Moderates break their silence

Posted on December 14, 2014 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 12 December 2014, here).

ABOLISHING the Sedition Act would not quite result in madness and mayhem, as some would have us believe, but in the likes of towering Malaysians standing up against supremacist NGOs.

Earlier this week, a group of 25 prominent Malay Muslims broke their silence and issued a strong statement – the strongest I have read in a long time – expressing their dismay at the way Islam is being politicised in our country today. This group was able to demonstrate that there clearly do exist moderate Malaysians able and willing to confront and counter those they have termed to be a “rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam”.

In April this year, IDEAS hosted an academic who leads the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University. At a public forum he shared time-series data that showed how countries with very high restrictions on religion in fact are also more likely to be socially hostile. He explained that hate speech should not necessarily be against the law, since this practically silences all forms of speech. Speech would have to be strongly indicative of inciting violence before it is considered criminal under such a model.

Unfortunately, there are some NGOs today that would prefer to silence speech. Some even incessantly demand that the Sedition Act remains in place because by removing it, this would result in uncontrolled speech that could create conflict, instability and even topple the government. This stems from the assumption that all Malaysians are incapable of approaching issues in a calm and reasoned manner, and that chaos would ensue should there be a discussion of controversial topics like religion and race.

In fact, the opposite is true. This assumption was clearly challenged by the group of 25, led by Noor Farida Ariffin, former director-general of the Foreign Ministry’s Research, Treaties and International Law Department, who stated in no uncertain terms that “religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction”, that “the issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution”, and that “the use of the Sedition Act acts as a constant threat to silence anyone with a contrary opinion”.

These are not necessarily new statements, but the fact it is former high-ranking civil servants saying them as opposed to ordinary citizens (whose opinions are easily brushed aside as insignificant) is worthy of attention. Names such as Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Din, former secretary-general at the Home Ministry, Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar, former secretary-general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Tan Sri Dr Aris Othman, former secretary-general at the Ministry of Finance, are top of the list of people who have served within government service at the very highest of positions, commanding the respect of hundreds of civil servants.

Other luminaries like Tan Sri Dr Yahya Awang, core founder of the prestigious National Heart Institute and Datuk Anwar Fazal, former senior regional adviser at the United Nations Development Programme are people who have contributed to society through medical, socioeconomic and developmental means. Six former ambassadors are also part of the statement’s signatories – individuals who had been previously handpicked and wholly entrusted by the government to be Malaysia’s representatives, speaking on behalf of our nation in the four corners of the world.

The group of 25 lists down five priority issues that they feel must be urgently addressed, chief among which is “the need to ensure the right of citizens to debate the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in this country … The Islamic laws of Malaysia are drafted by the executive arm of government and enacted in the legislative bodies by human beings”. Quoting from the statement, of course, is insufficient, and one ought to read it in full for its context.

It is clearly time for the prime minister, the Department of National Unity and Integration, and Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom (the minister in charge of religious affairs) to lead the way in promoting constructive dialogue. Brushing things under the carpet is no longer a feasible solution, and perhaps it never should have been in the first place. But doing so, and inviting members of the multifaceted public to take part in this process, means real leadership is required.

Once society loses its ability to engage in reasoned discussion, we lose legitimacy as a democratic nation. In fact, when reason goes, there is little else to even consider, since we would lose the final frontier of what it means to be human.

This is why it is important for Malaysians to trust in each other enough to believe that open, rational space will not bring about animosity or tension, but instead a flourishing of friendships. Sure, there may be times where bringing people together may ignite fiery, passionate debates, but as long as this is conducted in a safe environment, this is far superior to the alternative: cold, hard, clamped-upon silence, signalling the death of democracy.

And it is through these debates that in fact, more and more Malaysians will be brought into the fold, to speak, listen, understand for themselves, relying on reason and rationale to draw their own conclusions. It is open dialogue and free speech as a first step that is sorely needed, and never more critically so than right now. It is almost certain that more such groups would then emerge, confidently showing that they, too, stand for a moderate Malaysia.

– See more at: http://www.thesundaily.my/node/285361#sthash.5bkVrMHr.dpuf

Posted in Civil Society, Ethno-Religious Politics, General Politics, Religion | Leave a comment

A freedom conversation

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 28 November 2014, here).

MEETING people for the first time, I am often asked what a think-tank is. This is followed by a question on how it is that a classical liberal think-tank can exist in this country, given its relatively centralised approach to socioeconomic policy-making and perhaps more importantly, the negative perception towards the term “liberalism” in Malaysia.

It is for this reason that our team decided to carry out a little social media campaign on Twitter last month, a “Freedom Conversation” of sorts, during which the public were invited to #AskIDEAS questions related to freedom, state control and the rule of law and we would respond accordingly (in all of 140 letter characters per tweet).

