ABSTRACT
The 1997-98 Asian economic crisis raised serious questions for the remaining authoritarian regimes in East and Southeast Asia,1 not least the hitherto outstanding economic success stories of Singapore and Malaysia. Could leaders presiding over economies so heavily dependent on international capital investment ignore the new mantra among multilateral financial institutions and business commentators about the virtues of ‘transparency’? Would these leaders be capable of, or interested in, responding? Was it possible to embark on a selective reform agenda – one that steered well clear of political openness and scrutiny but delivered on some improvements to corporate disclosures and other limited forms of transparency? Or would any accommodation compromise the integrity of authoritarian power relationships and set in train pressures and dynamics towards more comprehensive reforms, including much greater media freedom? And just how vital was transparency – however defined – to the actual decisions of investors? Was it really a universal functional requirement for economic recovery and advancement, or was its importance being overplayed in reaction to the dramatic events of the crisis?
