To whom is the IGP accountable?

Posted on April 7, 2015 by Tricia

(Written on 31 March 2015, and not published elsewhere).

Last Monday evening, one of our IDEAS National Unity Youth Fellows, a young student from Universiti Malaya, heard that a few of his friends were arrested at the anti-GST protest in front of the Customs office in Kelana Jaya. Alarmed, he headed to the Kelana Jaya police station, where they were being held.

There was a crowd starting to gather, and as the police called on them to disperse, this student said he was suddenly pulled by his shirt and dragged into the station premises. I was told that the plainclothesman proceeded to perform a strong chokehold on him for several minutes until he protested weakly that he was unable to breathe. According to the student, the officer taunted at him saying, “Sikit je…!” (Just a little, that’s all!)

Yet another friend who was held in the lock-up that same night apparently had his head covered in a bag, and his face punched continuously. Both were also allegedly hit on their bodies. If this entire account is true, this raises serious concerns.

The spate of arrests over the last few weeks has centred on three issues: GST, the “KitaLawan” movement protesting the imprisonment of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, and hudud. Since 5 February, 158 people have been arrested, ranging from journalists, lawmakers, academics, lawyers and common individuals expressing themselves against policies they disagree with.

Never mind the fact that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably.

More disturbing is that the police force has relatively weak governance structures that would make it difficult to expect anything other than such rampant behaviour, when it suits the need. There are several key institutional problems here, to name a few.

First is that of appointment and tenure. The Police Act 1967 states that the Inspector General of the Police (IGP) is an appointed position, but nowhere does it provide for terms of service. In practice, he would serve the position until he reaches retirement age. The Royal Malaysian Police is unique amongst the civil services in that it has its own Police Force Commission, whose function includes the appointment of the IGP, as well as promotions and transfers of senior police officers.

This means that it is the Police Force Commission, and not the Public Services Commission, that determines appointments and promotions, in a much more independent manner. This has both costs and benefits, but from the police force’s perspective, this certainly acts as an advantage given they do not have to rely on the PSC to select and promote their own officers.

In fact, the Police Force Commission’s Chair is none other than the Home Minister, to whom the IGP reports and is responsible. Apart from the Chair, there are eight other members of the Commission, which include the IGP himself as well as the Secretary General at the Ministry of Home Affairs, both of whom report to the Minister. It is unclear from the information obtained on their website whether or not the IGP is involved in his own appointment, although one would imagine this to be a conflict of interest (a concept many a Malaysian entity fails to recognise).

Other members are to be appointed by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, and there are no clauses that require the Commission’s members to be independent parties. This could be an area well worth looking into, should there be interest in police reform.

Which brings us to the second issue of accountability. Despite the scale of arrests over the last month and its obvious implications on both national and international platforms, it is disconcerting that the Prime Minister, the ultimate commander-in-chief, has chosen to remain silent.

The Home Minister’s only response has been via a Parliamentary reply, saying the police have been fair in investigating complaints and the police force is among “the best in the world”. This statement is neither robust nor reasonable, given that the arrests have been obviously selective and targeted.

If, as the Royal Malaysian Police website says, their policy is to maintain “friendly policing” to the community, or khidmat mesra, then they very well ought to be publicly accountable. Are these arrests really making Malaysia a safer place?

Finally, there is the question of police behaviour in the way arrests are being made. The two young men this article begins with were allegedly beaten up for lending support to other friends. At a separate occasion, another man was reported as arrested by being forcibly dragged into an unmarked car, after alighting from a taxi.

In 2005, the Royal Commission for Police Reform came to several conclusions, amongst which included that there was “public perception of widespread corruption within the police force” and “extensive and consistent abuse of human rights and non-compliance with prescribed laws”.

Amongst its recommendations was to form an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to act as an external oversight body with the powers to receive and investigate complaints regarding alleged police misconduct and impose sanctions against those found guilty. The existing Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) is not as effective in dealing with complaints of misconduct by law enforcement personnel.

Perhaps it is now time to revisit the IPCMC proposal, which would be a much stronger independent oversight and governance mechanism. Sure, there will be resistance; the IGP has already said he does not agree with its implementation.

But it is all the more imperative that the public has high expectations of its police force. The duties of the police are wide-ranging, ultimately to ensure people feel safe and secure. If anything, it is these arrests that have made people cower in fear, lest they say something the IGP finds personally unsavoury. It is to the public that he is ultimately accountable, and this must be time and again reiterated.

Posted in Civil Society, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Follow the money

Posted on March 22, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 19 March 2015.

AT its annual report launch last week, Bank Negara deputy governor gave a relatively healthy assessment of the country’s economy. So glowing was the report, however, that several members of the audience felt compelled to ask his opinion of 1MDB, the proverbial elephant in the room.