For over an hour, we typed profusely, answering the steady flow of questions that came in from a variety of Malaysian Twitter users. They were generally interested in two broad categories, namely that of liberal conceptual frameworks as well as how these principles are fleshed out in everyday life.

On the conceptual front, people were mainly curious as to how individual freedom would impact upon public morality, and effects this has on the larger community; that is to say, what are the limits to freedom? The argument used here is that when individuals exercise their liberties without adhering to social norms or constraints, things would get out of hand and society would descend into chaos.

But this line of thinking in fact denigrates the ability of the human mind and conscience to reason things out logically. Individuals are able to rationalise for themselves how their actions lead to positive or negative outcomes, and make decisions accordingly.

John Stuart Mill wrote about the “harm principle” in his book On Liberty, articulating that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm from others”. The actions of individuals should therefore only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals.

In fact, the draft Racial and Religious Hate Crimes Bill, which was proposed to replace the existing Sedition Act (along with the National Harmony Bill), prescribes the same – that a person would be considered guilty of an offence if he or she engages in conduct that is intended to threaten or incite others towards harming someone else physically. As long as there is no intention to harm someone else, there ought not to be any limits on individual freedoms.

The second broad category of conversations centred upon policy in the working environment, such as the need for occupational licensing, and the recent liberalisation of the legal services market this year. On the first issue, occupational licences for doctors and lawyers do assure the public of some level of quality, but on the other hand also means that traditional medicine practitioners may be branded as “illegal” if they are not recognised by the government. The main issue here is that of information asymmetry, and as such more emphasis should be placed on public education and provision of information, the latter of which regulatory bodies can actually do.

On the second issue, liberalisation of legal services means foreign law firms entering the local market and competing with existing legal firms. Although local firms may have been initially resistant to this, the reality is that we live in an increasingly integrated environment, regionally and globally. The Malaysian Bar president accurately stated that the challenge for Malaysian lawyers is to therefore build their own capacities to become more competitive, attracting both clients and talented lawyers to their fold.

Sixty minutes was certainly not enough time to provide a full and accurate description of what a classical liberal think-tank stands for. There were many questions that in fact would have required a full day to comprehensively respond to.

As Malaysia increasingly finds itself caught between social conservatives (primarily ethnic and religious in nature) and the “liberal” bogeymen (who are blamed for seeking equal treatment of all citizens, among others), perhaps more such freedom conversations should be taking place, both online and off. Our think-tank thankfully meets with groups of students on a regular basis to discuss such pressing issues of the day.

It is our hope that at least the next generation of Malaysians will become the logical and reasonable minds of tomorrow’s leaders.

Posted in General Politics, Human Rights, Liberalism, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Support the sharing economy

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Tricia

(first published in theSun on 12 November 2014, here).

UBER – the increasingly popular ride-sharing mobile app that has riled up local authorities – has not only been controversial in Malaysia, but also in the Philippines, Australia, Germany and many others. And so, when we were asked to carry out a group campaign as part of a Think Tank MBA programme that I recently graduated from, it was simple enough to decide: we would set up a global coalition to promote the sharing economy, called #WeShare.

The sharing economy is basically peer-to-peer voluntary exchange of goods and services, which rides primarily on the speed and efficiency of technology. The global revenue of the sharing economy currently stands at US$14.5 billion and is forecast to reach more than US$360 billion by 2025. In the UK, 25% of adults already share online. In the global market, sharing in key sectors such as holiday accommodation and car sharing is estimated to reach 50% by 2025.

Online sites like eBay have optimised on consumers becoming retailers themselves for years; today, websites like Airbnb, and TaskRabbit match owners and renters, making use of smartphone technology to optimise their delivery of services. A similar tool to the US-based TaskRabbit in Malaysia is the recently set-up site called GoGet, which allows people to outsource their “to-do” list to others willing to run errands for a small fee.

The reason the sharing economy is so powerful is that it is user-driven, allowing each member of society the opportunity to earn on the existing capital that one already owns. The potential for growth is huge, as people may start to think of items in their own storerooms, which they would only ever use once a year.

Take for instance your bicycle, or power drill, which could easily be rented out for a small fee – if there was such a facility online to allow you to make extra pocket money for it. Companies could also capitalise on this as a business – idle office space and machines are just some examples.

If these apps are indeed bringing great benefits to consumers, why is it that governments around the world – including ours – are not exactly taking to it kindly? The reason given by the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) in Malaysia is that Uber would need to comply with the laws requiring any driver who offers their service to apply for the appropriate licences. Like in most other countries in which Uber has been introduced, the local taxi lobby has been vocal against it. Taxi services that have monopolised the for-hire car industry for so many years would now need to compete and provide better quality services.

