Chapter 1
Public Administration in Southeast Asia: An Overview
Evan Berman
Contents
- 1.1 Introduction
- 1.2 Culture
- 1.3 Colonial Legacies
- 1.3.1 British Colonial Legacy
- 1.3.2 Latin Legacy
- 1.3.3 American Legacy
- 1.4 Decentralization
- 1.5 Ethics
- 1.5.1 Types of Corruption
- 1.5.2 Ethics Management
- 1.6 Performance Management
- 1.6.1 Five-Year Plans and Comprehensive Plans
- 1.6.2 Structural Changes
- 1.6.3 New Public Management
- 1.7 Civil Service
- 1.7.1 Size
- 1.7.2 Recruitment and Selection
- 1.7.3 Pay and Performance
- 1.7.4 Training
- 1.8 Conclusion
1.1 Introduction
People have long been interested in the diverse cultures of Southeast Asia, and in recent years, there has been an increasing need to know more about the workings of their governments, too. Globalization, education, and the interconnectedness of regional issues have caused an increase in demand for factual information about their governments. The cultures and practices of Southeast Asia are varied, and this book brings together, in a single volume, an in-depth analysis of the core components of public administration systems in selected countries of Southeast Asia. The detailed descriptions in the chapters provide for rich, comparative analysis.
It is no exaggeration to state that nowhere else will readers find a comparative “one-stop” shopping for the topics discussed of the countries here. The chapters in this book are written by leading experts in their fields. They cover such topics as the history of public administration, performance management reforms, civil service reforms, public ethics and corruption, and central-local government relations. This chapter provides an overview of some of the main themes and conclusions that are drawn from the chapters in this book. The parallel structure of topics (similar topics for each of the different countries and administrative districts) enables a unique, comparative perspective on Southeast Asia. The methodological foundation and strategies of this book are discussed in the Introduction, which readers are encouraged to read.
This book is a second, parallel volume to Public Administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which appeared earlier and discusses similar topics for those countries. By reading both volumes, readers gain even deeper factual and comparative knowledge of public administration in these parts of Asia. Obviously, this book does not cover all countries in Southeast Asia. As explained in the introduction, the selection reflects diversity of heritage, experience, and size.
In comparative works, reminders of cultural relativism and cultural provincialism are always appropriate. It is a fact that a good deal of our present-day knowledge and thinking about public administration has emanated from of the United States and the UK. Cultural relativism refers to the principle that other peoples’ activities and beliefs should be understood in terms of their own cultures, whereas cultural provincialism refers to the danger of one’s own cultural worldview blinding one from seeing others’ or different points of view. Try as we might to reach these ideal standards, at least they provide constant and powerful reminders to guard against closed mindedness and instant judgments, no matter how right they appear at the time. Cultural, historical and local concerns shape government, and affect how facts and circumstances are interpreted and judged by their people. The task of this book is to bring these to the fore. I hope readers will appreciate these sentiments and recognize these efforts in the following pages.
Finally, the need to learn about others speaks not only to those outside the region, but those inside the region as well. Despite growing internationalization, the sense of community among the peoples and scholars of Southeast Asia is growing, but is not strongly developed. Knowledge of public administration systems within Southeast Asia is not as strong as outsiders might expect, and even within countries, knowledge of public administration systems is sometimes not as well developed as one might want to see or hope. In some countries, only a handful of dedicated scholars are responsible for providing a good deal of knowledge about these systems. The challenge of cultural provincialism cuts both ways, and people sometimes use various sentiments to resist dealing with others and learning about them, too. Hopefully, this book can contribute to a growing, shared sense of knowledge and community of public administration among all countries in the world.
1.2 Culture
The chapters provide convincing and fascinating evidence of the powerful influence of culture and colonial legacy on modern-day public administration. Danilo Reyes writes that “public administration in the Philippines today is a product of the colonial era and adapted to the idiosyncrasies of indigenous cultural traditions, values, mores and norms.” The Philippines is not alone. If history is prologue, then the starting point for understanding the present is to understand these forces of the past that continue to influence public administration today. This section discusses the role of culture on public administration, while the following section examines the pertinence of colonial legacy.
In all countries and districts, the role of personal ties affecting public administration is strong. Indeed, Southeast Asia is well known for its attention to human relations; foreigners usually experience great personal attention and friendship bestowed on them. Familial traditions of close-knit relationships and kinship are strong and characteristic of the local population. Juree describes that in Thailand “a person’s primary duty and allegiance were to his family and then to his kinship network, then to his village or community.” Key relationships are often first personal, then professional. People get by and along through their personal relations that often have long and deep roots.
Authors describe how family and kinship relationships give way to strong client-patron ties in public administration. Danilo Reyes writes that in the Philippines “appointments of relatives to executive and bureaucratic positions by powerful family members remain a common practice in spite of laws to the contrary. Political dynasties in various provinces and cities are often built on the strength of these relationships.” Bidhya Bowornwathana sees in Thailand a strong, enduring legacy of patron-client relations that continues through today; “To advance in the bureaucracy, a young aspiring bureaucrat needs to have a powerful politician as patron…. Some successful bureaucrats were fortunate to be born into a powerful family with networks extending to the palace, military, political parties, and the business world. Those that are less fortunate will have to build their own political network connections.” However, because politicians have high turnover, “career advancement (increasingly) depends less on your immediate superior and more on your connections outside the department.”
