The economic impact of autism

Posted on April 20, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 13 April 2017, here.

MALAYSIAN-produced film Redha (which was long-listed for the Best Foreign Language Film at this year’s Academy Awards) features Nam Ron as the father of a boy with autism who initially refuses to accept his child’s condition. Eventually, he comes to terms with his son’s identity and learns to educate him in the right way.

In the film, the father is forced to move from Terengganu where he had a lucrative business, all the way to Kuala Lumpur, to engage the educational and therapy services required for children with special needs. This tells us the difficulty of families in small towns and rural areas, who may not have adequate access to such care.

What the film does not show us, however, is just how expensive these services are. Children diagnosed with autism require speech and occupational therapy sessions at least once a week. These sessions typically cost RM100 for 45 minutes on average, but the cost can increase depending on the severity of the condition on the autism spectrum.

For families that are less well-off, the news that a child has autism can be a nightmare because of the costs involved. If a child receives four occupational therapy sessions a week, for instance, this would take up about 13% of the average household income for a family in the bottom 40%. In 2014, the mean monthly gross household income of the bottom 40% in urban areas was RM2,928, according to the Economic Planning Unit.

In addition, once a child is diagnosed with autism, it is more likely that one parent is forced to resign from his or her job to care for the child, thereby reducing the household income and bringing even more pressure on the family’s finances.

The government does have some financial assistance, where the Welfare Department provides a monthly aid of RM150 for differently-abled people who are registered with them. However, this is hardly sufficient especially given the high cost of learning aids like books and materials. This amount would only cover one therapy session a month, for instance. In fact, according to the Autism Society of America (ASA), the average lifetime cost of caring for a child with autism in the United States is US$2.4 million, or about RM9.6 million. This figure includes medical treatment, special education, housing, and indirect costs like lost productivity.

Each year in April, those involved in providing services for people with autism celebrate Autism Awareness month. This year has been no different, where our autism centre for the bottom 40% of families will be involved in a series of activities bringing parents of our students and the surrounding community together.

It is because of these economic challenges that low-income families with autistic children face that such centres exist. Indeed, more such centres have emerged in recent years, which indicates there is a growing demand especially for those catering to the bottom 40% of families. This is a healthy and positive trend, which demonstrates the ability of private citizens to plug the existing gap in the market, which the government has not sufficiently been able to fulfil.

That said, much more needs to be done structurally, and from the very top. Selected government schools already have what is called a Special Education Integration Programme, which are classes dedicated to special needs children. However, the limitation here is that children with varying special needs conditions are put together in a single classroom, which means those with autism are placed together with students with, for instance, dyslexia, ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), non-verbal learning disabilities and others.

Different learning disabilities require different teaching techniques and skills, which is impossible to fulfil given the range of conditions in one common space. Teachers also need to be given specific training for the specific special need in question, which may not necessarily be the case since they are obliged to teach all students at one go. Finally, the teacher-student ratio for a child with autism needs to be ideally one to three or four students (for severe cases, it ought to be one to one), which is not achievable by any measure in large classroom settings.

Again, to improve these conditions, all this requires funding, and we are aware of the fiscal challenges the government is facing. Already the number of children enrolled in special needs programmes more than doubled between 2006 and 2013, according to the Ministry of Education. Judging by statistics in the United States where one in every 68 has autism (as of 2010), this number may steadily grow.

Given these expectations, all stakeholders need to band together with solutions to help ease the economic burden of autism, most especially for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. First, there needs to be training and awareness to a much wider audience, so that businesses can even access training and guidance on how to become autism friendly employers.

Second, a much more comprehensive form of care needs to be provided to parents. For example, under the benefits available through the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, carers can request a trained caregiver to relieve them for a few hours at a time, and this service is often offered free of charge or at a subsidised rate.

Finally, targeted assistance can be provided to families with autism, for instance where vouchers for private services could be provided for by the government. Vouchers are an efficient way for the government to fund the individual with autism, and allows families to select the services they consider most relevant and important for their child’s needs. Another good example is a Personal Independence Payment, which is a means tested allowance that takes into account an individual’s daily living and mobility needs, but does not tie that allowance to the use of related services, hence allowing for choice and autonomy in how the benefit is allocated.

Nam Ron’s character in Redha was fortunate enough to be able to afford quality care and services for his son, who could eventually swim competitively as a teenager. (In fact, many adults with autism are gifted musicians and artists). With streamlined collaborative efforts of the community, private sector, government and charitable foundations, even the most marginalised in Malaysia would be able to achieve similar goals for their children with autism.

Tricia Yeoh wishes all readers Happy Autism Awareness Month.

Posted in Economics, Health, Special Needs | Leave a comment

Integration the world over

Posted on March 20, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 16 March 2017, here.

IN August 2015, I visited France at a time when the Syrian refugee crisis was just unfolding, causing much uncertainty and consternation.

The discussions I had with academics and policy analysts then centred on the trends that seemed to be moving the country towards far-right populism.

Since then, two major world events – Brexit and the election of US President Donald Trump – have taken place and clearly the rise of right-conservatism has not eased.

Over this last week, I had the privilege of joining the Austrian Leadership Programmes under the invitation of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, meeting with diplomats and businesses to discuss current issues.

