Building Trust In Government

🗞️ 🇬🇧 Lessons from the latest « Disinformation Diplomacy » report by the UK House of Commons : ▶️Democracies must move from fragmented, defensive counter-disinformation to coordinated, strategic use of information power. 🇬🇧 National recommendations : 1. Create a National Counter-Disinformation Centre A centralised structure to coordinate response across government. • Inspired by models in Sweden, Ukraine and France • Aim: faster detection, attribution and response= a shift toward a “fusion centre” model for the information space. 2. Significantly increase funding for information defence Focus areas: FCDO Hybrid Threats Directorate & BBC World Service as key strategic asset ▶️ greater investment needed to prevent authoritarian narratives from gaining ground globally. ▶️ recognition of information power as a hard power multiplier. 3. Scale up support to allies and vulnerable regions 🔹Priority regions: Black Sea, Western Balkans, Africa 🔹Focus on strengthening independent media and civil society resilience. 4. Address legal gaps on foreign interference 🔹current threshold to prove foreign attribution deemed too high, limiting enforcement & enabling plausible deniability 🔹 urgent legislative review needed to enable faster and more effective action. 5. Introduce algorithmic transparency for platforms 🔹Amend the Online Safety Act to require: • Greater transparency on how algorithms amplify content • Stronger safeguards against coordinated manipulation 6. Invest in public resilience (media literacy and prebunking) Shift from reactive debunking to societal immunity, to strengthen public understanding & scale preventive approaches. Considering citizens as the frontline of defence. 7. Rethink strategic communications Current efforts deemed to lack compelling narratives: Need credible messengers & Content tailored to target audiences 🔹 shift from fact-based rebuttal to competitive narrative warfare. 8. Clarify and communicate strategy on China 🇨🇳 🔹Defining red lines, Influence risks, Engagement doctrine, Avoid ambiguity between economic engagement and security priorities.

The recent crisis of confidence in the Indonesia Stock Exchange, in my view, should be regarded as a momentum for undertaking comprehensive capital market reform. The aim, of course, is to restore trust: both from domestic and foreign investors. This is not merely a matter concerning one or two individual stocks, nor solely an issue of the exchange or global indices. Rather, it concerns the broader trust in the national capital market system and the credibility of the state. It is important to emphasize that this reform agenda does not stem from the interests or preferences of Danantara Indonesia. As a market participant, like most domestic investors, Danantara Indonesia is voicing the needs of the market so that Indonesia’s capital market can become deeper, more liquid, and more credible going forward. We must not become complacent; instead, we must continuously improve and be ready to compete with other countries whose markets are already more robust and credible. We must have the courage to learn and improve so that our capital market can achieve depth and credibility comparable to those with liquidity many times greater than ours. This reform is in the interest of the ecosystem, not any single institution. Within the framework of Total Capital Market Reform, the structural measures needed by the market include: • Enhancing transparency, particularly regarding the disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO) and the quality of share ownership data. • Strengthening governance and enforcement, including the demutualization of the exchange as part of efforts to mitigate conflicts of interest and reinforce institutional integrity. • Integrated market deepening, through cross-stakeholder synergy, spanning demand, supply, and market infrastructure. • Strengthening liquidity, including adjusting the free float policy to align with global practices. Increasing the free float through policies that build investor confidence so that valuations reflect fundamentals. Once trust and valuation are established, a policy to raise the free float from 7.5% to 15% can be effectively implemented. We appreciate the swift actions taken recently by stakeholders, as well as the commitment of the regulators to act as the driving force behind this reform. Ultimately, these measures must be consistently monitored and reinforced, especially through education and enforcement. Without a strong commitment to consistent enforcement, it will be difficult to build long-term trust. At its core, this reform seeks to establish long-term trust, broaden the investor base, and ensure that Indonesia’s capital market can sustainably support national economic growth. Going forward, we hope our capital market can improve and continue to bring benefits to Indonesia!

