Tricia Yeoh

First published in theSun on 24 November 2016, here.

In the lead-up to Bersih 5, many conversations with friends centred on whether there was any point in having street rallies. Many felt that despite large turnouts to such protests over the last few years, no change had really taken place. In fact, many felt the situation had deteriorated even further.

It is in the nature of civil society movements to call for a particular, usually radical, change. These can range from calling for the abolishment of a certain law or policy, or the removal of a leader. Having seemingly unreachable targets is sometimes the point; if it was easy, why all the effort to organise a mass rally in the first place?

First, one could argue that it is precisely because the believers in a certain cause had already exhausted all other alternative options that they turned to the streets. You might first write to your representative, whether local councillor, state assemblyman or Member of Parliament, depending on which law it is you are unhappy about. Then, you might form an NGO or think tank to write policy briefs. But when such efforts have gone on for years to no avail, there are very limited avenues left available.

Second, street rallies are, after all, a legitimate means of expression. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution protects every Malaysian’s right to freedom of speech and expression, and to assemble peacefully and without arms. The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 also makes it legal to have public protests, and in fact puts the onus on the police to redirect any counter-rallies if they expect clashes to take place. Peaceful assembly is essential to a functioning democracy, and hence why it is widely enshrined in local and international law and conventions as fundamental freedoms. This is not some Western-based notion alone but stems from the human necessity for people to cooperate and collaborate to pursue their interests. Vibrant assembly is a crucial element of a fair and just society.

Third, rallies are an efficient way of bringing strangers together who would otherwise have no way of guessing the volume of people believing in a common cause, especially important in a time when activism is largely limited to reading and sharing news from an electronic device. There is great value in sharing a physical space and moving in or away from the same direction together.

These are collective visceral experiences that spur people on to, very simply, be motivated to do more.

Historian Eric Hobsbawm in fact wrote rather cheekily that “next to sex, the activity combining bodily experience and intense emotion to the highest degree is the participation in a mass demonstration at a time of great public exaltation … it is by its nature collective … through which the merger of the individual in the mass, which is the essence of the collective experience, finds expression”.

But one might claim these to be merely self-indulgent experiences, because no actual policy change can take place as a result of rallying.

Much better to work from the inside through existing systems, it is said. It is perfectly valid to work from within the system, and those who do so should continue persevering.

However, the majority of people do not work within government and they have no access to the corridors of power.

I would in fact argue that the past few Bersih rallies were actually able to demonstrate significant milestones, which would not have been possible without the thousands on the streets and subsequent pressure to act.

Recall that it was only after the Bersih rally in 2011 (Bersih 2) that the government formed a Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which conducted public hearings in six states and presented a report to Parliament the following year in 2012.

Although most of the 22 recommendations have not been implemented, one was: the proposal to allow Malaysians residing overseas to vote at Malaysian embassies or missions. This is now a reality. Malaysians living overseas no longer have to fly back to exercise their right to vote.

The Election Commission also eventually implemented the use of indelible ink in the last general election, which was one of the key demands of Bersih in 2011, although the ink was easily washed off. Finally, international as well as local registered Malaysian organisations have also been permitted to observe the elections.

These are small incremental changes, and certainly much more needs to be done – calls for reforming the administration seem to fall on deaf ears.

But this is where civil society learns from each round of social action. In order to pinpoint the most accurate pressure points of a government they seek change from, sometimes things need to happen multiple times before the most effective form of action is uncovered.

Even then, why would a government resisting reforms demanded by mass rallies have to actually respond and listen to its citizens?

A truly democratic government has to be shown explicitly that a significant part of its electorate that put it in power will sway at the ballot box if it does not enact the reforms demanded.

This is why the numbers at rallies are important; the visual impact of the masses coming out is important; the diversity in age, race, class and creed is important. All these are essential to show these demands do not just represent narrow interests or a small section of society.

Especially in Malaysia’s highly racialised and regionalised politics, mixed ethnic composition and East Malaysian participation in such rallies are crucial factors.

It might also serve Malaysians’ memories to note that rallies are not a new thing in this country. In 1946, it was members of Umno that publicly demonstrated against the British-created Malayan Union. They even wore white headbands to signify their mourning for the loss of the Sultans’ political rights, which they said were being reduced.

