KUALA LUMPUR, 14 JULY: Daniel Moss of Bloomberg would not have gloated in his piece that Malaysia is stumbling down the road to failed states if he had true information on his hand by just looking at the newest rating of the Fragile States Index (FSI 2021). The FSI, which began 17 years ago as the Failed States Index, is published by Fund for Peace, a non-profit organization based in the United States. It ranks 179 countries according to their fragility, with Yemen ranking first as the most fragile state and Finland ranking last as the least fragile state for 2021.
Moss should have been more concerned because Bloomberg is a US-based news organization. The FSI index has identified the US as the country with the highest year-on-year worsening in their total fragility score this year, which might have a detrimental influence on Bloomberg’s fortune.
The United States’ score in the index has risen by 6.3 points, earning it the uncommon distinction of being the most deteriorated country in 2021. A higher score indicates a country’s progress toward fragile ness, whereas a lower number indicates progress away from fragility.”
Over the past year, the United States has witnessed some of the country’s largest protests in response to police violence, which were frequently met with a harsh state response, as well as ongoing efforts to delegitimize the election process, which erupted violently in early 2021 “‘Despite the country’s abundant material wealth and advanced health system, political polarization, a lack of social cohesion, Congressional gridlock, and misinformation all contributed to a failed response that resulted in over 350,000 deaths by the end of the year (2020) and a steeper GDP contraction than at any time in the previous 60 years,” according to the FSI report.
Armenia and Ethiopia performed better than the United States, with the former ranking as the second most deteriorated country, sliding to a fragile state with a score of 5.6 points, and the latter as the third most deteriorated country, with a score of 4.4 points.
So where does this leave Malaysia, which Moss has criticized arrogantly and maliciously as a country on the verge of becoming a weak state?
Malaysia is ranked 123rd, with a 0.7-point rise in its score over the previous year. Despite the US’ superior GDP and advanced health system, the US is placed 143rd, higher than Malaysia. Despite this, the rankers classify both countries as two of the 34 more stable countries.
Four primary indicators and 12 sub indicators make up the FSI rating. Cohesion, economic, political, and social indicators, as well as cross-cutting indicators, are the major indicators.
Sub-indicators of security apparatus, factionalised elites, and group grievance are included under cohesion; economic indicators include economic decline, uneven development, and human flight and brain drain; political indicators include state legitimacy, public services, and human rights and the rule of law; and social and cross-cutting indicators include demographic pressure, refugees, and internally displaced persons.
Each indicator is given a number from 1 to 10, with 1 being the best and 10 being the worst, indicating that the most fragile nations have a maximum total score of 120 points, while the least fragile states have a total score of 12.
With 2.6 points in foreign intervention, refugees and internally displaced persons (3 points), and economic loss, Malaysia has the lowest three indices (3.3 points). The top three are factionalised elites, human rights, and governmental legitimacy, each receiving 6.8 points (6.3 points).
Malaysia receives a total score of 56.9 points. Yemen, the most unstable state, receives a score of 111.7, while Finland receives a score of 16.2. Myanmar is the most vulnerable country in Asean, with a world ranking of 24th (93.8 points), followed by the Philippines (world ranking 49th with 82.4 points) and Cambodia (world ranking 50th with 82.4 points) (world ranking 54th with 80.6 points).
Malaysia is ranked eighth, followed by Brunei in ninth place with a world ranking of 124th (56.3 points) and Singapore in tenth place with a world ranking of 165th place (26.6 points).
Despite the fact that the Covid-19 epidemic is a major factor in the present ranking and is considered as leveling the playing field, the research highlighted three critical themes and tendencies in countries on the verge of collapse:
Many of the widely held assumptions and beliefs prior to the pandemic did not pan out, and must now be reassessed at a fundamental level; the pandemic was not a shock only to public health systems, but both pandemic and public health impacted each other, and were shaped by economic, political, and security considerations; and while COVID-19 dominated our collective apprehensions, it was not the only apprehension.
This was not apparent in Moss’ op-ed analysis of the subject, which came to the shallow conclusion that Malaysia is on its path to being a failed state. Instead, he based his case on the White Flag movement, which he regarded as the government’s inability to fulfill its obligation to the rakyat to supply people with the needs of life.
We don’t understand why he can’t see the White Flag movement as an attempt by the rakyat to share the burden of governance with the government in the face of an unprecedented pandemic.
Meanwhile, many affluent and sophisticated countries with better economic wealth, technical skill, and a greater capacity to prevent and manage significant risks, such as public health hazards, were deemed to be unlikely to be badly harmed by these risks prior to the epidemic.
However, many of these wealthy countries have been among the most hit, and their vulnerabilities and fault lines have been highlighted. Others, particularly those who are too often disregarded or marginalized, have shown tremendous resilience that the rest of the world can and should learn from.
The idea that the pandemic’s effects and response efforts can be limited within the confines of public health raises prejudices about the binary dividing line between fragile and non-fragile countries, just as the pandemic raises prejudices about the binary dividing line between fragile and non-fragile countries.
The economic impact was most obvious outside of the health sector, as global lockdowns contributed to dropping energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and a global recession, with GDP contraction in many regions significantly steeper than during the 2008 economic crisis.
The pandemic’s direct and indirect impacts quickly expanded further afield, affecting more aspects of public and private life, and in some cases, formed the first domino in a chain of events that sparked more long-standing and deep-seated problems.
The pandemic reaction was also influenced by social, economic, political, information, and ethical considerations, rather than merely spreading public health resources as effectively as feasible. While the pandemic may drive other issues to the bottom of the priority list, the challenges that came before it do not simply vanish.
It would be beneficial if the government used these FSI indicators, modified and adapted to the local context, as early warning signals of failed policies or policy paralysis to avoid falling into a failed state pathway, similar to how an Airborne Warning and Control System (Awacs) is used for surveillance and control in air defense. Self-correcting measures can thus be implemented with such a system, which needs the administration to listen carefully.
To begin, the government should have a crystal-clear plan and an equally crystal-clear communication mechanism in place so that everyone, without exception, can follow and adhere to the gameplan for defeating the virus without fear or favor! The priority must be on managing the pandemic, recovering the economy, and resolving the political impasse! It’s all about people, people, and more people.
It is therefore vital for the government to establish a comprehensive strategic communication team that works both proactively and reactively to help give clarity in public communication. In the event that this fails, confused narratives will become the norm!
Finally, while the country’s political elites should offer constructive criticism of the government as part of their role in providing early warning signs about a fragile state, they should avoid labeling the government as a failed government only for the sake of politicking.
It is from such labeling that foreign media figures like Daniel Moss would construct their own agenda to turn that idea into a failed state, whatever the realities to the contrary.
Dr. Rais Hussin and Jamari Mohtar are members of EMIR Research’s research team, which focuses on strategic policy recommendations based on thorough research./n