He essentially responded by saying that “sovereigns” (meaning government-backed entities) are not monitored as closely as are “corporates” (meaning the private sector) in their respective issuance of bonds and similar financial instruments. This is presumably because a bond or debt obligation issued by a government authority is usually assumed as low-risk, given that they are backed by the taxing power of the said government.

What Bank Negara said was essentially correct, since its responsibility is limited to ensuring the stability of the banking sector. As long as 1MDB – which is a government entity, given it is wholly owned by the Finance Ministry – is able to pay back loans owed to local banks (like Maybank and RHB), then the banking sector is safe. But ay, there’s the rub.

As at March 2014, 1MDB’s accounts showed a whopping debt of RM41.9 billion. (Which is, by the way, just short of the entire 2015 budgetary allocation to the country’s development, totalling RM50.5 billion. It is also eight times more than what is allocated to safety and security in 2015, totalling RM4.9 billion).

Ultimately, if it is unable to pay off its multiple loans owed both locally and abroad, does it not mean that the government would have to cough up the sum? And this is already happening as events continue to unfold on a daily basis.

Most recently, Putrajaya confirmed RM950 million was given as a standby credit for 1MDB, which is basically when a fixed amount of credit is made available to the borrower as and when required for a given period of time. These are monies that could have been put to better use, surely.

Worse, frustration with the powers that be will surely grow if the additional RM5.6 billion revenues collected from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) that is about to be implemented are shown to be used for such unpalatable purposes. Just this week, former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said in Parliament that the people had the right to know if GST “benefited the country or (would be) used only to pay the interest to debtors and bondholders”.

In one of the many conversations I had recently on the “1MDB losses”, a friend reminded me of a joke that is hauntingly relevant. A woman invested RM100 into the bank, expecting her funds to be safe and secure.

Upon finding out the money was gone, she screamed hysterically to the bank officer, “You’ve lost my money!” to which he politely replied, “Your money is not lost, ma’am. It’s just somewhere else.” Likewise, the question we ought to be asking ourselves is: Where did the money go?

That is something the Auditor-General’s office will have to answer as they dutifully scrutinise the accounts of the much talked-about entity over the next few weeks.

Even if some of these funds can be restored, the concern still remains: How should government finances remain sustainable over a long-term period? IDEAS, in a policy paper released this week makes some suggestions, pertaining to an existing but very little-heard of national trust fund called the Kumpulan Wang Amanah Negara (or KWAN, for easy reference).

The KWAN was set up in 1988 with the original intention of saving for the future, especially from our depleting national resources. However, its total wealth for all of its 26 years of existence comes up to only RM9 billion.

This is a relatively meagre amount when compared with the Norwegian Global Pension Fund, which has more than double that amount despite having started later than the Malaysian KWAN. In fact, it only represents 1.5% of the total petroleum revenue accumulated over the last 26 years.

Although our dependence on the oil and gas sector has fallen slightly over the last few years, its revenues still contribute some one-third to our overall national income. Credit is due to the non-resource sectors (manufacturing and services), given their continual growth as a proportion of total GDP, which is encouraging.

But given the spendthrift tendencies of our government of late (our operational expenditure expanded on average 11% annually from 1971 to present, and more alarmingly by more than 20% in 2011), it is important to strengthen existing infrastructure.

For instance, we propose that the KWAN governance mechanism needs to be made much more robust in the way the fund is managed, how deposits and withdrawals are regulated, and finally, how it is accountable to taxpayers.

Some of the key disciplines of a well-governed fund (as outlined by the Natural Resource Governance Institute and the Columbia Centre on Sustainable Interest) are that it should have clear and well-enforced objectives, fiscal rules, investment rules, division between the authority and various managers, and finally have regular and extensive disclosure to the public whilst ensuring independent oversight bodies exist.

Many of these governance mechanisms do not exist for the KWAN. For instance, the deposit and withdrawal rules are too general and need to be more quantifiably specific. Other oversight agencies ought to be brought in; currently only the Finance Ministry and Bank Negara are involved – parliamentary committees should also be included as an additional measure.

Finally, its reports should be publicly downloadable online and a website should be dedicated to publish all relevant details of the fund.

It is not just 1MDB or Pembinaan PFI or KWAN that must be examined closely; all other state-owned enterprises and funds (and there are many) ought to be monitored with a fine-tooth comb. The adage is true: it really is your and my money. As taxpayers, we should demand nothing less.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

How independent is the MACC?

Posted on February 28, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun here on 26 February 2015.

Congratulations are due to the 26 members of the three independent panels of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), 19 of whom are new appointees. In his speech, Prime Minister Najib Razak said that the role of the panel members is “significant in boosting the abilities of the MACC as an independent commission.” It is encouraging that he considers it important to have an anti-corruption commission that is independent of the executive.

