For me, 1MDB is a learning experience. It brings out the bad, the good, and the ugly in Malaysian politics and society.

The bad

1MDB is a lesson on how not to manage any enterprise, unless, of course, you are a crook. All sound management and financial principles and good practices that we were taught in university courses were violated. Ethics, which is so important and fundamental to the management of any company, was completely discarded.

To the directors of 1MDB, Enron meant nothing. There was utter disregard for conflict of interest. Clever people in the company designed clever schemes to defraud the company for the benefit of selected groups of people. Professionals, trained and entrusted to check such abuses, failed to carry out their responsibilities. In fact, they aided and abetted in this unholy alliance between politics and business, underscoring the dangers of Malaysia incorporated.

1MDB strongly endorses Lord Acton - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The concept of check and balance is not just political theory - it is real and significant. 1MDB shows how important it is to have institutional checks on political power so that decision making is shared and not concentrated in the hands of one person or a few.

1MDB shows that power, greed, and abuse tend to go together, whether in government or in business. 1MDB also shows that leadership is about character, not competence. We can always buy competence. We cannot buy character.

1MDB is clearly not only not good for the government but also for the country. Its full ramifications will only be known in the future, politically and economically. It is not just a simple corporate scandal, like Enron. It is a failure of the government and its machinery, or, more correctly, the abuse of government and its machinery.

The good

There is a bright side to 1MDB. I am referring to the degree of public participation in the debate on 1MDB. A whole lot of Malaysians have weighed in on the debate - academics, professionals, politicians, the man on the street, and even the royalty. This broad involvement of Malaysians - both for and against 1MDB - is a reflection of what democracy is all about.

The debate has helped to crystalise the issues surrounding 1MDB so that we all can have a more accurate understanding of what really happened. This is crucial for public decision making in a democracy. The only way to keep politicians and the government on their toes is to have public discussion of their actions and decisions.

Government policies and decisions must be brought to the public domain and openly debated. This is good, both for the government and the people. The debate helps to contain government abuse of power and increase participation of the people in the democratic process. Strengthening the democratic process should be an important goal of 2020.

It is a pity that this debate on 1MDB is taking place mainly online and in the international media. The mainstream media has made little contribution to this debate. 1MDB presents a tremendous opportunity for objective investigative reporting. The mainstream media has not taken advantage of this opportunity and chosen to play dumb. In so doing, it is neither helping the government nor the democratic process.

A free press is not harmful to a government that wants to serve the people. On the contrary, a free press can help the government to frame better policies. A government needs to fear a free press only if it has something to hide.

The ugly

In any debate, motivates are important. In the 1MDB case, some of the debate is directed not in the interest of the people and the country but for personal and political gains - to serve a private agenda. If the motive is to use 1MDB to settle old political scores, then the solution may be worse than the problem. The challenge to 1MDB should not be turned into a political crusade.

Just like the government must be open and disclose all relevant information honestly, those doing the attacking must not dismiss apriori the evidence provided by 1MDB. Let the motives and evidence speak. Otherwise, the attackers may be no better than the perpetrators.