High-value industry, beautiful landscapes and tasty desserts aside one of the key concerns raised was that of integration.

Austria has a relatively small population of 8 million people. In 2012 almost 19% of the population was of foreign background. Of this, some 350,000 are of Turkish origin.

Over the last one and a half years since the refugee crisis began Austria has welcomed some 90,000 refugees into the country.

The refugee policy, approved in November 2015, is based on the principles of equal opportunity for all, leadership, and strong communication with all stakeholders to encourage integration where needed.

Courses are also conducted to introduce Austrian values and the German language to the refugees.

As a country that prides itself on using “soft power”, negotiation and dialogue constructively to promote peace and stability in the region, it has certainly positioned itself successfully in that middle ground. However, recent trends may indicate a change.

In Austria’s 2016 presidential elections, the far-right Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer narrowly lost the race, with 46.2% of the vote. In 1999, where 75% of the population said they were satisfied with democracy, in 2016 only 24% said so.

The story is similar: the populace, especially those within the more rural and less metropolitan regions, feels economically threatened by the entry of outsiders.

The fear and insecurity felt are based on the perception of a religion, culture and value system they are not familiar with and do not understand.

The social fault-lines therefore exacerbate the economic ones. Are these guests able to adopt the local culture, identity and language, and eventually integrate into society?

If they are unable or unwilling to do so, then what will this do for the Austrian identity? Indeed, these are questions that countries across Europe are also grappling with.

One view is that the common vision for Europe has not been successfully articulated; that the message of this shared, common future, which in fact was the basis of coming together as a union in its original form, has somewhat faded in recent years – and European leaders have not done enough to reimagine this in the new, changing world we live in.

Another related view is that there is a romanticisation of a past steeped in tradition and stability, being rapidly uprooted, which is being responded to in a sort of “silent uproar”. One political analyst in Vienna used the term “silent” because Austrians are considerably too polite, so even their disgruntlement is muted and cordial.

Ultimately the reality is this: that Austria, France and other European states worry about how to deal with “the other”. This is not very different from what we in Malaysia – and in fact the world over – need to navigate daily.

What role does the state vis-à-vis its people have, in managing differences, potential conflict and tension among people groups with varied desires and needs? Indeed, how do we live together in a common space?

Something I shared with my group of colleagues this week was this: That Malaysia attempted a version of integration and assimilation in the past (recall our National Integration Policy, National Language Policy and National Culture Policy of the 1970s), but this may not have been the most ideal solution, as there was increasing demand for diversity and the maintenance of each group’s culture.

The more the state legislates for uniformity of values and culture, the less social cohesion there is. Hard and strongly enforced integration policies are counter-intuitive and may therefore backfire.

The key perhaps is to accord liberty, equal rights and opportunities to all but encouraging selected tools that aid in smoothening the process. For instance, learning a common language to facilitate communication is imperative. For all else, adhere to the principles of an individual’s liberty to life.

For instance, the courses introduced in Austria for refugees do not try to impose a particular lifestyle, but instead introduce basic human rights principles (like gender equality and respect for women) and encourage healthy exchange of views between all stakeholders to mutually find ways of living together.

For those allowed to stay, workshops are also given to facilitate opportunities in the job market.

That said, the situation in Austria (and Europe) is highly complex, which will require equally complex solutions. Populist politicians gain support easily because they offer simple solutions like borders and walls (the Freedom Party of Austria has also previously called for the construction of a border fence). In reality, the process of bringing together different people groups will take time, effort and a lot of patient negotiation.

One would have imagined that people of varied backgrounds would have been better able to live together in a globalised world. We know now this is increasingly difficult, mainly due to competing interests in a common space.

In times like these, the cardinal principles of the rule of law, individual liberty and a limited government seem to be ever more important to return to – especially the need to have even more dialogue and discussion between groups of different religions and ethnic backgrounds.

The French Presidential election will take place in May this year, and Marine Le Pen from the far-right National Front is in one of the leading positions. If she wins, this may have continuing spill-over effects in the other European states.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, General Politics, Human Rights, Language, Liberalism, Outside Malaysia, Religion | Leave a comment

Drop unnecessary rules on business

Posted on March 14, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 9 March 2017, here.

RECENTLY, the government banned the Dego Ride motorcycle service, which is hailed using a smartphone application (like Grab and Uber). The deputy transport minister said in response that “so far, no licences have been issued for motorcycle taxi riders, and if they conduct such a business, it is illegal.”

It was also reported that drivers under Grab and Uber will be required to get a drivers’ card, which will have to be renewed annually starting this year, but this will first require a detailed inspection and vetting process. It was also reported that these vehicles would have to pass mandatory road worthiness inspections.

Any business, small or big, traditional or using new technologies, know that to run a profitable and efficient enterprise, they will need to be rapidly responding to the needs of their customers.

This includes keeping up with trends, modifying their business model if need be, to eventually find the best fit possible and a solution that satisfies both buyer and seller.

Sometimes, government regulations can get in the way, which places an unnecessary burden on businesses that in fact contribute to the healthy growth of the country’s enterprise and economy, wealth and employment.