Two years later, the Malayan Union was dissolved and replaced by the Federation of Malaya on Feb 1, 1948. How long more do we wait before we see some form of change?

First published in theSun on 10 November 2016, here.

Malaysia woke up last week to find that its government had signed not one, but 14 bilateral agreements with China worth RM144 billion in total, in addition to a RM55 billion East Coast Rail link project. China is one of Malaysia’s largest trading partners for both exports and imports, but these new deals are extremely large and unprecedented.

Some have commented to me that they think this might help elevate the status of the Chinese in Malaysia. But will this new-found relationship between Malaysia and China really change how local Chinese in Malaysia are viewed by the state? I’m not so sure about this.

The Chinese minority in Malaysia is one of the largest Chinese minorities in the world outside of China, and to a large extent has flourished well in this country. But perceived discrimination is real, due to the affirmative action policy for the bumiputras.

In September 2015 when the ambassador of China made a statement alluding to protecting local Chinese in the face of the Red Shirt rally, this presented an awkward situation for many Malaysian Chinese. Having a foreign entity speak up for my rights made me rather indignant at this gesture.

First, the notion that the relationship with China will draw attention to the rights of ethnic Chinese at home already takes a rather narrow-minded view. If we were concerned about minority rights, we should also be looking out for the interests of all minorities including the orang asli, Indians and indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak.

Second, China has faced international criticism over its failure to promote good governance and human rights in countries it has invested heavily in, including several countries in Africa. In the past, its policy of non-interference in domestic politics — and hence also its looking past dismal human rights practices within those countries — lent weight to the argument that China was only interested in economic returns and geopolitical self-interest.

Of course, there are always counter arguments, one of which is that China has in fact contributed to development aid for health and education initiatives, apart from infrastructural projects, in poor countries.

A study by AidData, an organisation specialising in global development aid research, stated that Chinese aid is strongly oriented towards poorer countries. But Malaysia is apparently no longer stuck in the middle-income trap, according to Pemandu (Performance Management and Delivery Unit), where Malaysia is reportedly only 15% away from the high-income economy benchmark.

But the main questions that all Malaysians should be asking the government should have much more to do with the welfare of the nation as a whole, not nitpicking about which ethnic community is going to benefit more out of this.

For instance, how might domestic economic policy change as a result of Chinese state-owned enterprises flocking the market? Most of the 14 deals signed are with Chinese SOEs, and this will most certainly have an impact on our public procurement policy. Based on the deals, it looks like the government will be awarding procurement contracts to foreign Chinese companies as opposed to local companies. If the selection is done based on merit and quality, then well and good.

In fact, one of the most controversial chapters in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) that Malaysia signed earlier this year was precisely that of public procurement. Malaysia successfully negotiated that a substantial portion of government procurement would be exclusively for bumiputra contractors, to be lowered over time. Are we in fact making exceptions for mainland Chinese companies?

Further, will these new deals be subject to provisions under the TPPA, particularly those related to governance of procurement – will the procurement processes be non-discriminatory, standardised and transparent? Will there be open and competitive tenders? Will the firms be subject to domestic review procedures under a to-be-established procurement review authority?

Second, how will this relationship change Malaysia’s geopolitical positioning vis-à-vis South China Sea? Will this influence Malaysia’s voice in siding with China against its neighbouring Asean countries over any sea and land dispute that takes place? In fact, would this bilateral relationship with China affect regional trade agreements like the Asean Free Trade Area (Afta) in any way?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the financial burden that the future generations of Malaysians will be strapped with in the years to come? The Edge reported over the weekend that the RM55 billion East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) could be “one of the most expensive interstate rail and cargo lines to be built in the world”, at RM91.67 million per kilometre. What do the current agreements have to do with China’s deal to buy 1MDB energy assets worth RM9.83 billion in December 2015?

The recent decisions by this administration are a game-changer. If they come to pass, this means that we are opening up our market, which in itself is a good thing, but in this case we are selectively opening it to a single market of foreign companies. It has the potential to change our indebtedness to any foreign entity — recall that we very proudly rejected IMF funds during the 1998 financial crisis — in a way we never have before. And it has the potential to reshape Malaysia’s geopolitical interests in the region, and related to that, the power dynamics in Southeast Asia as a whole.

(First published in theSun on 27 October 2016 here).

MUCH is made over the budget speech tabled by the prime minister in Parliament in October each year.

