blog. She can be reached at afreeman@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Mongolia’s economy is booming, with growth trajectories showing it will be one of the world’s fastest growing economies again this year. It is consistently advancing in global rankings on governance and investment climate. Thanks in part to the passage last year of the new Law on Conflict of Interest, Mongolia moved 26 spots from 120 to 94 in Transparency International’s 2012 “Corruption Perceptions Index,” and up from 88 to 76 in the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business Index.”

These are impressive and tangible markers of progress, especially considering Mongolia’s nascent democratic institutions and legal system. However, when you talk to people from the civil society and business sectors in Mongolia, you often hear a more nuanced and less rosy side of the story. The new report, “Study of Private Perceptions of Corruption,” commissioned by The Asia Foundation and conducted by Mongolian NGO Sant Maral Foundation, shows that the perception among Ulaanbaatar-based Mongolian businesses is that there are significant steps still needed to curb corruption in Mongolia. The study captures the experiences of 330 members of the business community in their interface with government service providers, and within their own business service sector.

According to the report, over 17 percent of large businesses (with transactions of more than 200 million Tugriks, or $144,000) spent over 50 percent of their time overcoming non-productive obstacles, such as obtaining or renewing licenses, facing temporary prohibitions, and navigating an unstable regulatory environment . The 11 percent of businesses able to overcome these obstacles have been able to accomplish this by using 25 percent of their company resources.

Similarly, 16 percent of respondents reported they had observed instances of corruption in the last month, and nearly 50 percent reported they had personal knowledge of corrupt transactions in the past seven months. A total of 75 percent of businesses reported they “always” or “often” encountered corruption in public tenders and contracting. Construction is the top sector in which corruption was most widely witnessed.

In fact, there is a strong commitment among state and non-state actors to work together and improve coordination to combat corruption. Surprisingly, despite the government anti-corruption efforts such as the enactment of the Freedom of Information Law (2011) and Conflict of Interest Law (2012), and presence of the Independent Authority Against Corruption, an overwhelming number of respondents from the business community (73 percent) reported they have little or almost no knowledge of government anti-corruption efforts. Only 2 percent reported that these anti-corruption efforts are very effective. Eighteen percent said they were somewhat effective.

The survey is intended to serve as a baseline to track progress on combatting corruption in Mongolia and to identify what needs to be done to ensure that the government’s anti-corruption efforts reach the levels of society and business where it matters the most.

Parliament has a key role to play in this fight if it can provide the much-needed oversight over the performance of key anti-corruption actors in government and hold them accountable. Last month, 12 parliamentarians from across all political parties held a press conference to announce the reconvening of the Mongolian chapter of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians against Corruption, a voluntary organization of parliamentarians from around the world seeking to promote transparent and accountable governance. Last week, four parliamentarians attended the GOPAC Conference in Manila where they were introduced to the importance of strong leadership, creating a robust legal environment, and the critical role civil society can play in the fight against corruption. They also had the opportunity to network with potential allies and like-minded members of Parliaments from more than 65 other countries. With the Mongolian GOPAC Chapter now reconvened, there are high expectations of what the Parliament will focus on, and the Mongolian people are hopeful it will play a more active role in countering corruption.

The Study of Private Perceptions of Corruption was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as part of The Asia Foundation’s Strengthening Transparency and Governance in Mongolia (STAGE) project, which aims to strengthen democratic governance by building a more transparent and accountable regulatory and legislative environment while promoting principles of checks and balances. Read more about the program.

Meloney C. Lindberg is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Mongolia, Basanta Pokharel is the Foundation’s chief of party for the STAGE project in Mongolia, and Tirza Theunissen is program and operations manager. They can be reached at mlindberg@asiafound.org, bpokharel@asiafound.org, and ttheunissen@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Two new publications showing very different profiles of the quality of governance in Indonesia landed on my desk this week, prompting debate and consternation. The just-launched International Budget Partnership’s “2012 Open Budget Survey” painted an encouraging picture, placing Indonesia in the top 25 percent of a global pack ranked on issues of state budget transparency. At the very same time, a newly published journal article persuasively argued that patronage remains the defining feature of Indonesia’s democracy. The dramatically disparate pictures presented of Indonesia simultaneously were enough to make me ask: what is going on here?