A second reason why governments may fear the sharing economy is their inability to regulate such private transactions. The government may feel it is their responsibility to ensure consumers are protected from potential dangers from unlicensed private drivers (in the case of Uber) or unapproved hotel-like rooms (in the case of Airbnb). But these peer-reviewed services make up for this by allowing for customer rankings and automatic feedback to be transparently made known to the public. Another person would not likely use a badly rated driver or apartment.

Finally, governments would be concerned that they are unable to monitor and collect taxes accruing from these services. This is legitimate, since the systems presently in place would simply not be efficient enough to track online transactions very well. However, this indicates the need for the tax system to modernise itself accordingly, taking the new sharing economy into consideration. When it does so, governments might even acknowledge that this increases their revenue base.

There are tremendous opportunities in countries like Malaysia that are so well connected – apparently, we have the second highest broadband penetration in the world – and the authorities would do well to recognise the positive impact the sharing economy can have on our economic growth.

Instead of viewing companies like Uber with distrust, we should celebrate a world in which everyone can be a supplier of goods, services and experiences. Each one of us is ultimately a consumer. Accessing these items we need when we want them, on demand, and at a price we can afford is part and parcel of the future.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Opening up government

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 29 October 2014, here).

LAST week, IDEAS hosted a workshop to promote the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a tool currently being adopted by 64 countries around the world that signifies a government’s commitment to greater transparency and good governance, and to work in partnership with civil society to achieve these goals. An excellent idea – but Malaysia falls far short of reaching such standards.

As part of the workshop, I presented on the potential benefits a country like ours would reap were we to sign up to this initiative: first, that this would enhance the national and international credibility of the Malaysian government on various platforms. It would also build trust amongst civil society and the general public towards government, where there is presently a growing antagonism.

Such a platform would ensure an ongoing dialogue where all parties would be able to air their grouses, and finally would result in a systematic record of issues, where reports can be referred to in the future. Finally, an open environment with easy access to information would encourage foreign investors looking for transparency in doing business.

From the perspective of civil society, there might be a very real fear of being co-opted into government, but such a platform would also ensure non-governmental organisations have a systematic opportunity to dialogue on real issues and concerns they deal with. The OGP would be an all-encompassing instrument to take up. But what we learnt quickly is that even if we wanted to, Malaysia does not qualify to participate.

This is owing to the fact that Malaysia only passes two out of the four criteria, on fiscal transparency and citizen engagement. We fail dismally in the areas of both access to information and income and asset disclosures of elected and senior public officials and politicians. Countries that qualify to sign up to the OGP have some form of a freedom of information legislation and compel their government officials to declare their assets publicly.

As a result, Malaysia scores 10 out of the 12 points required. In fact, if we wanted to grab at a low-hanging fruit to push ourselves up the scale, this would be to make public income and asset declarations of public officials. The current practice is that public officials do declare their assets, but this is reported to an internal auditor and not made public. Politicians, on the other hand, are not obliged to declare anything at all, which is a major concern.

The most recent controversy surrounding the Ministry of Finance’s sovereign wealth fund 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Berhad) centres on the fact that RM1.5 billion worth of “commissions, fees and expenses” have been paid out to unidentified individuals when bonds were raised in 2012 and 2013. This comes on the back of other reports alleging that 1MDB is in fact laden with estimated debts of up to RM40 billion.

Could public asset declaration have helped matters at all? Probably not, but divulging important financial information means that public employees and politicians’ wealth can be monitored and called into question when necessary. Records can also be used to compare against their lifestyles, and ultimately such a requirement makes it easier for the anti-corruption commission to investigate corrupt officials and politicians, resulting in convictions and charges.

Calling for public declaration of assets is not new. Within the region itself, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam all make it mandatory for income and asset disclosure to be made public. Malaysia sits comfortably with China in making such disclosures non-public. This, despite the fact that we are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which requiries state parties to establish policies requiring officers “to reveal … to appropriate authorities … their outside activities, employment, investments, assets and substantial gifts or benefits”.

Similarly, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) both have guidelines on asset disclosure. The kinds of information public officials and politicians should disclose include all sources of income, assets, positions in profit or non-profit firms, debts and gifts.

In fact, the Pakatan Rakyat-led state governments of Selangor and Penang made great strides early on in their administration by being the first states to have their exco members publicly declare their assets. It is hoped that the new Selangor government lineup will do the same.

It should be acknowledged that asset disclosure is not the silver bullet that would solve corruption amongst elected and public officials. In fact, there are instances where the costs could outweigh the benefits, both in terms of administrative costs and the fact that professionals could be deterred from running for office for fear of their pre-existing wealth being unnecessarily exposed. Further, even if Malaysia were to practise such disclosure, would our leaders really be able to take action against officials? Or would they be constrained for other political reasons – past favours and family relations included?