The government itself recognised this to be a problem previously. Under the 10th Malaysia Plan, this was identified as an issue to be dealt with. As a result, the Malaysian Productivity Corporation (MPC) has developed an excellent Regulatory Review Framework, which aims at modernising business regulations to create a more favourable business environment.

According to what is called the “regulatory impact analysis” (RIA), all new legislation is required to have a cost-benefit analysis to ensure the approval of good quality written regulation, and all existing regulation need to be reviewed so that what is written and administered and enforced, with a view to remove unnecessary rules and compliance costs. Perhaps MPC had already started its job by going from ministry to ministry, to get their cooperation to review existing regulation.

But one does wonder whether this process is stringently followed for new legislation or policies that emerge out of the various government ministries and agencies, and whether the impact on earnest enterprises are in fact considered at all when these new policies are introduced.

The principles guiding regulatory assessment are sound, among which are the need to ensure all written regulations are consistent and that regulators interpret and apply them consistently. There should not be overlap or duplication of regulations and regulators.

Second is a transparency criterion, which is extremely important: interested parties need to be regularly consulted so it is clear to businesses what their legal obligations are, and these regulations should be easily accessible to everyone.

Finally, there must be accountability so businesses can seek explanations of decisions made by regulators, as well as appeal them.

All the above principles are part of a guide that MPC would presumably have been circulated to the ministries, but changing the culture is often challenging. Government officials must be encouraged to be transparent and consult the appropriate parties in a genuine manner.

For instance, perhaps honestly seeking out the challenges facing business and whether there is an unnecessary regulatory burden placed on them – when in fact the government policy objective could be achieved through another route.

MPC seems to have conducted reviews in certain industries, such as construction, logistics and in the medical profession, based on what is available on their website.

However, the economy is made up of a whole host of other sectors, and it would be interesting to see a review of the regulatory burden on these others, such as fast-moving consumer goods, manufacturing, food and beverages, household goods, and of course the sharing economy, among others.

We know that the government loses as much as 4% of annual GDP a year in opportunity costs on cumbersome business regulations, which amounts to about RM48 billion a year. What we do not know is how much more each of these sectors could have gained, were it not for unnecessary regulations imposed on them.

Government does have a role to play to regulate the market, but this should only be done to the extent that it does not instead stifle or suffocate it.

The political economy we live in requires that there ought to be a constant negotiation of where this line is drawn, and it is a conversation that we must have together – among all stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, consumer groups and the policymakers.

The danger of not having this dialogue is that laws, policies, tax rates and rules are crafted without insight into the actual implications, sometimes negative, on the ground.

The country’s economy ultimately depends on the thriving enterprise and success of these on-the-ground businesses, small, medium and large.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Free small businesses from price controls

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 16 February 2017, here.

UNDER the guise of helping the poor, countries under communist regimes in the past imposed one of the most disastrous economic interventions ever: price controls. The results in these countries are well-known: starvation, poverty and economic turmoil. It is therefore unclear why our government has not learnt this lesson.

Section 15 of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2014 states that the minister of domestic trade, cooperatives and consumerism has the complete power to impose price controls whenever he feels that profits are “unreasonably high”. Under the new mechanism that was introduced for immediate implementation on Jan 1, 2017, the minister has the power to fine any business if it charges even one sen more than the past three years’ profit percentages.

This matters because it applies across the supply chain, whether you are a small farmer or large supermarket. Even more ludicrous is that it applies to all household goods, and food and beverage products – including brooms, brushes, biscuits and snacks. The policy will have serious consequences on people’s lives, and already has.

In May 2016, it was reported that a 32-year-old retail store operator in Kuantan was fined RM8,000 for failing to respond to a notice issued by the ministry.

He had been asked to justify why he sold a packet of laundry detergent for RM10.60 instead of RM9.90, which the government said was more justified – just a price difference of 70 sen.

A fine of RM8,000 may not sound like much to a big business, but it could definitely eat into the business savings of a small kedai runcit. One wonders whether his shop survived after having to pay the hefty amount.

Policies like these hit the small businesses the worst, because they do not have the resources, infrastructure or economies of scale to adapt as quickly as big businesses. They do not have the same connections needed either to voice out these concerns to policymakers, whether it is to big law firms, business chambers or politicians.

Thousands of stories like these mean that the country loses as much as US$12 billion a year on cumbersome business regulations, economic opportunities that we would have otherwise gained. The poorest of the poor are affected, and worse, it stifles their spirit of enterprise and efforts to get themselves out of poverty.

The signs are already showing. The SME growth rate fell by 20% from 2011 to 2015 (7.3% to 6.1%), and worse, the total early-stage entrepreneurial activity rate – or the start-up rate in short – fell by almost 50% from 2010 to 2016 (4.96% to 2.9%).

If this trend continues, this will be of great concern to the Malaysian economy, since at the moment SMEs contribute more than one third to the country’s GDP, at about 36.3% as at 2016. They are the true drivers of growth as they create jobs, and perhaps more importantly, they are the very epitome of human potential that strives against all odds to better their lives and that of their families.