Liberal #democracy is sometimes complicated, but it pays off. 📈 Why do people vote for #populists? There is overwhelming evidence that populist leaders underperform economically and can completely ruin an economy in just a few years. Conversely, liberal democratic governments with strong institutions and a high degree of individual freedom promote national prosperity. 🔹 15 years after taking power, the GDP of populist-governed countries is on average 10% lower than that of a plausible comparison group. 🔹 Power-balanced freedom results in less corruption and positively impacts the Human Development Index. 🔹 Democracy helps the economy grow. Freedom of expression, clean elections, and legislative executive constraints are the foremost drivers of long-run development. Even if it takes time and tests our patience, democratic decision-making ultimately leads to more balanced politics and better economic outcomes. But if the evidence is against them, why do populists win so many elections? And how do populist leaders manage to stay in power for so long? Research can help us answer these questions. 🔹 First, there is a lack of political and economic education. People who get most of their information from social media are more likely to be unhappy with society and vote for populist politicians. 🔹 Second, economically vulnerable citizens tend to vote for populist parties, especially those on the far right. 🔹 Third, populists usually change the rules to maintain power. So there are three things that democrats need to do: Educate the public about politics and economics, boost the economy, and protect democratic institutions from their enemies. This is how to prevent left- and right-wing populists from causing political and economic damage. One thing is clear: Liberal democracy is key to individual freedom and collective prosperity. Let's defend both! 💪

RETHINKING POWER IN ORGANISATIONS For over a century, management theory has catalogued organisational forms—Weber’s bureaucracy, Mintzberg’s archetypes, coops, B Corps, social enterprises, DAOs. Yet this proliferation masks a remarkable evasion: virtually no mainstream framework systematically uses philosophical tools to analyse how power is legitimated within organisations. We classify governance codes, ownership structures, and culture, but consistently ignore political analysis that explains whose interests prevail, whose voices matter, and how compliance is enforced. This is no innocent oversight—Management science has deliberately severed itself from political theory to conveniently evade foundational questions of legitimacy. The result? We fail to ask by what right any organisation commands, excludes, allocates resources or value, thereby encoding systemic injustice into the architecture of organisational life. Imperium—the capacity to command and enforce rules—becomes “hierarchy” or “leadership style,” shorn of questions about what legitimates organisational sovereignty. Dominium—control over productive resources—becomes “fiduciary duty”, “minimum wage” or “business case,” occluding property as a social relation structuring power and exclusion through contracts. Potestas—the capacity for collective self-determination—shrinks to “employee engagement” or “empowerment”, while true constituent power is foreclosed. But every organisation is a political order. Just as societies struggle over state power, market dominance, and popular sovereignty, organisations mirror these tensions internally. State-owned enterprises concentrate imperium, suppressing both market discipline and democratic voice. Shareholder corporations prioritise capital’s dominium, reducing labour to disposable input. Cooperatives and NGOs attempt to maximise potestas—collective agency—but often suffer fragility without broader regulatory and legal scaffolding. Hybrids proliferate—social enterprises, platform cooperatives, steward-ownership, self-managed partnerships—each seeking to rebalance structures of authority, ownership, and agency. Yet even these “innovations” rarely confront core political questions. Most power distributions remain historically contingent, ethically incomplete, and open to manipulation. By mapping organizational forms onto the Political Triangle we can deploy rigorous political analysis to ask: What constitutes legitimate organizational authority? How do property regimes structure possible distributions of power and surplus? When does constituent power get captured by its own ideology? This is no mere academic exercise—it is the precondition for business to be a force for good. Only by reintegrating political theory with management and economics can we link macro justice to meso organisational design. Until we reckon with the legitimacy of power, management theory cannot become a genuine engine of societal transformation. #leadership