Multiple initiatives exist, and it is easy to dismiss yet another as adding to bureaucratic red tape. But the beauty of the OGP lies in the fact that countries can determine for themselves their respective scope of work, although these must lie within a broad framework of promoting openness, accountability and responsiveness to citizens.

For Malaysia, public asset – and income – disclosure of public officials is an urgently needed reform, for both elected and appointed individuals. The next step is to tackle access to information. But most importantly, as all reforms go, political will is first needed, without which all of this is merely perfunctory.

Posted in Civil Society, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Paying it backward

Posted on October 20, 2014 by Tricia

(first appeared in theSun on 15 October 2014, here).

AMIDST the media frenzy that surrounds the budget each year, not many pay attention to the supplementary budgets. Did you know that the government spends billions of ringgit that is outside the main budget, which is only requested for in supplementary budgets many months later?

Consider this. The budget for 2011 was first tabled at RM211.3 billion, but the two supplementary budgets tabled later (for that particular year) came up to a whopping RM23.48 billion, forming more than 10% of the original total.

In fact, the government has tabled two supplementary budgets a year since 2009, totalling more than RM20 billion a year, where 75% of supplementary budgets were to pay emoluments, pensions and gratuities (The Edge, Oct 14, 2013). Emoluments basically equal salaries for the large and growing civil service.

The pattern has been consistent. The original budget is tabled in October, for the following fiscal year. Then, a supplementary budget is tabled within that fiscal year requesting for additional funds. This is repeated once more in the year after the fiscal year. How can the government exercise such blatant lack of control?

One major loophole lies within the law itself. Article 103 of the Federal Constitution states that Parliament may provide for a Contingencies Fund, and that if the finance minister (in this case, the prime minister himself) sees that there is an “urgent and unforeseen need for expenditure for which no other provision exists”, then he can draw from this fund in the form of a supplementary budget.

In fact, a supplementary budget can also be tabled “for the purpose of replacing the amount so advanced”, which means that the government can spend the money first and then only request for a replacement amount of funds thereafter – this is retrospective budgeting.

This is like asking your neighbours for 10 eggs, but taking 20 eggs without their knowledge, using them up to make omelettes, and one week later asking, “May I please borrow 20 eggs?”

The legislative and institutional framework governing our finances is obviously weak. A rule could be set that stops the government from requesting supplementary budgets beyond a certain limit. But even if this were to happen, how can a government so accustomed to spending extravagantly rein in its expenditure? Old habits die hard.

“Enhancing Fiscal Governance” is the second strategy in Budget 2015, where the prime minister repeatedly stressed the need for fiscal discipline. The government plans to reduce the country’s budget deficit by collecting a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and increasing the price of petrol. These are certainly necessary to widen the government’s tax base, which is currently limited.

But imbalanced corrections of market distortions are not appreciated. It cannot on the one hand correct market imbalances by removing subsidies, whilst on the other hand spends beyond its means.

One would have expected the prime minister to remind his ministries to plan and monitor their respective budgets properly, under the section of “Exercising fiscal discipline”. That is what a budget is for: to define the limits of spending and then sticking to it.

To date, Budget 2014 (original amount of RM264.2 billion) has been supplemented by an additional RM4.1 billion tabled in June this year. This is much lower than usual, which is a good sign – but the year is not over yet. If the track record is anything to go by, there will be another supplementary budget tabled to make up for what has already been spent this fiscal year.

As for the year ahead, one could perhaps applaud the government for increasing the proportion of its development expenditure (by one percentage point) vis-à-vis operating expenditure. But then again, one really cannot tell for sure, since there is sure to be another supplementary budget for 2015 being tabled next year. Analysts would therefore be wise to wait for the real, complete budget before drawing any conclusions.

Contingencies are there for a reason – if it is urgent to spend on a nationwide natural disaster, for example. But when such funds are drawn consistently over a consecutive number of years, this reflects on poor planning. This practice of requesting for exorbitant supplementary budgets is unhealthy and needs to end. Exercising fiscal discipline ultimately means spending within one’s budget.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Govt and civil society: The gap widens

Posted on October 1, 2014 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 26 September 2014.

AN Asian civil society summit I attended in Jakarta recently discussed the oftentimes tenuous relationship between government and civil society in countries within the region.

Civil society in many of our neighbouring countries face great challenges. Lack of funding, accusations of being anti-nationalist, or worse, anti-government, imprisonment and sexual harassment were some examples cited by colleagues from India, Myanmar, Cambodia and elsewhere.

Throughout the two days of discussing the governance of civil society, what became clear though was that all participants agreed there ought to be a more enabling environment to create a safer space for civil society to operate in. With greater freedom to push for more open, transparent and accountable government, this would ultimately allow for improved public service delivery.