The Act was passed in 2014 to ensure that businesses do not profiteer out of the newly-implemented GST that took effect in April 2015. Price controls were supposed to have a limited period, up to Dec 31, 2016. But lo and behold, at the end of last year, with very minimal consultation, the government announced that it would be continuing an adapted version of this mechanism to begin effective Jan 1, 2017.

At a consultation with businesses held earlier last month, however, it did not sound like the mechanism was very well or thoroughly thought through.

First, the formula that is used to calculate “unreasonable profits” is a one-size-fits-all, when we know that profit calculations in fact differ from industry to industry. It also means that new or old businesses have to apply the same formula to calculate their profits, when in reality a company that is four years old and relatively new might want to have a lower profit margin to capture its customer base first, compared to an older company of 20 years. Assuming that all businesses across the board should adopt a standardised formula tells us that the ministry knows nothing about how businesses actually operate. Small businesses and entrepreneurs may not have the appropriate data-storing technology to be able to trace their historical profit margins. Without such records, it will be difficult to justify their prices to the government whenever they come a calling.

Second, government officials are still unsure as to how the policy actually works as they did not know whether or not palm oil is included in this catch-all scheme. Does it mean that other products are given exemption on a case-by-case basis? It is also ludicrous to include livestock, since as one farmer put it succinctly, their cows decide whether or not they get fat. If they eat a lot, they put on weight; if they do not eat, then they would stay skinny.

Finally, one needs to ask how much the government is spending to enforce this policy. Is the government setting up yet another enforcement body? How many additional civil servants will need to be employed or designated for this task – which by the way will need to be enforced throughout the country?

Last year, a mamak shop in SS15 Subang Jaya was fined RM4,000 for charging RM1 more for nasi lemak. This is an outlet that I used to frequent often when I was younger and had all the time to hang out with friends over copious amounts of teh tarik. Fortunately, the shop seems to have survived. But one wonders how long such earnest businesses and traders can carry on if they are constantly under the threat of bureaucratic government policies and their equally bureaucratic agents, especially if they are imposed with minimal consultation. Price controls are to be implemented indefinitely at this point. Worse, how many other foreign businesses might think twice about entering the Malaysian market given what seems to be an increase in such cumbersome business regulations? It is time to free small businesses from price controls.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Can Trump’s policies affect Malaysia?

Posted on February 6, 2017 by Tricia

(first published in theSun on 2 February 2017 here).

AT least one of US President Donald Trump’s policies will have an impact on Malaysia. His decision to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), in which Malaysia would have been one of the 12 participating countries, is widely known.

But there has been very little discussion – at least in the Malaysian context – about Trump and the Congressional Republicans’ plans this week to overturn a rule requiring US oil companies to disclose payments to governments outside of the US.

This rule (known as the Cardin-Lugar extractive industries payment transparency provision) was passed in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, with the intention to detect (and deter) potential bribery in the resource sector.

For six years, oil companies publicly listed in the US fought its inclusion in the Dodd-Frank Act, the act that sought to reform Wall Street. It essentially requires any oil company that is listed in the US stock exchange (the SEC) to publish the amount of taxes, royalties and other payments to host countries for public viewing.

Many of the large oil companies fought against the rule arguing that it would impact upon their competitiveness. The American Petroleum Institute, for instance, stated that it would “give some large industry players an advantage on future business projects”. However, some of its members’ biggest competitors such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell already disclose payments to foreign governments as a result of similar requirements in the UK and the European Union. Companies have already disclosed payments of over US$150 billion to governments of over 100 countries to date and “none of the reporting companies have claimed that business has been negatively impacted through such disclosures”.

While it is true that overregulating industry often makes it cumbersome for the private sector to move efficiently, in this case the argument against burdensome regulation cannot be viewed so simplistically. And these companies cannot be equated with small and medium enterprises or entrepreneurs who are the ones that suffer the most at the hands of a big, highly regulated government. If we are to oppose regulation, it should be primarily for the sake of small, not big, business.

Why is this important and how would it affect us?

The natural resource sector is a multi-billion dollar industry, and in many resource-rich countries, oil companies both national and international have invested heavily into extracting their oil and gas – both at great cost and for great profit. The significance of oil to a country’s political economy is made even more evident when a large percentage of the country’s revenues are drawn from natural resources.

In fact, and my previous columns have highlighted this, a resource curse is known to occur in resource-rich countries, where instead of bringing greater growth and development, the reverse is true. Between 1960 and 1990, per capita incomes in resource-deficient countries grew two to three times faster than resource-reliant export-driven countries. A country is said to be resource-dependent if at least 26% of its national revenues come from the extractive industry.

Malaysia has up to recently drawn as much as 40% of its annual revenues from oil and gas – this includes large dividends from Petronas on top of other taxes and royalties paid by international oil companies that operate in the country. One of the main reasons this has fallen to a low of 19% in 2016 is because of the drastic fall in oil prices, which also accounts for the budget cuts in many ministries that we have now become familiar with (especially in higher education, but that is another story). If oil prices were to climb again, it is likely that extractives will continue to play a large role – as it has in the past – in Malaysia’s growth and development story.

