-
6. The Structure of Decision-making
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
28 Zakaria Haji Ahmad By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville 6. THE STRUCTURE OF DECISION-MAKING ZAKARIA HAJI AHMAD Reprinted in abridged form from Zakaria Haji Ahmad, “The World of ASEAN Decision-Makers: A Study of Bureaucratic Elite Perceptions in Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore”, Contemporary Southeast Asia 8, no. 3 (December 1986), pp. 192–212, by permission of the author and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. The national bureaucrats who work on ASEAN affairs might appropriately be called the “decision-makers” of the regional organization, for it is they who carry out the day-to-day chores — formulation of policy and viewpoints, attendance and deliberation at meetings, negotiations and discussions, and implementation of decisions. Primarily, these decision-makers are the staff of the ASEAN National Secretariat (ANS) in each of the member states’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). According to Nishikawa, after 1976 the ANS had been changed to the “Office of the DirectorGeneral , ASEAN (name of member country )”,1 although he observed that “these offices continue their previous functions and work effectively to complement the work of the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta”.2 However, reference to the ANS was constantly made by respondents interviewed in the course of this study. Even in the Philippines, where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was reorganized in late 1982, with the “ASEAN National Coordinating Commission ” being renamed “Office of ASEAN Affairs”, this will “not affect the ASEAN desk”.3 ASEAN work is usually conducted through negotiations at ministerial level, and within the Standing Committee (which is formed in the country where the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting is held) and the “permanent” committees (of which there are nine).4 However, it is the ANS that “coordinates” each country’s position at ASEAN deliberations. Outside each MFA, decision-makers dealing with ASEAN come basically from “technical” agencies such as the departments or ministries handling economic development and planning, trade and industry, transport, communications, health, forestry, science and technology, energy, agriculture, and primary industries. Usually, these “secondary level” officials deal with matters handled by the specific ASEAN committees. (In some cases, however, some ANS officials also deal with specific technical matters.) In all the three countries studied, ASEAN matters are also attended to by some of the most senior MFA officials, although most of 006 AR Ch 6 22/9/03, 12:38 PM 28 The Structure of Decision-Making 29 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville the work is done by the national secretariat. The MFA’s advice is sought on all matters relevant to ASEAN, indicating the primary influence and position of the MFA’s bureaucrats. However, although it is possible to picture concentric circles of ASEAN decisionmakers , with MFA top officials at the core surrounded by ANS officials as a primary circle and technical officials as the outer ring, the locus of authority remains blurred. During ASEAN meetings, this blurring may occur because of the nature of a memberstate ’s governmental system — for example, competition or rivalry between ministers can hinder the decision ANS officials can make or convey without clearance from the highest authority of that country. The administrative style of a particular country has some relevance as well, as will be seen below. The conceptual distinction between primary and secondary agencies appears most valid in the Malaysian and Singaporean cases. In the Philippine case, however, it has been observed that there has been a steady erosion of the MFA’s role and influence in foreign policy, including ASEAN matters, as a result of a heightened sense of the importance of economic parameters in external relations and the advent of “development diplomacy”.5 The role of the Philippine MFA may, therefore, be subject to contending rivalry from other agencies, especially the National Economic Development Agency (NEDA), a situation that seems amplified by the view of one Filipino respondent that “economic planning officials had much influence on questions relating to regional cooperation in as much as it related to economic matters”. In this case, then, the MFA’s role as a primary locus of decision-making may be shared by other agencies and subject to the nature of interagency relations.6 However, according to the Filipino respondents, the MFA’s role was still important in an overall sense although it was also clear that policies of an economic nature were more within the sphere of NEDA. Indeed, one respondent described the MFA’s role...