In Malaysia, Beh notes policy making through “favored network relations” and collusion among “the elites of the society comprising politicians, businessmen, and certain segments of the civil service” such that the Malaysian bureaucracy “enjoys a position of power perhaps unequaled by any other civil service in a democratic country.” Strong family ties and guanxi relations are also well-known powerful means of career advancement in the Chinese community. Discussing corruption, Kwong notes patron-client politics in the civil service of Macao whereby some “sub-ordinates condescendingly followed or even conjectured the patron superiors’ wishes, with disregard whether these actions that might step of the brink of illegality.”1 Of course, not all such client-patron relations lead to unethical conduct.
The situation in Hong Kong is different. While people relations are generally strong in Asia, client-patron and kinship relations affecting public administration are largely absent in Hong Kong. Lee notes that from the early days, Hong Kong was a frontier outpost with little preexisting power structure and “the absence of an indigenous ruling class.” Colonization brought about the transplantation of a western Weberian-type bureaucracy, “a modern bureaucracy… with principles of meritocracy, legalism, and generalist administrative class.” Perhaps for these reasons, the above patron-client and family-kinship relations did not develop in Hong Kong.2 Whatever personal network relations existed among the later rapidly increasing migrant Chinese population, this culture did not affect or threaten rule by the Hong Kong civil service over the colony until the early 1970s, when, as described below, it successfully adopted a range of to ensure the dominance of its “Weberian” principles. Hong Kong is very much an exception to the general pattern in this part of the world.
While network ties are an important feature, other norms are present, too, which often further support client-patron relations. In the Philippines, Reyes notes that such cultural values as “amor propio” (self-respect), “delicadeza” (propriety), “hiya (shame), “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude), and “pakikisama” (friendship or familial ties) affect bureaucratic behavior and the exercise of official functions. Superimposed on these values are such accepted norms of behavior as social acceptance, respect for authority/elders, and the influence of religion. These can result in the avoidance of disagreement and confrontation, thereby upholding close relations. As in Chinese culture, harmony and conflict avoidance reign high as accepted personal and interpersonal norms that also sustain close relations. “In spite of a hundred and fifty years of British rule, to a large extent Hong Kong Chinese subscribe to a Confucian world view,”3 which promote these. The norms that support network and close personal relations are many and deep. The colonial legacy, discussed below, is an overlay on these traditional values, rather than vice versa.
Common bonds that promote trust and further cooperation and alliances exist in all cultures, whether they are based on client-patron or kinship relations, or as in the West, support among those with common educational experience (e.g., Ivy League schools) or business connections. Familiarity breeds trust, which is the basis of all relations. The challenge in all cultures is to ensure that such “special relationships” serve rightful and proper public purposes, and do not become foremost a means of exclusion and self-enrichment. In the West, for example, cozy lobbying relations have many negative features, while at the same time strong efforts are underway to use closer relations in the service of “collaborative governance.” The matter is one of balance, recognizing and restraining the darker side of human motives, while bringing forth the positive. The ties in Southeast Asia also provide for experiences of essential humanity and connectedness that few people would be willing to give up entirely and that are often seen as lacking in the West. In all countries, the task is to contain these darker manifestations of cultural patterns, and to shape fundamental human motives in the service of public purpose.
1.3 Colonial Legacies
Latin legacies are found in Macao (Portuguese) and the Philippines (Spanish), while Anglo legacies are found in Malaysia, Hong Kong (both British), and the Philippines (American). Authors note numerous consequences of their colonial legacies that continue to affect public administration today. In general, authors describe colonial administrations as seeking to extract value from their territories, while having little commitment to their development beyond what is needed to profit from them. Additionally, the Spanish conquest of the Philippines had the motive to propagate Christianity, and its American occupation in the early twentieth century also had the self-proclaimed objective to prepare it for independence. Regardless of these purposes, the colonial legacy often endures in the administrative cultures and practices that were established.
1.3.1 British Colonial Legacy
The British colonial legacy in Malaysia and Hong Kong continues to be evident in three ways: (i) the molding of civil service culture that is based on merit; (ii) a reluctant but nonetheless certain provision of infrastructure (transportation, schools, sanitation); and (iii) population policies for economic advantage that have racial elements and which, in the case of Malaysia, lead to enduring racial tension and conflict.
As regards the first aspect, the British legacy in civil culture is undoubtedly strong. In both Hong Kong and Malaysia, the white, British senior managers upheld high values of ethics and professionalism. Chin states: “many of the white officers who served in Malaya were highly experienced, some having served in British colonies in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Some were recruited directly from British Universities. The Malay Administrative Service (MAS) were generally corrupt-free and there was a strong respect for administrative law.” The legacy or professionalism and merit continues at lower levels of the service where Manaf notes that “for some posts, applicants are required to sit for tests relevant to the skills and capacity required to perform the job effectively. Thus, the emphasis... is based on merit, rather than political considerations or nepotism.” However, as described further, political neutrality is no longer a feature at the higher echelons.
The culture of professionalism in Hong Kong’s administrative culture continues today. Burns states that today’s administrative values in Hong Kong include “hierarchical loyalty, efficiency, meritocracy, and political neutrality,” although the latter has recently begun to change at the higher levels. He notes that, “compliance is reinforced by strict adherence to bureaucratic rules and regulations and an incentive system that highly values promotion.” Efficiency, meritocracy, and timeliness continue to be strong features in these cultures. The strength of commitment to these values set them apart from the bureaucracies of other cultures in Asia.4 Such values may also be found in other former British colonies like Singapore and even the United States.5
Second, infrastructure investments were made. Chin states: “The MAS believed in developing the Malayan economy, thus schools (mostly manned by missionaries), hospitals, roads, airports and other infrastructure, were built. The belief was that a str...