And rightly so, since it is supposed to be the government’s financial blueprint for the following year: how much goes where, to whom and for what.

What most Malaysians do not realise is that the budget speech is not the budget.

The speech is meant to articulate an overarching theme, specifying which areas are given emphasis in the coming year.

Perhaps the prime minister might point out anomalies, new schemes and goodies to benefit specific groups.

The problem arises when the speech is all that people use as a basis to assess the value of the budget’s various allocations. In order to truly have an accurate representation of the budget, one would need to carefully scour through the extremely thick, heavy document named “Estimates of Federal Government Expenditure”, or “Anggaran Perbelanjaan Persekutuan”.

But how many people would have the time or energy to do this unless it is part of their jobs to analyse the budget?

One example of how this can cause confusion is as follows.

Although the prime minister’s speech mentioned the government would allocate RM30 million for women to receive mammogram screenings and Human papilloma virus (HPV, or the virus that causes cervical cancer) vaccinations for free, these do not appear in the budget lines of the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development unlike previous years.

Neither can the budget line be found within the Ministry of Health chapter.

You can download the individual ministry budgets from the Treasury website (www.treasury.gov.my) and see for yourself. The line items are simply not there.

This is not to say, however, that the budget speech was deceptive in announcing one thing and executing another.

At this point, the conservative view to take would be that it is in fact embedded in some other line item elsewhere. But this is the thing: the budget is supposed to be easy, not confusing, to read.

There are many instances in the budget documents where descriptions are general and vague at best. For example, line items like the coordination of “Special Projects” allocated RM320 million for 2017 under the Prime Minister’s Office – the specific projects are not listed.

Another example is the announcement of RM80 million being allocated to prevent and control dengue and zika, including the expansion of community health empowerment programmes, in the budget speech.

A quick check of the Ministry of Health’s “Disease Control” line item shows us a total allocation of RM721 million, presumably for all diseases.

The exact amounts allocated towards dengue and zika are not clearly broken down, a problem for those concerned with the rise of these diseases.

Another curious line item is found in the Ministry of Finance budget, which allocates RM204 million to “Various Equity Injections”. Which entities these equity injections are to be made is also unclear, although it does say an additional RM30 million will be raised via borrowings for the same purpose.

The government’s standards for presenting the budget to its Malaysian citizens are below par. And there is international evidence to show for it too.

In the Open Budget Index 2015 (OBI), Malaysia scored 47 out of 100, and is placed in the “Limited” category, which is classified as providing insufficient information.

We perform particularly poorly in the areas of public participation and budget oversight by legislature, or Parliament.

Based on the OBI, some of the weaknesses in the current budgetary process are that our budget does not contain information like the financial assets or total liabilities of the budget year (in this case, 2017) – and what the impact of these liabilities would be on the government’s financial situation.

The government also does not provide a medium-term fiscal strategy and forecast assessment of sustainability of current policies.

One could continue examining the budget thoroughly and find many places where the information is simply not detailed enough for us to have a
clearer picture. But this essentially goes back to the question of whether the government is keen on adopting openness as a practice or not.

At a conference last week on the Open Government Partnership, various speakers shared about how countries around the world including the UK, the Philippines and Indonesia – that have all signed up to this voluntary partnership that brings government and civil society together – are introducing amazing tools to first, improve public service efficiency and second, improve governance via transparency.

Open data is one such way to get there. Our government already has an open data initiative, currently being implemented by government agencies Mampu and MDEC, where selected open data sets are shared for free access at www.data.gov.my (open meaning they are publicly accessible, machine-readable and reusable).

But there is a mismatch here – where one arm of government attempts openness and transparency whilst another is deliberately vague.

One thing is clear: Anyone analysing the government budget cannot and must not restrict oneself to the budget speech alone; verifying whatever has been stated in the speech by cross-examining the actual federal government expenditure document is crucial.

To that end, a more detailed breakdown of allocations is needed in place of general aggregated amounts. This would allow people to verify whether what is announced is really being allocated funds, and in the following year, check that the funds were actually used for the purpose.

The prime minister in his speech said Malaysia is not a failed state because it has in fact implemented its responsibilities and basic functions of a government.

Well, this depends on what you consider to be government’s role. I would argue that government’s most important function is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

And the right to information is key; in this case, budget information.

Let us truly not become a failed state, Mr Prime Minister.