The Indonesian example may be useful to cite in this instance, where there is an official government policy to encourage civil society to engage with them through partnerships, and have even set up a “democracy trust fund” to strengthen civil society organisations. On this count, the government itself has demonstrated its willingness to support civil society in building its capacity.

One of the more brilliant examples was a mobile application developed by the government itself, called “Lapor” (Report), which allows citizens to submit reports of any public nature, accompanied with photos or documents, using their hand phones. The receiving government office would then forward the report on to the relevant agency or ministry in charge of the complaint, to take immediate action.

While this is certainly encouraging, there is also a unique balance that civil society must strive to maintain in its relationship with government: being able to contribute to participatory decision-making requires a level of partnership with government (whether local, state or federal), but at the same time there ought to be a reasonable distance away from government such that the organisations are still deemed as independent and not co-opted into the agenda of government itself.

In fact, one question raised during the event was whether or not the government should make it compulsory for civil society organisations to register officially.

In some cases, governments can wield their powers in requiring NGOs to register, and by so doing, set up high barriers to entry in the “civil society marketplace”, regulating them strictly and in the worst case, controlling them. In which case, it is far better not to require societies and NGOs to register. Should people not be free to set up organisations without being officially registered and regulated?

Back home, the Registrar of Societies (ROS) has called up several steering committee members of Negara-Ku, a national unity movement whose charter has been endorsed by more than 80 NGOs, for questioning.

Among the questions asked is why there has been no application for the movement to be registered. Apparently, in Malaysia, your organisation can be called up by the ROS for questioning whether or not you are registered.

And this is just one example in a slew of a recent clampdown by the administration, which seems to be targeted to repress freedom of expression. In recent weeks, more than 20 individuals have been hauled up under the Sedition Act, the latest of whom has been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. NGOs have responded by launching an “Abolish the Sedition Act” movement.

This is all to be expected from civil society in Malaysia. There will be movements, and there will be marches, peaceful protests, or demonstrations, call it what you wish. This is all part and parcel of activism, in Malaysia or anywhere else in the world.

The very nature of non-governmental organisations is that they represent the interests of the non-governmental individuals and stakeholders, and many (if not all) times this may be in direct conflict with the opinions of the powers that be.

The difference lies in how government chooses to react.

As I sat back to listen to the Indonesian President’s Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4, which is similar in set-up to Pemandu in Malaysia) wax lyrical about civic engagement, open online platforms, and the need for citizen participation through technology and innovation, I could not help but wonder whether this sort of language would one day arrive at the doorsteps of our bureaucracy.

The reverse seems to be happening on our shores. There is a widening gap between the government and civil society, or at least one segment of civil society. Is it possible for this gap to narrow?

What set the groundwork for Indonesia’s eventual adoption of the Open Government Partnership – a government-led initiative and commitment to openness – was the enacting of the Freedom of Information Act. This is one step that our government could consider if it wants to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability.

But before that, government officials, ministers, and civil servants must be encouraged to eventually step out of their comfort zones, stop viewing civil society as an evil force, and learn to engage them for their own benefit. In the long run, this is the only scenario that would result in a better quality of life for us all.

Posted in Civil Society, Human Rights, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Making voluntarism legal

Posted on September 17, 2014 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 5 September 2014.

I SPENT the Merdeka weekend writing a paper on the choppy relationship between the Barisan Nasional-led federal and Pakatan Rakyat-led state governments.

I traced the brief history since 2008 of the many instances in which the federal and state governments of Penang and Selangor clashed over competing interests and contested areas of jurisdiction.

It was rather apt, then, that 157 members of the Voluntary Patrol Unit (PPS, or the Pasukan Peronda Sukarela), a voluntary organisation set up by the Penang government, were arrested on Sunday after taking part in a Merdeka march.

The PPS was set up in 2011, with the objective of community patrolling to increase security measures in Penang, and boasts a membership of 10,000.

The government’s decision to arrest these members, including its chairman (a state exco member), is based on the claim that the PPS is an illegal organisation as it is not registered with the Registrar of Societies (ROS). The irony is that their patrols have police involvement, and the police sign off their patrol logbooks.

Although the government may be playing strictly to the letter of the law, this is a slippery slope. What this precedence sets is this: that any organisation not registered with the ROS could easily be hauled up if it ruffles the feathers of the powers that be.

Again, strictly speaking, it is true that according to the constitution, law enforcement falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The ninth schedule, which lays out the responsibilities of the different layers of government, explicitly states that all matters of internal security, including police and public order, are to be carried out by the federal government.

Despite the law being what it is, it can be argued that Penang’s move to set up its own organisation is an attempt to restore community-based voluntarism. This is akin to the spirit of semangat kejiranan (neighbourliness) that government campaigns have often tried to instil in us, and equivalent to the use of Rukun Tetangga.

The PPS is, after all, an unarmed group made up of Penang residents, whose main activities consist of directing traffic, assisting the public in times of disaster and to patrol the streets as a preventive measure against crime.

