Traditional comparative law scholarship in the 20th century concentrated on civil law/common law comparisons, private-law-related topics as the field for comparative law, and normative inquiry. Today this position is challenged. In this chapter, Harding demonstrates this direction, interest and method to be inadequate. A self-confessed,regionalist comparative public lawyer', he is critical of the relationship of mainstream comparative law both with area studies such as South East Asia, where we have common law, civil law and mixed jurisdictions, and with public law. The so-called 'grand tradition' of comparative law has failed to take seriously public law-seen as an area that lacks comparability; and South East Asia-seen as all extension of civil law and common law, the world being neatly divided between the heirs of Rome and Westminster. Harding asks the 'millennial' or 'post-modern' comparative law to engage urgently with both. He approaches the two topics and intertwines them effectively to make his point. The chapter looks at public law reform in South East Asia and weighs regional comparative law with traditional comparative law. South East Asia as a region with an abundance of legal traditions, has been neglected to the detriment of comparatists. What are the reasons for this neglect? Does traditional comparative law have a 'universalized grammar of discourse' to deal with this region? Is there a 'global doctrine' to deal with this 'local knowledge'? What should we as comparatists strive for in the 21st century? Answering these questions, Harding finds the comparative law of the 20th century irrelevant to the practical needs of South East Asia, but of great relevance if it can be what it should be in the 21st century. The first step is to encourage comparative public lawyers to join in the comparative law conversation and the second is to change the topic of the conversation, enhancing it by adding hitherto neglected areas. Comparative law should become a joint venture' project. A wide range of systems, and a wider range of legal issues not hitherto covered, should be considered if comparative law is to have a bearing on the 21st century. It is time to stop seeing the legal world solely as the domain of Western, private law comparatists. The message is clear. Comparative public law may have always existed, but as part of public law; now it must become part of comparative law, too. Studies in South East Asia have gone on for quite some time, but as an area of interest for historians, anthropologists and regionalists; now these studies must become part of comparative law studies. This chapter does not discuss public law developments in South East Asia, but the implications of that development for the tools of the comparatist. However, there is also discourse here on 'Asian values', rule of law, democracy, constitutionalism and ASEAN in South East Asia; and, in this context, on the convergence versus divergence debate, seen as 'profoundly political in nature'. The reader will also find here a brief history, a valuable critique and insightful assessment of South East Asian legal scholarship. Harding's contribution brings to the fore the point that all comparatists are regionalists, the traditional ones being from Europe and America. Therefore the distinction between comparatists and regionalists can no longer be sustained; indeed giving comparative law study a global basis requires that no such distinction be made. Comparatists must understand law as 'a function of humanity'. The readers should ask themselves, how useful is it to make a distinction between theoretical and applied comparative law? What is the role of western legal assistance and comparative law in public law reform in South East Asia in the new, century? Do comparatists actually compare? Must they, actually compare to be called comparatists?.