The current rule requires companies listed in the US stock exchange to disclose payments they make to countries it operates in. Oil companies listed in the SEC currently operating in Malaysia include ExxonMobil and Chevron, both of which contribute significantly to our oil and gas sector. Exxon Mobil has four production sharing contracts (PSCs) with Petronas, “producing one-fifth of the nation’s oil production and about one-half of natural gas supplies to Peninsular Malaysia”, while Chevron is most visible through its network of Caltex service stations.

At the moment, the federal government does publish some financial information in its economic reports and annual budget documents, but these are consolidated and not disaggregated. It is unclear whether there are any other sources for researchers like me who are interested in oil and gas payments to the government of Malaysia.

It is important to have this information so that civil society as independent watchdogs of the government’s finances can keep government in check: in short, is the government disclosing that they are receiving the same amount of money that the companies say they are paying to government, and vice versa? Having two sources of information is crucial for this verification process.

Likewise, transparency advocates would argue the same for any disclosure around the world. Oil companies operate in countries that have questionable human rights records, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others. Equipping civil society and independent researchers with corroborative information on how much their governments receive from oil companies would help them build a comprehensive picture of the amount of actual wealth they receive from their extractive sector. Ultimately this allows us to follow the money trail all the way to how much government actually spends on long-term investment projects like schools, hospitals and public transport.

It would plug the information gap between what the Treasury reports as national revenues received from various sources, what it reports as having spent each year, and most importantly what the Auditor-General reports in its audits of government agencies, where wasteful spending is often highlighted. This would then quell any accusations about leakages from public funds.

If things go according to Trump’s plans – and let’s not forget that the new secretary of state is the former chief executive of ExxonMobil – the congressional votes will pass as expected in the coming week (all that is required are simple majority votes, as per the Congressional Review Act). This will remove an opportunity for greater transparency in the oil industry that would have contributed to the better governance of numerous countries around the world, Malaysia included.

Posted in Economics, Oil and Gas, Outside Malaysia, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Adenan Satem’s Fight for Sarawak

Posted on January 20, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 19 January 2017

THE passing of Sarawak chief minister, the late Tan Sri Adenan Satem, last week sent political reverberations across the country.

Whither Sarawak in the next general election, many asked?

How exactly has he altered the political dynamics of a state that has hitherto been considered the proverbial “fixed deposit” for ruling coalition Barisan Nasional?

Was he really all that reformist as many purported him to be?

During his short tenure of almost three years, he brought with him a breath of fresh air. His predecessor, now state governor Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud, had been chief minister for 33 years, making him the longest serving chief minister in Malaysia.

Taib had been embroiled in accusations of political corruption and cronyism, particularly that related to deforestation.

In contrast, I recall Adenan taking on a Global Witness representative – the international NGO that produced a documentary uncovering how Taib and family by-passed Malaysian law to sell off Sarawak’s land – confidently on stage at the International Anti-Corruption Convention (IACC) in 2015, stating in no uncertain terms that his leadership would be different; one defined by transparency and cooperation with civil society.

Sure enough, he would go on to meet several high-profile anti-corruption activists to discuss how to work together.

But perhaps the biggest and most significant contribution Adenan made to Sarawak lies in his demands for greater state autonomy.

When, as a result of Petronas’s restructuring in Sarawak, 13 experienced staff members were retrenched, politicians from both sides of the divide called for the preservation of Petronas jobs for Sarawakians.

The angst was mainly targeted at peninsula-based Malaysians taking high-ranking positions that would otherwise have been reserved for locals – not the most ideal in terms of national unity across borders.

But recall that Sarawakians have long felt betrayed by the original commitment to be treated as partners, alongside Sabah, and equal to the peninsula as three separate entities under the Malaysia Agreement 1963, not merely as one of the 13 states.

Adenan emerged as a victor of sorts in August 2016, when he marched to Putrajaya and had a face-to-face negotiation with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak and Petronas, at which a seven-point list of claims were presented, all of which were reportedly agreed to.

First, that a Sarawakian should be appointed on Petronas’s board of directors.

Second, that the then 192 vacant posts would be advertised in local papers and filled by Sarawakians.

Third, that Petronas would provide up to 50 places for Sarawakians to do undergraduate studies at University Technology Petronas.

Fourth, that Petronas would intensify technical training and enrol more Sarawakians in their training centres.

Fifth, that Petronas would support two petrochemical industries in the state.

Sixth, that the federal government would consider the Sarawak government’s intention to participate in Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs), and finally seventh, that Petronas would agree to recruit more Sarawakians from the non-executive to management levels.

This was a rare occasion in which a chief minister from a Barisan component party was negotiating with the Barisan head in rather opposition-like behaviour. In fact, one might argue that the entire push for greater autonomy presented a strange, unprecedented relationship within the political players in the state.

Here, we were presented with both the state government (led by Barisan Sarawak-based parties PBB and SUPP) and the opposition parties (led by DAP) united in their demands for more safeguards to protect local Sarawakian employment in Petronas.

In fact, the second big demand emerging from Adenan’s office was to increase the oil royalty from 5% to 20%, which ironically enough started off as a motion originally tabled by a DAP state assemblyman, but amended to include more development grants from the federal government and then subsequently tabled by a Barisan assemblyman.