They carry walkie-talkies, not weapons. In fact, functions such as arrests and levying charges against criminals would still be left to the police and judiciary, both institutions under the federal government’s watch.

The federal government does have a similar though not exact entity, the People’s Volunteer Corps (Rela), which is registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs. If the Penang government were to have requested for its PPS to be legally registered, would the ministry have approved?

In the past, when both the Selangor and Penang Pakatan state governments made written requests to the federal police to allow them to set up auxiliary police forces under the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MBPJ) and the Penang City Council (MPPP), this was categorically denied.

Despite this, MBPJ did set up a small outfit with only 20 auxiliary policemen, but their powers were only restricted to guarding council buildings.

Given these constraints, Selangor has had to resort to only meagre measures like funding CCTVs on streets, or providing additional streetlights in dark corners, to contribute to safety measures for its residents.

The federal government exercises a highly centralised system of administration. The problem with this is it does not allow for organic mobilisation of existing resources to solve a public problem.

The same could apply for any number of public services, such as public transport, commerce and industry, and education, all of which should only be managed by the federal government, if one were to follow the constitution strictly.

Should the federal government therefore, by the same argument, arrest members of the Selangor and Penang transport councils, or shut down Universiti Selangor (a state-linked university)?

Clamping down on grassroots organisations not only leaves little room for local and state governments to take part in local democracy, but it also does not respect the freedom of association – as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution – for individuals to choose to set up or be part of a non-formal entity.

We encourage citizens to be part of non-governmental organisations to serve the country, but yet trample on these intentions when they do take part. It is clear that there are political innuendos behind this recent incident.

Although Merdeka Day was anything but celebratory, there is still Malaysia Day to look forward to, during which Malaysians ought to recall the spirit of federalism under which this nation was formed.

It is at this time that we respect the various states that form our federation, and perhaps even respect their ability to govern in the way they were voted in to do.

Posted in Civil Society, Crime, Federalism, General Politics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Shedding light on public procurement

Posted on August 31, 2014 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 21 August 2014.

ONE of the many criticisms against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) that Malaysia is negotiating to sign alongside 11 other countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region is that procurement by government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) would be opened up to foreign companies.

This has raised ire among local firms that fear their bread and butter contracts were being taken away, since foreign companies would be allowed to bid on similar terms as locals for goods, services and projects.

This is especially so given that government procurement formed an estimated RM1 trillion worth of projects in 2013, which makes up 23% of that year’s GDP. Naturally, it is a significant market size within which greater competition would affect the inefficient, and therefore weaker, players.

The government has responded by saying that it is negotiating for greater carve-outs, namely that Malaysia has carved out build-operate-transfer projects from its scope of commitments in the TPPA, although the threshold for construction services has not yet been determined. In fact, the government’s position is that certain areas of interest to the bumiputra business community and small and medium enterprises, as well as certain domestic operations of SOEs have been excluded.

While it is understandable that there are fears that local companies will no longer receive government assistance through national treatment, procurement is in fact one of the areas in which the TPPA could possibly bring about greater openness, transparency and competitiveness in the way our government handles its public procurement system. In short, value for money as a principle by which the administration handles its contracts.

Of course, the country need not necessarily sign the TPPA just to ensure its procurement is better managed, but the reality is that reforming government procurement is a long and arduous task. Without external factors, one would have to depend entirely on internal political will to push through change, and trends have shown this is a tough nut to crack.

A series of policy papers that our organisation IDEAS has published throughout the year on promoting transparency in public procurement provides several proposals on how reform can be pushed through, with or without the TPPA. And it was shown that by implementing a transparent public procurement system, the government could save up to RM4.5 billion a year, assuming that 50% of current public procurement is in fact non-transparent in nature.

Some of the recommendations include improving the procurement process itself to improve transparency and accountability, for example including evaluation criteria and weightage within tender documents, which is currently not the case.

We also recommended that preferences given to bumiputras should always be stated in the tender documents, even if the weightage is zero. Under the TPPA, the government has said there should be carve-outs for the bumiputra community, and although preferential treatment based on ethnicity does not help national development in the long run, perhaps a phasing out period over a fixed number of years would be ideal.

Having independent observers sit in to attend bidding evaluation meetings may seem unusual, but this would actually allow for more independent monitoring of how contracts are awarded.

The Ministry of Finance has responded positively to calls for greater openness in recent months, for instance publishing directly negotiated contracts on its website, MyProcurement, but to date there are only 64 contracts listed, and several details are still left out, making it difficult for the public to track. The awards themselves should be accompanied by publishing the criteria for choosing successful bidders and whether or not this would be further sub-contracted.

