PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OVER DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Tony Pua, based on the report made by Transparency International (TI) is vehemently advocating the need for Parliamentary Oversight Committee over Defense Budget. He justified the urgent need to have this committee established on the report made by TI, which scores Malaysia well below the failure mark. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HIS PROMULGATION BASED ON TI’s REPORT?

The first problem emerged from the limitation of the report admitted by Transparency International, which Tony Pua neglected to mention. The report states, “This is an initial review of a deeply complex subject. The low to high measurement scale gives an indication of a country’s defence budget transparency, but it has limitations, and the information it provides is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions about countries’ individual areas of strength and weakness.” Since the report is inconclusive the study provides no persuasive evidence that Malaysia’s Defence Budget lack transparency and accountability as suggested by Tony Pua. Hence, a theory however elegant or economical must be rejected or revise if it is untrue.

The second problem is his statement, mentioning that countries with strong democratic system in place scored high in the report. These countries made it seemed, as they were transparent with their budget unfortunately everything registered was an incomprehensible chaos. For example UK, the estimates provided to parliament still lacks details and financial information provided was mainly a single line items bundled together with dozen of other spending, which authorizes billions of pounds. Even Australia, once a pioneer of outcome based appropriations, has run into serious problems when a recent OECD study confirmed that they make it impossible to determined what exactly money is appropriated for. It is unimaginable a country stamped with the mark of strong democratic system is withholding information and providing appropriation without the detail spending. That’s why it is important for Malaysians to be very cautious when reading articles that comments on defence related issues. Without care even the act intellectual inquiry is itself demonized. The ultimate cost of transparency is information manipulation, which is further elaborated in the section below.

THE UGLY TRUTH OF THE POLITICS OF TRANSPARENCY

The transparency issue brought up by Tony Pua is only an attempt at garnering political support. The opposition party he belongs to is only a social entrepreneur that is portraying that they are engaging in the game playing by its rules. The fact that they refrain from naming any real grievances they are set to fight (apart from the lack of transparency, of course) seems as quirky as their reluctance to fix a political agenda and their declaring themselves mere vehicles of change.

Malaysians must be critical in questioning does transparency really evoke openness, integrity and honesty? “We should be very careful in treating transparency as an economic or political cure-all,” says Jacqueline Best, assistant professor of political science and author of the forthcoming book The Limits of Transparency: Ambiguity and the History of International Finance, published by Cornell University Press. Her warning coincide with the recent study conducted by Viviana Stechina from Uppsala University in Sweden which reveals that transparency does not necessarily lead to less corruption, integrity and honesty. As matter of fact, it has other unintended consequences as suggested by the sociologist Frank Furedi the author of On Tolerance: The Defence of Moral Independence.

Frank Furedi mentions that the advocates of total openness claim that transparency empowers all citizens, since it allows them to hold their governments to account for their actions. They also claim that a regime of full disclosure is the precondition for overcoming public mistrust. Yet experience shows that transparency has turned into a ritual of hypocrisy. Moreover, the institutionalization of transparency encourages dishonesty and deception, which in turn fuels even more confusion and suspicion. 

He warns that the practice of cult transparency often leads people to avoid giving an honest opinion for fear of being accountable. In such an environment, people have little incentive to acknowledge mistakes, and typically we see the emergence of regimes of responsibility-aversion. It is difficult for individuals to throw out ideas or express unconventional views when they court being ridiculed or stigmatized by their public critics, who have no stake in the outcome of their deliberations. Transparency will indefinitely encourage a climate of organizational caution and conformity, which ultimately discourages the clash of opinions and diminishes the potential for the open clarification of problems. That is because people are unlikely to take risks and disclose their real concerns when they know they are effectively doing so in front of the whole world.

Back in 1946, George Orwell reminded us that When politicians who, in their heart of hearts, understand the perils of transparency still insist on performing its rituals, the corruption of thought is clearly no less a problem in 2012 than it was in Orwell’s time. It is not a surprised former British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in his memoir that one of his biggest mistakes was to introduce the Freedom of Information Act. He said ‘it is a dangerous act’ because it made it very difficult for a government to debate the serious issues of the day ‘in confidence’. You ‘naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop’ is how he described his own role in the enactment of this legislation. 

PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The evidence provided has clearly illustrated that transparency is seductive but too dangerous to apply. The Parliamentary Oversight Committee for Defence battened by Tony Pua into a concept of “more information better decision” has been falsely presented as novel but in reality it has only deepened the dilemmas created by his sloppy thinking. The highly complex nature and environment of defence sector that are often too technical for members who have not had earlier military experience will present a difficult challenge for effective exercise of oversight. For instance, in January 2003, Parliament approved USD 55 million for the Ministry of Defence to “acquire equipment including helicopters to facilitate Ghana’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations” in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet, the original estimated cost for these helicopters, contract provisions for training personnel, and provision of spare parts and tools was only USD 19,695,600.

Even more decisive are members’ attitude and acumen in relation to defence sector. Tony Pua and members of the opposition party has never raised any questions that truly addressed defence concerns other torpedoing the cost. The lack of expertise on defence issues will undermine their oversight and decision-making functions. For example, the parliamentary defence committee in South Africa accepted the logic of non-offensive defence as a matter of policy but it also accepted the recommendation by military officers for an offensive force design, mainly because the parliamentarians could not understand the technicalities of the force design options that were put to them. Similarly, the parliamentarians have struggled to grasp the technicalities of defence budgets.

Defence establishment around the world are not keen on transparency because it is seen as an instrument of intrusion, which can in turn increase vulnerability. This vulnerability is attributed to the theory that military resources produce behavioral outcomes. In general, analyst looks at strategic resources such as budget, manpower, military infrastructure and institutions, defence industries and inventories. They then look at factor that affects conversion capability such as strategy, doctrine, training, organization and capacity for innovation. Finally, they judge combat proficiency in detailed dimensions of ground, naval, air and for some countries spaces. Transparency in defence appropriation will enable the enemy to predict our military capability with needle like precision and prepare a more effective response to our detriment. As a result of this, many countries detest to the idea of transparency to avoid vulnerability. We must remember metaphorically speaking, military power provides a degree of security that is to order as oxygen is to breathing; little noticed until it begins to become scarce. Once that occurs, its absence dominates all else.

In conclusion, opposition members like Tony Pua rarely feel responsible for the bad that their fantastic new reform effects. Their focus is always on the good and the bad is someone else’s problem. As we see the consequences of changes that many of us view good, we might wonder whether more good might have done had more responsibility been in the mix. We should also recognize the collateral consequences of that good need not itself be good. And if that collateral bad Tony Pua is certifying to Malaysian public what he thinks he already knows, we should think carefully about how to avoid it. Sunlight may well be a great disinfectant. But anyone who has ever waded through swamps knows, it has other effects as well.