When I started building my brand ecosystem publicly, everything shifted. The traditional advice says, "build it and they will come." But after studying founder brands, I've learned that most founders are stuck choosing between getting attention and maintaining integrity. Last year, I watched a brilliant entrepreneur struggle with this exact paradox. When I shared my Brand Trust Equation with her, something beautiful happened. Here's what I learned about building in public through systematic brand development: 1. Identity System Transparency Share your core messaging, positioning, and values openly. Building your identity in public creates accountability for authentic choices. Your audience connects with the journey, not just the destination. 2. Content System Broadcasting Document your strategic output across all platforms transparently. Sharing your content framework helps others while establishing your authority. Your systematic approach demonstrates professionalism and intentionality. 3. Experience System Documentation Show how people interact with your brand at every touchpoint. Building your customer journey in public creates better experiences for everyone. Your process transparency helps prospects know exactly what to expect. 4. Conversion System Sharing Reveal how attention becomes revenue in your business model. Building your funnel in public demonstrates the value of systematic thinking. Your transparent approach shows prospects the clear path forward. 5. Lighthouse Content Strategy Create cornerstone pieces that attract your ideal audience while repelling everyone else. Building your manifesto, methodology, case studies, and vision in public establishes authority. Your transparent philosophy becomes a filter for quality connections. This approach builds long-term brand equity instead of short-term attention. 6. Platform Synergy Framework Show how different platforms serve different purposes in your ecosystem. Building your multi-platform strategy in public creates strategic alignment. Other founders learn how to maximize impact across channels. This isn't just about building brands, it's about creating beautiful, systemized, and authentic businesses that serve both founders and their communities. When you build your brand ecosystem in public, you're not just attracting attention. You're building trust through the Brand Trust Equation: (Consistency × Authenticity × Value) ÷ Self-Promotion. The solution isn't choosing between integrity and attention, it's building systems that deliver both simultaneously through transparent, value-first brand development. The future belongs to those brave enough to build their brand systems in public. __ Enjoy this? ♻️ Repost it to your network and follow Matt Gray for more. Curious how this could look inside your business? DM me ‘System’ and I’ll walk you through how we help clients make it happen. This is for high-commitment founders only.

In this article( 👉 https://lnkd.in/eACskusj) Brian Czech explores how economic conditions impact democratic systems, linking the decline of democracy to ecological overshoot and societal complexity. Some key points: 🔷 Economic Extremes: Both severe recessions and unchecked growth lead to social instability, making countries vulnerable to authoritarianism. 🔷Steady State Economy: Czech proposes a steady state economy, which avoids the pitfalls of continuous growth and supports sustainable democratic governance. 🔷 Limits to Complexity: Economies face limits to their complexity. When growth surpasses these limits, it leads to inefficiencies and societal stress, which can undermine democratic structures. 🔷 Ecological Balance: Emphasizing ecological sustainability is crucial. Overexploitation of resources harms the environment and disrupts economic stability, leading to political instability. 🌱🗳️ Czech highlights that democracy remains at risk without addressing these economic and ecological issues. I completely agree! 😊 However, I would like to add a point. Democracy also requires maintenance. Investing in social capital—solidarity, agency, quality of institutions, shared values, and norms—is always necessary to counteract erosion (or depreciation, in economic terms). If this investment isn't made because markets (or GDP) consume all resources, we run into trouble. This is likely what we're seeing now: increased complexity, underinvestment in social capital, and exploitation of ecological capital. 📊🌳 Yes, we need to return to a steady state to save democracy. But how can we use the democratic process to achieve this? 🤔🛤️

As Parliament prepares to debate the performance of Temasek and GIC, it is worth grounding the discussion in first principles rather than headlines. These institutions are not hedge funds optimised for short-term outperformance. They are long-horizon stewards of national reserves, designed to balance returns, resilience, and intergenerational equity. The central question is therefore not whether they top every global league table, but whether their mandates, risk appetite, and outcomes remain aligned with Singapore’s long-term needs. MPs have rightly raised the issue of whether these institutions can continue providing a steady stream of contributions to the Budget in a more volatile world. That question highlights a trade-off that is often underappreciated. Stability usually requires accepting lower peak returns in exchange for smaller drawdowns. In a world of geopolitical fragmentation and repeated market shocks, resilience itself is a form of performance, even if it looks unremarkable during bull markets. As the Net Investment Returns Contribution becomes a larger component of public finances, increased scrutiny is both inevitable and healthy. Transparency and accountability matter, especially when public trust is at stake. But there is also a governance balance to be struck. Excessive focus on short-term relative performance risks encouraging behaviour that undermines the very long-term discipline these institutions exist to uphold. There is also a broader fiscal question beneath the performance debate. As reliance on investment returns grows, so too does exposure to market cycles. A resilient fiscal system should be robust even when markets disappoint, not implicitly dependent on consistently strong investment outcomes. Ultimately, the parliamentary debate should be less about whether Temasek and GIC beat every peer, and more about whether Singapore is comfortable with the trade-offs it has chosen: between return and risk, transparency and discipline, and present funding needs versus future resilience. That is a more difficult conversation, but also a more important one.