The resolution was approved back in May 2014, just two months after Adenan took over office, in an unusual act of unanimous cooperation between parties from both sides. Such bilateral voting towards a common cause has almost never taken place in any other state, much less federal Parliament.

In another effort to negotiate for greater oil rights for Sarawak, Adenan announced in the June 2016 state assembly meeting that the state would develop a new regulatory framework with regard to territorial sea boundaries, alluding to his rejection of the Territorial Sea Act 2012 (TSA).

Once again, this has received backing from both the Barisan and opposition parties in Sarawak.

It is a complex issue, but in short: The TSA reduces the breadth limit of Sarawak and Sabah’s territorial waters – including their rights to fisheries, mineral resources and tourism sites – to three nautical miles from their coastlines.

The contention is that first, territorial sea is defined as 12 nautical miles for all other parts of Malaysia, whereas it is three nautical miles for Sabah and Sarawak, and for the purposes of oil and gas (which would also include Kelantan and Terengganu).

Second, it is argued that the TSA could in fact be unconstitutional, since any law altering the boundaries first requires the consent of that state via the state legislature, which, in this case, did not happen.

This is an important point of law, since it would determine how much of the revenues from minerals found offshore would eventually accrue to the state governments.

There are those who consider his demands for autonomy to be a nuisance, and an attempt to cause intentional friction for friction’s sake. In fact, it should also be said that the state government must be held equally responsible for how it manages its existing resources and not lay the entire blame on the federal government. Indeed, accountability and checks and balance are imperative.

However, in memory of the late Adenan, it is worth quoting his words in toto here, that in fact, “The state has no intention of wanting to weaken the Federation of Malaysia, as it is only claiming its rights enshrined under the Federal Constitution, (the) Malaysia Agreement 1963, the Malaysia Act, the Inter-Governmental Reports and Recommendations and the Cobbold Commision Report.

In fact, the willingness of the prime minister to negotiate with Sarawak in an effort to devolve power and return the autonomy powers of Sarawak, which has been eroded all this while, has enlivened the spirit of Sarawak to ensure Malaysia continues to remain strong” (2016 National Day Celebration).

Those are bold, strong words. But the fact that he needed to say them again 53 years after the formation of Malaysia in 1963 says something about how our Sarawak and Sabah neighbours feel.

Among the 18 points that were agreed to as conditions when Sarawak helped to form Malaysia were that there should be no state religion, English should be an official language, and that no withdrawal of any special safeguard to Sarawak should be made by the central government without concurrence by the Sarawak state government. Nothing new here – he was merely reiterating old points.

Adenan’s leadership has been characterised by a healthy assertion for decentralisation; let us not forget Malaysia is a federalist nation after all. However, whether or not this push for decentralisation continues is very much dependent on Datuk Abang Johari Abang Openg, the newly appointed chief minister.

He has in the past spoken publicly about Sarawakian autonomy, but we shall see if he keeps to his word and Adenan’s legacy.

——————————-

In memory of the late Tan Sri Adenan Satem, chief minister of Sarawak (1944 – 2017).

Posted in Federalism, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Fighting corruption a decade later

Posted on January 6, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 5 January 2017, here.

THE beginning of the year is as good a time as any to reflect upon the direction the country is heading towards.

Ten years ago, Malaysians were just beginning to appreciate the opening up of public space. Then prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, or more familiarly known as Pak Lah, had taken over in 2003, and then won a landslide victory for the ruling Barisan Nasional in 2004, riding on a wave of public confidence in his commitment to reforming a government that had lost a whopping 14 parliamentary seats in the previous 1999 general election.

What was most distinct about his administration was his promise to clamp down on corruption and therefore empowering the anti-corruption agencies. Related to this was the general change in the sociopolitical air – civil society felt freer and more able to organise public seminars related to various issues previously deemed sensitive.

More significantly, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was established in 2004, an upgraded version of the previously known Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), with the idea of being a regional hub for anti-corruption capacity and capability building to “fight corruption by promoting best practices in investigation, monitoring and enforcement …”

Modelled after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), it was meant to be a more robust agency now given greater teeth to fight graft in the country.

The MACC did go through significant challenges, chief of which was the incident in 2006 during which political aide Teoh Beng Hock was found to have fallen to his death at the MACC Selangor headquarters in Shah Alam. Embroiled in controversy, the investigations and court cases eventually concluded that it was, in fact, a homicide that took place. Although the police did not eventually find the perpetrator, the MACC as an institution did take measures to improve itself after admitting there were flaws in its system.

One of the reform measures was to set up five independent committees, namely the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, the Special Committee on Corruption, the Complaints Committee, the Operations Evaluation Panel, and the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel. These committees would be tasked to provide oversight to the operations and investigation processes of the MACC, and many individuals of good public standing were appointed to fill these positions subsequently, although these mechanisms did not sufficiently boost public confidence.

Over the last year, the MACC has been in the spotlight for numerous reasons, having investigated 1MDB and other cases related to it, but then later raided by the police for reportedly having leaked documents.

Has the anti-corruption commission that was initially promised to be reformed and strengthened all those years ago instead been eroded and weakened?

