MBPJ Building
Photograph: INCOLNOSE2®

With a string of surprising transfers being made in the MBPJ, including the mayor, many questions are being raised about the structure of command at that level. For the sake of effective and good governance, it is time to discuss new solutions.

(From Penang monthly, in the November 2012 issue)

The issue of federalism and the need for decentralisation of government control emerged yet again during the recent Selangor fiasco of its MBPJ mayor’s transfer.

On October 1, the MBPJ mayor, Datuk Mohd Roslan Sakiman, was given a 24-hour notice of his transfer out of the council. He would be given a promotion to be the new deputy state secretary, a position which also doubles him up as head of the state economic planning unit. This unit’s director, Datuk Noordin Sulaiman, would simultaneously be promoted to be state financial officer, whilst the finance officer, Datuk Mohd Arif Abdul Rahman, would be transferred to Putrajaya.

Datuk Mohd Roslan Sakiman.
Photograph: Selangor Times

This caused an immediate uproar within the city council as well as the Selangor state government. First, this was over the fact that he was expected to leave within 24 hours, since it would be almost impossible to ensure all duties and responsibilities would be transitioned off to his replacement. This also comes at a time when Petaling Jaya, the most urban of cities in all of Selangor, is undergoing major urban regeneration and transformation, requiring strong leadership and direction. Mohd Arif, for example, also personally requested for the move to be held back until Selangor’s budget for 2013 is tabled in mid-November.

Second and more importantly, the state government, to which local councils report, was not consulted on the matter at all. This is reminiscent of the incident in 2010, during which the Selangor state secretary was similarly chosen and appointed by the federal government without seeking a response from the state government.

Local residents’ associations, including the Selangor Residents’ Association Coalition (Apac), equally shared their disappointment, as many appreciated his consultative style of working closely with community leaders. The federal government had also not informed the state government or local council on the replacement mayor.

Following the series of harsh criticism levelled against the transfer’s short notice, the federal government made the decision to extend Mohd Roslan’s transfer till December 1, giving him more time to delegate his tasks accordingly.

Several lawyers have cited Article 10 of the Local Government Act 1976 (LGA), which states clearly that “The local authority shall consist of the Mayor or the President… to be appointed by the State Authority”. Here, because the state authority had not yet revoked Mohd Roslan’s appointment, the argument is that the Public Service Department (PSD) was not allowed to override his statutory appointment. According to this view, until and unless the state government revoked his appointment, he would legally still be the city’s mayor.

Whilst it is true that the state government has the right to appoint the mayor of its choice, it is worth exploring the reasons for which the federal government took such an action in the first place.

The letter directing that the transfer take place is from the PSD, which executes policies crafted by the Public Service Commission, which in turn (as do all civil servants within the federal government) reports to the Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Ali Hamsa. The PSD does have the right to make decisions concerning those public servants who are registered with it, and who therefore fall under its jurisdiction, which includes Mohd Roslan.

Therein lies the complication. Although the LGA gives the state government the right to appoint the mayor, this mayor happens to originate from the pool of PSD officers, over whom the headquarters in Putrajaya have full authority.

This conflicting view is exemplified by comments given by the respective quarters: state exco member Ronnie Liu stated that it was up to the Menteri Besar to decide whether or not to order a transfer, and “… not the Chief Secretary”, the mayor himself as a dutiful officer responded to media questions that this was a lateral transfer, and that, “As a civil servant, when the PSD (tells) you to leave, (you) have to do so.” This makes for an interesting hypothetical argument: if the state government were to appoint a mayor who is not a PSD officer, then it would be clear that the state government has complete say over the matter.

Ronnie Liu
Photograph: rocketkini.com

The fine print of the law and regulation may stipulate as such, but it is important to recognise the real reasons for which such a transfer would be initiated at all.

It is highly suspicious that such a transfer is taking place now, given the proximity to the 13th General Election (which is expected to fall within the next four to five months), the results of which may affect the position of the state government and local councillors. In any case, it is certainly not wise to make changes to key positions at this time when no new major policies or programmes are due to be announced; the affected positions in this move would be the Petaling Jaya mayor, the deputy state secretary and the state finance officer, the latter of whom is instrumental in the running of a state government’s daily affairs.

The sheer coincidence of this taking place at such an inopportune time leads one to believe that the mayor’s transfer is politically motivated.

This incident further strengthens the argument that too much power is presently concentrated in federal hands. Even if it had the right to transfer its high-standing officials, decent courtesy would have dictated the need for the state government to be first consulted, seeing as local councils fall under the purview of the state, and that mayors or presidents of all 12 local and municipal councils in Selangor report to the Menteri Besar and the state executive council.

This is also a good opportunity for the state government to consider several options. First, since the LGA allows the state authority to appoint any person, including one who does not come from the pool of PSD officers, perhaps it is time to explore obtaining council mayors from any interested party. Although the salary scheme may not be very attractive (since this would be a civil service position), this does not exclude the possibility of individuals wanting to take up the post. The state government could consider advertising for such positions in the future, and selecting the person best suited for the job based on capability, experience and interest. Secondly, groups have also begun proposing that mayoral elections be conducted, on top of the existing call for local council elections.

Finally, where think tanks and academics have discussed the issue of decentralisation of late, where there should be greater devolvement of power from the federal to state governments, it is also worth exploring how much should be also given to the local government. At my book launch in Penang recently, academic Dr Wong Chin Huat (also fellow at the Penang Institute) suggested the possibility of having two-tier governments instead of three-tier governments in selected states. These states would be geographically smaller, which may not need either the state or local government’s presence to ensure efficient public delivery. In the future, what role do we want to confer to local councils, over and above what is presently the case? And more relevant to this case study, is it time to consider an alternative method of selecting and appointing city mayors?