One might argue that the annual Auditor-General’s Report already reveals a host of compromised deals made by ministries, many of which centre on problematic procurement, but which have not led to any prosecution. Indeed, stronger investigative processes and punitive action should be carried out. Individuals making compromised contracting decisions must be held responsible for their misdeeds.

A rather ironic situation is that although our public administration was one of the first in the world to embrace online platforms, today it lies in an alphabet soup of sorts. Just for public procurement alone, there exist five procurement portals managed by different ministries (ePerolehan, MyProcurement, Government Information Procurement System, ePerunding and National e-Tendering Initiative). Much effort would be needed to consolidate these into one central platform.

Surely this would make it easier for government officers, suppliers and the public, to keep track of contracts.

So whether or not the TPPA is implemented, there are steps that the government can immediately take to assure the public of its commitment to greater transparency to make its procurement systems more productive. Of course, signing the TPPA may speed up this process, but this would come with a host of other challenges that are not discussed in this article.

Although there have been briefings by the government on the TPPA status, the information could still be more forthcoming. For instance, although they have said that state and local governments will not be subject to government procurement rules, the exact thresholds – which are, understandably, still under negotiation – at the federal level have not been specified.

There has been much public disquiet about the TPPA namely because many stakeholders (the most affected parties like farmers, manufacturers of generic medicines and so on) likely feel that information from the government has only been general at best. Perhaps the ministry concerned could produce policy factsheets that demonstrate the magnitude and scale of how each interest group would be affected. Until then, the arguments for and against the TPPA will continue to take place in a vacuum, with asymmetric information.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, General Politics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

In and out of schools

Posted on August 20, 2014 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 7 August 2014.

AT an IDEAS education-related roundtable held earlier this week, the issue of school dropouts in Malaysia was raised, specifically in relation to the findings of our nationwide survey among the bottom 40% of poor and underprivileged parents on the challenges faced by their schoolgoing children.

Our study of more than 1,200 parents across Malaysia had 150 families with at least one child having dropped out of the public schooling system. Since the survey sample is statistically representative of the bottom 40% of the Malaysian population, this means that 12 out of every 100 households in the bottom 40% would have at least one child having dropped out of school.

The most commonly cited reason that parents gave in the survey for their child having dropped out was a lack of interest for school, followed by the inability to afford the fees and expenses. Although the session was to have addressed problems and solutions related to dropouts, as the discussion unfolded participants extended the argument to discuss the overall systemic and structural problems facing the Malaysian education system.

After all, it is not only the dropouts whose welfare we ought to be concerned with, but also the hundreds or thousands of others who are equally at risk of failing or completing school without having really gained a meaningful education. For instance, Malaysia fared startlingly poorly in this year’s PISA scores (Programme for International Student Assessment), ranking 39 out of 44 countries in creative problem-solving and 52 out of 65 countries in mathematics, science and reading, below neighbours Singapore, Vietnam, and Thailand.

There were five main points raised, which one could take to be therefore reflective of the entire schooling system’s challenges as a whole.

First, the importance of data in ascertaining problems was raised, and the accompanying right approaches. The last time a comprehensive study on dropouts in Malaysia was done was in 1973 (the Murad Report), a good 40 years ago.

Without current and accurate data, it is surely difficult for policymakers to make relevant and informed decisions. At present, publicly available national statistics tracking dropouts are not very clear either, where the Education Ministry’s data can only tell us that 0.1% of children drop out at the primary level, and about 1.96% drop out at any one point in time at the secondary level. But this does not tell us whether these children transferred to private, community or international schools, or whether they truly represent those leaving any form of schooling system altogether. Although dropping out is not always easy to measure given its fluidity – students come and leave throughout the year and community schools may not have accurate records – this is no reason not to try.

Second, school autonomy and independence are crucial in ensuring that schools are empowered to tweak national-level policy to suit their own needs. For instance, a school in a rural town of Sabah would require something entirely different from that in urban Petaling Jaya. This option should be freely given, without them having to seek clearance from the headquarters in Putrajaya. Schools with boards of governors are good examples of how initiative can be taken within that school itself, and additionally get local community, parents and alumni involved.

Third, the support system at all possible levels is equally important, in creating a conducive environment for the children, especially for dropouts who come from lower-income families. At a public policy 101 training session I gave to several Teach For Malaysia fellows last year, many expressed frustration that their students (in the lowest-performing schools) lacked basic literacy and numeracy skills, at times without the knowledge of their own teachers who are expected to “teach to the syllabus”. The support system should also include school counsellors equipped with a range of skills on emotional, psychological, career and academic counselling.

Fourth, the emphasis on academic performance is what hinders children from discovering their potential in what could be a multitude of areas. There has been a growing awareness that vocational and technical education is an alternative option. But parents still do not necessarily place this on equal ground with the more academic subjects.