The MACC in fact ought to be an independent institution given the resources to fight corruption. But the 2017 budget saw a laundry list of financial cuts, including in investigation and surveillance, law and prosecution, prevention, administrative and forensic services, as well as record and information management, and community education. How is it possible for the MACC to continue functioning with the same expectations but with a much lower budget?

One of the core reforms that some of us in civil society have called for in recent years is an independent MACC that reports to Parliament and has greater autonomy both financially and in hiring and firing its own staff.

The MACC currently reports to the Prime Minister’s Department, which surely is a source of potential conflict of interest. Having a truly independent MACC would allow it to truly exercise its duties in an unbiased fashion without fear or favour.

The new MACC Chief Commissioner, Datuk Dzulkifli Ahmad, recently announced that he wants to combat corruption and abuse of power, saying that “for those who are still intoxicated by bribery, please listen to this warning: stop the corruption and power abuse, and surrender yourself!” In the same speech, he also urged Malaysians to support the agency in its mission. The MACC’s recent action in the Sabah Water Department corruption case is a good sign that it is taking steps in that direction.

However, the MACC simply cannot carry out this task alone. The experiences over the last decade would surely have taught the administration some lessons: that apart from the government it serves, positive public perception is crucial to achieving its goals. Working with, instead of against, the community that it tries to educate is crucial if it wants to seriously fight corruption all round.

This is where independent civil society organisations can in fact come in to support the MACC in its efforts to fight corruption. Other expert bodies like accountants and lawyers can also support MACC’s work as many investigations involve technical and forensic accounting matters. However, the MACC must also demonstrate its willingness to have frank discussions and dialogue with civil society.

The MACC has seen tremendous transformations over the last decade and more, but fighting corruption seems to be even more challenging than ever. It is hoped that it is in these trying times partnerships and collaborations can be forged; all those in favour of fighting corruption – and this must be a priority this year – should surely come together.

Posted in Civil Society, Corruption, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Rights of the natives

Posted on December 25, 2016 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 22 December 2016, here.

A VIDEO went viral at the end of November on social media, portraying the Temiar Orang Asli community singing Negaraku as the blockade they had set up to protest logging at a forest reserve in Gua Musang in September was destroyed. Several orang asli villagers were also detained as a result of the incident.

This particular action was ordered by the Kelantan State Forestry Department, while a representative of the Kelantan state government stated that all logging activities in Kelantan since 1978 had complied with the law and urged all parties to comply with set regulations.

The orang asli in Malaysia despite being natives and therefore technically part of the bumiputra community have, unfortunately, not quite benefited from the country’s affirmative action policies. A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2014 report revealed that almost 34% of orang asli households live in poverty, this despite official country figures that say 0.6% of the population live below the national poverty line. Why the disenfranchised community? Has the government not paid enough attention to their woes?

The government has indeed set up a body looking into orang asli affairs, the Department of Orang Asli Development (or Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli), whose mission is to “implement inclusive development to improve the socioeconomic status and quality of life while advancing and upholding the excellent heritage of the orang asli community”, but one does wonder to what extent the heritage of the orang asli is being preserved, really.

Many of the problems faced centre upon the lack of recognition of their land rights. This is a crucial point. Colin Nicholas from the Centre of Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) who has long championed their cause, said in a speech that “In the traditional context of their customary land, orang asli would have enjoyed full autonomy over their traditional lands and territories. These are lands held by them by custom and history, and which our courts have recognised as being native title lands under common law”.

There is a lot more to unpack when discussing native customary land rights, but suffice to say that the property rights of native peoples are now being slowly but surely recognised around the world as legitimate. The problem, however, is that because these were only customarily recognised in the past, these lands need to be formally gazetted in order to be legally recognised.

The Federal Constitution places land as a state matter, which means technically it is the state governments’ responsibility to gazette land as orang asli land. In 2009, when the new Selangor state government set up an Orang Asli Land Taskforce, the orang asli community (mainly Temuan) were overwhelmed and thankful that their rights were being recognised for the first time after so long. The taskforce, headed by an orang asli, was to conduct research to delineate the proper borders of orang asli native customary land, so the state could gazette them and land titles could finally be awarded to them.

While states have primary jurisdiction over land matters, it is not right to place the entire burden on them and absolve the role of the federal government entirely. Indeed, Article 76(4) of the constitution does allow for the Federal Government to make laws pertaining to “tenure, acquisition, registration, transfer of land and other rights and interests in land”, so they could very well protect the recognised customary lands of the orang asli.

The protection of ethnic minorities anywhere in the world is an unquestionable right. Already in 1992 the United Nations member states unanimously adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, which basically guides countries in their efforts to ensure minorities are not discriminated against.

But Will Kymlicka in his paper “Liberal Multiculturalism: Western Models, Global Trends, and Asian Debates” argues that Asian countries have been surprisingly absent from this global debate on minority rights, partly because they had little role in formulating these international standards in the first place.

According to him, the indigenous of many countries in the region suffer from state policies to “swamp their land with settlers”. They are also pressured by the state and its various instruments to assimilate into a homogenous society. The paper in fact cited incidents of indigenous communities in Malaysia being pressured to convert into Islam. Malaysia’s National Culture Policy introduced in 1970 also comes to mind, which emphasised the assimilation of non-Malays into Malay culture. Its website states, “… The culture of the indigenous people from this region, which, in a wider or narrower sense, refers to the Malay culture, forms the basis of the National Culture Policy”.