Five years ago today, WHO held one of the most important press conferences when Dr Tedros declared #COVID19 a public health emergency of international concern — a moment that signaled to the world that we were facing a new global health crisis. It turned out to be unlike any other.   But while scientists, health workers and governments rushed to respond to the new virus, another battle was unfolding in real-time: the fight against health misinformation.   The phenomena of health misinformation wasn’t new, but this was the first pandemic of the digital age. Suddenly, false claims spread faster than the virus itself, reaching millions before experts could correct them. Fear and confusion filled the gaps where reliable information was missing. The stakes couldn’t have been higher.   Dr Maria Van Kerkhove and I reflected recently on what WHO has been doing to prevent false health information from spreading on #SocialMedia:   1. Engaging directly with the public — through #AskWHO live Q&A sessions, press conferences, we have answered real questions in real time.   2. Working with trusted messengers — from frontline health workers and scientists to religious leaders and digital influencers, so that people could hear accurate information from voices they already relied on.   3. Partnering with tech platforms — to ensure credible health information reached more people, while slowing the spread of harmful falsehoods.   4. Expanding access to information in multiple languages — so no one was left behind in accessing clear, verified health guidance.   5. Investing in research and digital innovation — to better understand the ways in which people consume digital content the best and adapt our strategies in real-time.   What we’ve learned about trust:   - Trust isn’t built in a crisis — it must be nurtured before, during, and after emergencies.   - People trust people — authentic, relatable messengers make the biggest impact.   - Transparency matters — being open about what we know, what we don’t, and how we’re learning builds credibility.   One thing is clear: the fight against misinformation is not over. Building and maintaining trust in public health is an ongoing effort — one that requires the commitment of governments, civil society, media, and the industry every single day.   Because trust isn’t a given, it’s earned.

Brilliant Initiative in Public Service In Baghpat, the SP recently conducted a legal knowledge exam for SI and SHO candidates, ensuring that only those with deeper subject knowledge would be entrusted with charge. This step emphasizes merit-based accountability within the police force, a practice that strengthens both institutional credibility and public trust. However, alongside legal knowledge, equally critical is training in communication, empathy, and public behavior. 1. Studies highlight that over 60% of public grievances against police globally stem not from lack of legal understanding but from miscommunication and perceived misconduct. 2. The UN Handbook on Police Accountability stresses "people-centric policing" where officers are assessed not just on technical skills but also on their ability to engage with citizens respectfully. 3. Countries like UK, Japan, and Singapore have institutionalized behavioral training, leading to 30–40% higher public trust levels compared to regions where training is limited to law enforcement. If such dual-assessment systems (legal + behavioral) are introduced across all government departments in India, it could drive a cultural shift toward performance, transparency, and citizen-first governance. A small step in Baghpat could be a template for nationwide reform.

⚖️ Fairness, communication, professional integrity, and a shared belief that tax systems deliver value back to society - a formula for building Trust in Tax. The latest Public Trust in Tax 2025 report by ACCA, IFAC, OECD - OCDE, and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, highlights public trust as the invisible currency of any tax systems: trust drives compliance, engagement, and ultimately better public outcomes. People do not just comply with tax because they have to. They do so when they believe the system is fair, transparent, and working for the common good. 👉 Globally, over half of respondents (53.8%) say corruption is a major factor influencing attitudes toward tax. 👉Encouragingly, professional accountants remain the most trusted stakeholder in tax, with many respondents believing they help make tax systems more efficient, effective, and fair. 👉In Asia-Pacific, nearly two-thirds (about 65%) see tax as a contribution to their community rather than simply a cost. Across Australia and New Zealand, the Australian Taxation Office reports that over 94% of the income tax collected from individuals not in business was paid voluntarily or with little intervention (2019-20). Likewise, the Inland Revenue NZ reports that 94.5% of GST, employer deductions and income tax was paid on time and in full in 2025. These astoundingly high numbers highlight a strong culture of compliance but public debates around corporate transparency and high-profile integrity issues remind us that trust is never something to take for granted. ACCA is grateful to work with the Australian Taxation Office and the Tax Practitioners Board to communicate relevant information to our members practicing in Tax. 🔥 More importantly, this report continues to highlight the significant role that professional accountants play at the intersection of policy, business, and public interest, and are uniquely positioned to strengthen the fiscal social contract. To read the full report: 👉 https://lnkd.in/gDSKMh9E Jason Piper | Susan Franks #publictrust #policy #governance #ifac #oecd #capa #afa #safa