In fact, why is there the need to limit a child’s choice to either academic or vocational education, when there is a plethora of alternative career options? Youth with the relevant interests and skills can be encouraged to explore careers in film or documentary-making, music, theatre, graphic design, furniture-making and so on. The German education system, which allows students the choice of attending either academic or vocational-type (the latter also includes apprenticeships) schools, does not place any less value on one or the other. Perhaps parents must be equally taught that an academic certificate does not in itself measure success.

Finally, implementation is the thorn. Laws and policies mean little if the bureaucracy is unable to implement them. As many as five ministries or agencies are responsible for vocational and technical education: the ministries of Youth, Education, Human Resources, Rural and Regional Development, and the Construction Industry Development Board, in charge of probably more than a thousand different training centres or schools. Having a simple consolidated online directory listing down all available options would do potential students a great service. Options should also be given to pre-teenagers and teenagers who are simply not interested in academic study at their schools.

Perhaps it is also due time for the government to produce a follow-up dropouts report, which would allow academicians, NGOs and policymakers to more systematically analyse the problems, challenges and set out targeted solutions for the sake of our children’s future.

Posted in Education | Leave a comment

Why more information is better

Posted on August 1, 2014 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 25 July 2014.

WHAT both MH370 and MH17 have shown us is that accurate and timely information being provided to the public is absolutely crucial, and this is surely a lesson that must be extended beyond moments of crisis.

The MH370 incident took the world by storm in March. And our government suffered the consequences of not having responded with immediacy as well as providing inconsistent press statements. Having learnt from the past, credit should be given to Malaysia Airlines for releasing the MH17 cargo manifest in under a week, after this second tragedy in just four months.

That said, in the recent incident, fingers have quickly pointed to Russia, followed by calls for sanctions and other punitive measures against them. The problem with this situation is that it is taking place in a region with a geo-political environment that is highly complex, has a history few of us in Southeast Asia truly understand, and again, even when information is provided can be equally inconsistent.

Information is gold because of its ability to shape people’s decisions and therefore their actions. Equally powerful is the lack of information, and dictators have in the past exercised their discretion to withhold information from citizens for personal gain. Most dangerous is false information, and the belief in it. Millions were spent on search and rescue teams in the wrong areas during MH370.

So in the face of two consecutive bizarre catastrophes that have deeply and directly impacted Malaysia, how we react is a result of the information we have access to, and the filters used by the media we are exposed to. That media shapes the way we see the world is not new. But when it has an impact on what we choose to do with our lives is when it matters.

There is of course the need for individual responsibility when dealing with multiple sources of information. An additional challenge for those providing the information is the speed with which news moves today, with social media demanding 24/7 monitoring and responding to.

The lack of accurate, timely information on a global scale renders people helpless and frustrated. But within Malaysia itself, there are multiple incidents that have gone unanswered, and yet we are a lot more forgiving (and forgetting). Numerous cases that probably should have been investigated, people charged and convicted, but that are conveniently forgotten and pushed into the shadows.

Where is the information on the number of cases that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has processed? Why did these cases not lead to convictions by the Attorney-General’s Office? Why were the MACC officers who were in charge of the late Teoh Beng Hock’s interrogation (that led to his death by a fall in 2009) cleared of misconduct, and when did this actually happen?

These are just a fraction of the questions that can be asked. In the MH370 and MH17 cases, people feel immobilised, almost paralysed, by the lack of knowledge of what is really taking place “out there”. In the same way, we often feel that sense of powerlessness when government withholds information from us. And similarly, a void in information gives rise to distrust, speculation, and the perception war is quickly lost.

Our prime minister once said that “The era of ‘government knows best’ is over”, and what a strong statement that was. It had the potential to draw dissenters in, charming them with the skill of a statesman. Several years later, we ought to honestly ask ourselves whether the administration has demonstrated as much.

The two plane crashes were truly tragic and something quite beyond the control of any of us. But managing trust in government is certainly something that can be changed. And it must start with a leadership and administration serious about promoting an open government.

Transparency is all the buzz these days, and leaders need to ask themselves why it is a popular demand – not just because it attracts international investors. It is because information empowers people, alters the way we see things, changes how we choose to act, and ultimately shapes our lives and futures. Access to easily understandable information about education policy, public procurement, or electoral boundaries that are soon to be changed – all this makes people feel like they matter, and that they belong.

This is why tools like the Freedom of Information Act are important to have. There is also an international platform, the Open Government Partnership (which has 64 participating countries today), which Malaysia ought to consider signing up to. You do not need to wait for another crisis to tell you that more information being given to the public is better than less. And now is the time to exercise such wisdom.

There is little our government can do to resolve the plane incidents, but there is a lot it can do for everything else it governs within the country itself.

Dedicated to the families and friends of the MH370 and MH17 victims, and remembering Teoh Beng Hock who died on July 16, 2009. 

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