Multiethnic and multicultural countries like Malaysia will continue to face challenges in negotiating for rights in public space, especially so for an ethnic minority with such minimal negotiating rights as the orang asli community. But the key is to ensure all citizens are free to exercise their individual liberty; in an ideal world, rights and protections should not be the state’s prerogative to give away in the first place. Individual liberty ought to be accorded to each person regardless of ethnicity, religion or political affiliation.

As we end the year with festivities, it is hoped that the rights and privileges we possess are not taken for granted. The liberty we enjoy should also be restored to those who have lived on these lands for hundreds of years before us. The Malaysian government, having endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, needs to collaborate closely with other state governments to fully recognise what it signed into; that our orang asli have the right to the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, that they are free and equal to all others in this country, and finally, that they have the right to the lands they have traditionally owned.

Posted in Human Rights, Liberalism, Selangor | Leave a comment

Rohingya refugee rights

Posted on December 16, 2016 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 13 December 2016 here.

AT A “Solidarity March” two weekends ago, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak protested the atrocities taking place in Myanmar, condemning Myanmar for what he considered as the “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” of the Rohingya community.

What is happening in Myanmar is without a doubt disturbing, and requires international attention. But Najib needs to turn his eye to the refugee conditions on home ground in Malaysia.

First, Malaysia sits on the United Nations Security Council and could have used this position to act on its concerns, but through the appropriate channels.

If it wants to elevate the seriousness of the developments at an international level, the government could table an emergency motion on what it considers to be the genocide of the Rohingyas in Myanmar at the UN Security Council.

Second, Malaysia has not yet signed or ratified the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, which means the government does not formally or legally recognise refugees in the country.

This includes Rohingyas, who are therefore not recognised as refugees. The implications of this are, namely, that the government can act according to its whims and fancies whenever it is convenient for it to appear humanitarian.

Second, it does not have to comply with any sort of rules in its treatment of refugees. The convention would require member states to provide certain protections, such as the right to work, the right not to be expelled, and the right to freedom of religion,
among others.

The only document refugees in Malaysia have is a UNHCR card (UN High Commissioner for Refugees), issued upon interviews and certification by the UNHCR itself. Even so, the Malaysian authorities have reportedly thrown these cards away.

An expose took place in March 2015 of syndicates selling fake UNHCR cards for as cheap as RM50 a card. A documentary by Al-Jazeera in late 2014 also exposed allegations of abuse of refugees – refugees were seen chained and handcuffed, and said they had been beaten and exploited and left little food and water – as well as claims of corruption within the UNHCR.

The UNHCR has responded by issuing new cards with increased security features to combat identity fraud and counterfeiting.

All of these incidents underscore more importantly that there is a need for the government to work closely with the UNHCR and other agencies offering refugee care and services to come out with clear policies and regulations on managing the refugee issue in a more systematic way.

Since Najib has taken a keen interest in human rights – in his rally speech he stated that one of the articles in the Asean charter was for Asean to uphold human rights – he should also consider signing and ratifying a host of other international human rights conventions.

This would include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, two of which are considered to be the most basic of human rights conventions for any modern democracy.

Third, recall that it was only in May last year that there were an estimated 6,000 Rohingya and Bangladeshi refugees who were stranded at sea because authorities turned them away. (The government did change its position subsequently to allow the boat people to land in Malaysia.)

The then deputy home minister had said: “We have to send the right message that they are not welcome here”, after 1,000 refugees landed on the shores of Langkawi. Recall that after being on the boat for more than three months, their boats’ captains and crew abandoned them, leaving about 10 passengers to die.

Finally, there are already Rohingya refugees in Malaysia, many of whom are being detained under horrible conditions in detention centres, some of which have been mentioned above.

Why has the government not turned a kind eye to treat our existing refugees with the love our leaders now profess? Why the sudden attention now, when they have been languishing for years?

As of the end of October 2016, there are more than 150,000 refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia, of which some 54,856 are Rohingyas. Why focus solely on one community’s conditions?

Other refugees in Malaysia include those from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

One should not discriminate based on country of origin, the level of care and attention provided.

All have experienced persecution and suffering and have been forced to leave their countries because of serious discrimination or armed conflict, and are in search of a better future.

The prime minister should sign and ratify the UN Refugee Convention, table an emergency motion at the UN Security Council to debate this crisis, and finally turn his eyes to the horrid conditions the Rohingya and other refugees have to suffer on home soil itself.

Posted in Human Rights | Leave a comment

Walkway of Shame

Posted on December 1, 2016 by Tricia

All we know is “one worker”,
We don’t know your name,
“From Vietnam” to KL,
The city of shame.

You gave up your life
For some eco construction,
And instead what it gave you
Was death and destruction.

Who were your loved ones?
What were your dreams?
Why did you come
To this country unseen?

You were crushed under concrete
And others now lame,
As we pass we’ll remember you
In this walkway of shame.

1st December 2016

Posted in Poetry, Public Administration | Leave a comment