ANWAR IBRAHIM, FORMER DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA
Interview by Janet Kersnar and Tom Leander

Throughout much of the 1990s, Anwar Ibrahim was best known among Asia watchers as Malaysia’s heir-apparent to Mahathir Mohamad, the country’s longstanding prime minister who would retire in 2003. Anwar, however, fell from grace five years after being appointed deputy prime minister amid what many believe were trumped-up charges of corruption and sodomy. After six years in jail, he was freed in 2004. The sodomy charges were dropped but the corruption charges remained, thereby preventing him from reentering politics until April 2008.

Since his release from prison, he’s remained a formidable presence in his country’s political scene as an advisor to the opposition People’s Justice Party. And beyond politics, he has dipped into academia, lecturing abroad at Oxford and Georgetown universities. But it’s within his role as honorary president of AccountAbility, a London-based nonprofit organization that advocates transparency in business, government, and NGOs, that Anwar, who turns 60 in August, recently spoke with CFO Europe and CFO Asia.

You're a champion of moderate Islam. How realistic is it that moderate forces in Islam will prevail, given rising militancy everywhere?

Notwithstanding the ongoing war in Iraq and the failure to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are fanning the flames of extremism there and elsewhere, there are developments in the Muslim world that illustrate the strength of the moderate voice. Consider Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, which has emerged as a vibrant democracy after 30 years of authoritarian rule. Islam remains central to Indonesia’s social and political culture and the Indonesian people have emphatically rejected political views that would seek to undermine the constitutional provisions for individual freedoms that are now in place. Turkey offers an equally compelling case where a democratic system has gradually emerged after decades of rule under the thumb of the military caretakers. The West must engage more proactively with groups in the Muslim world and support the resolution of grievances through a fair political process rather than forcing people to the margins of society or resorting to military intervention.

What role, if any, will Islam play in the economic development of Southeast Asia?

Islam is by no means incompatible with the economic growth potential for the region. Unfortunately, the discourse on the impact of Islam in Southeast Asia tends to view Islam in binary terms: it is either moderate or extremist, liberal or conservative, reformist or traditional. This reductionist view, influenced by the United States’ theology on terror, ignores the positive role that religion plays in society and confers greater legitimacy upon the mantle of the extremists, who represent only a small percentage of the general population, and who are largely a product of foreign elements. It disregards the long history of moderation that typifies Islam in the region and it underemphasizes the significance of Indonesia’s transition from three decades of authoritarian rule to democracy.

It should be noted that the people of Indonesia overwhelmingly rejected political parties representing a more radical agenda and opted for their current government that seeks to secure constitutional provisions guaranteeing free media, freedom of conscience, and the rule of law.

How credible are Southeast Asian governments from a business point of view?

The challenges that the region faces are serious. With respect to Thailand, we must first recognize that the previous government under Thaksin [Shinawatra] was already saddled with corruption and that the military coup was at least in part a reaction to the excesses that were taking place. Nevertheless the failure of the military junta to move swiftly to reinstate the democratic process is worrying. Malaysia continues to fumble with its own domestic reform agenda. Instead of taking steps to strengthen the judiciary, promote a free media, and hold political and corporate figures to account for their misconduct, we see the exact opposite taking place. The recent handling of the Altantuya murder case, the Mongolian model, which directly implicates the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is particularly disheartening. The idea of a Malaysia governed by the rule of law remains a dream without a reality, to the detriment of all.

Recently, you fired a salvo at the corporate sector, along with governments and NGOs, for abusing “their wealth and influence.” Is the situation as bleak as you suggest?

Partly. In this regard, we in Asia and in the rest of the developing world have placed too much hope in the industrialized world. That is why there is growing disillusionment. But I wouldn’t want to sound pessimistic because there has been change for the better. In many cases, the private sector has taken it upon themselves to promote public awareness on issues such as environmental protection and sustainable growth.

Several major European companies, most notably Siemens, have become embroiled in bribery and corruption scandals in recent months. What’s your take on these cases?

They show that fraud and corruption are not purely developing-world problems, that there are two sides to the story. What is damaging is the reluctance of many of us in the developing world to be more forceful on the issue of governance and accountability. The impact of corruption on a small country in Africa is potentially far more damaging to its economic development than in, say, the US or the UK, where corruption can be exposed and brought to the courts, but doesn’t really disrupt the underlying institutions.

So who should ultimately be responsible for driving change – the developed countries or the developing countries?

It has to be both. If we in the developing world are seen to adopt the rules of ethics and governance of the private sector in the developed world, many will react negatively, citing the imposition of Western values as an excuse not to move forward. While we should be mindful of cultural factors, we cannot use them as a pretext to avoid change, to condone corruption or to legitimize the ill-gotten wealth of authoritarian leaders. Governance and accountability are universal values.