Our office had eagerly awaited the results of the 2012 Open Budget Survey, which measures budget transparency, participation, and oversight in more than 100 countries around the world. Budget transparency is at the core of good governance: in order for state budgets to be managed efficiently – and used to improve service delivery (such as education, healthcare, clean water, etc.) and reduce poverty – budget information needs to be widely available to a civil society that is active in both decision-making and budget oversight. The Asia Foundation’s long-time partner, Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (FITRA), represented Indonesia in the International Budget Partnership, and compiled a massive number of budget documents, laws, and interviews to answer the 125 questions used by the survey.

In order for state budgets to be managed efficiently – and used to improve service delivery and reduce poverty – budget information needs to be widely available to the public. Photo/Ted Alcorn

The survey findings certainly present good news for Indonesia, which is one of only 17 countries – with peers that include Germany, South Korea, and the United States – categorized as providing “significant information” about the government budget to citizens.

Indonesia also earned the honor of being one of 14 nations that made the greatest improvements in budget transparency over the past two years. The country’s overall index score increased more than 15 points since 2010, which was particularly encouraging given that Indonesia had seen a minor setback in its survey score from 2008 to 2010. Indonesia was also cited as one of only seven countries that managed to break into the elite group of countries scoring 61 or higher on the survey scale.

Indonesia’s scores are impressive, and to those of us who have supported the country’s budget transparency movement over the past decade, the recent progress comes as no great surprise. Dozens of civil society organizations – at the local and national level – have been seeking out budget documents from every level of government, and producing analysis that has been the driving force behind budget reallocations and reform. On the government side, the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 2008, coupled with the hefty political will of a Presidential Task Force to Accelerate Development (UKP4), resulted in Indonesia’s commitment to an Open Government Partnership action plan in 2011. Reformers across civil society and government have been working for years to get Indonesia to improve the transparency of its budget, and it was gratifying to see this measured and reported on internationally.

Just as we were to let out a collective cheer, however, a copy of the article by World Bank’s Peter Blunt, “Patronage’s Progress in Post-Soeharto Indonesia,” reminded us of the many battles to come. Blunt’s paper credibly argues that patronage remains a defining feature of governance in Indonesia. Sadly, it presents evidence that decentralization has exacerbated patronage problems. It also argues that development assistance contributes to the maintenance of Indonesia’s patronage systems by either turning a blind eye to corruption, investing in technocratic solutions that ignore political realities, or being co-opted by management mechanisms that enable predatory behavior. Among the constraints that make the authors pessimistic that Indonesia’s patronage will be addressed in the medium-term future include: “the pervasiveness, inventiveness, and tenacity of patronage networks,” as well as “the politically constrained reach of central anti-corruption institutions.”

Many of us working for reform in Indonesia frequently feel these mixed emotions: euphoria at what has been achieved, shadowed by concern over how much remains to be done. In December, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) reported to Parliament that it had prosecuted 332 corruption cases since the commission was established in 2004, and research by Indonesia Corruption Watch confirms that its conviction rates are high and improving. Do we celebrate that the KPK has the gumption to investigate another 170 district heads on suspicions of corruption, or mourn the fact that vote-buying, bid-rigging, job-purchasing, and nepotism are seemingly the norm for the hundreds of thousands of officials in Indonesia’s civil service?

And transparency itself is presenting a mixed blessing. While the massive amount of information available to civil society presents a tremendous opportunity, the comparatively small number of civil society organizations and researchers are becoming quickly overwhelmed with practical matters of data management and analysis. Too often we find that government data is at the ready, but not being effectively utilized by either civil society watchdogs or government agencies responsible for internal control – for both reasons of limited capacity and just sheer information overload.

Some would argue that Indonesia’s collusive elements are always going to be adept at “isomorphic mimicry,” and will quickly reconstruct patronage systems to fit within any new “good governance” façade. Yet I often see cause for hope in the countervailing coalitions of reformers that every once in a while outmuscle entrenched interests. There are many victories, evidenced in corruption convictions and budget reallocations. While Indonesia’s patronage systems have proved remarkably resilient in the reform era, I remain optimistic that the country’s achievements in budget transparency are a step closer toward greater accountability to the people.

Laurel MacLaren is The Asia Foundation’s deputy country representative in Indonesia. She can be reached at lmaclaren@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.