But whilst it is true that at least several of the new panel members are independent and have in the past been critical of the government, the question still remains: Will this really help in making the MACC independent?

In the past, several high-profile cases contributed to the negative perception amongst the public that it was, in fact, not. These include the death of Pakatan Rakyat political aide Teoh Beng Hock in June 2009 and the way in which MACC officers gave inconsistent testimonies during the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and the MACC’s failure to find elements of corruption in the RM250 million National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal.

The MACC currently comes under the Prime Minister’s Department, from which it also receives funding for its operations. This raises some serious questions as to its independence, especially if it were to receive reports on corruption stemming from this very department it would therefore be expected to investigate.

Despite the three independent panels, in addition to five oversight committees that the MACC has introduced in recent years, there is obviously a need for an all-encompassing solution. One problem is that the MACC’s officers are drawn from the same pool of civil servants, as mandated by the Public Service Commission and run by the Public Service Department. This makes it inherently difficult for the MACC to employ independent officers who would be able to carry out investigations on other civil servants without fear or favour.

The MACC in its present governance structure would still remain tied to the government’s executive influence, and any proposed reform would need to deal with institutional independence, both from the structural and practical standpoints.

To this end, IDEAS, together with the Malaysian Bar Council, has been working closely with other civil society organisations to propose several recommendations. These recommendations are aimed at making the MACC truly independent. The first of which would involve a constitutional amendment to form an independent Anti-Corruption Service Commission that would give the MACC hire-and-fire authority over their own officers. This would mean the MACC is no longer dependent on the Public Service Commission to supply their investigating and case officers.

Of course, the requirements of who can be appointed as Chief Commissioner and members of this service commission would need to be carefully crafted. For instance, only individuals who are of proven moral character and integrity, and with the right experience and competence levels in public affairs, should be considered. In fact, Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Commission (KPK) goes a step further by having a separate election process for its Chief Commissioner.

There are a great many other proposals that are needed to improve the MACC in its current form. For example, all objectives of the MACC – and of the proposed new service commission – should adhere to the international standards set by the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), whilst oversight mechanisms like requiring the MACC to report directly to Parliament instead of the Prime Minister ought to be considered.

Additional proposals include amending the MACC Act itself to ensure that what is considered “gratification” goes beyond monetary corruption alone, and to empower the MACC to investigate public servants living beyond their means. When discussing any legal reform needed to eradicate corruption, there will also be a need to look at relevant laws like the Whistleblower Protection Act, Official Secrets Act (or rather, pushing for a Freedom of Information Act), and the Witness Protection Act.

There will certainly be arguments both for and against these proposals. Some might consider that the MACC does not actually need a separate service commission in order to behave independently, whilst others may believe that despite all or any legal changes, this would not amount to much since it is implementation that often fails us in this country.

This is why it is important to have a public discussion on such crucial matters that would have a direct impact on our lives – when one of us is wronged, we would expect the institutions to defend us, and as such hope the MACC uncovers corrupt practices that might have affected our wellbeing.

For this reason, IDEAS is organising an open public forum together with the Bar Council on Wednesday 4 March 2015 in the evening, at the Bar Auditorium. During this forum, we hope to deliberate on these proposals and obtain feedback on how these would help to shape MACC into becoming the robust and independent institution we can eventually trust – especially if our lives depended on it.

Posted in Civil Society, Corruption | Leave a comment

Remembering the Tunku

Posted on February 12, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 12 February 2015.

“IT was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us…”

Thus was the opening line of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

This rather sums up events over the last week, mirroring highs and lows within a matter of days. The week began with fond memories of IDEAS’ (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) 5th anniversary event, held in commemoration with our first prime minister, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman’s 112th birthday.

Although held annually, this year was special, where we had with us the Tunku’s granddaughter, Datin Sharifah Menjelara Hussein, who shared heartwarming personal stories about his passion and vision for what would become Malaysia.

Through her, we recalled his vision for a nation whose peoples of all walks of life cared deeply for each other regardless of race or religion, grounded firmly on the principles of liberty and justice, as was clearly stated in his Proclamation of Independence.

An animated panel discussion spoke of the need for a more liberalised Malaysia – both in economic and political terms, where opening up the economy would allow for greater choice, competition, and a rules-based environment in which transparency and good governance would flourish. These are the conditions that would allow the country to propel itself forward.

Keynote speaker Dr Razeen Sally, IDEAS Chair in Political Economy and Governance, went a step further by saying that recent Malaysian policies like the ETP (Economic Transformation Programme) and GTP (Government Transformation Programme) merely skirt around the need to truly transform race-based preferential policies without really reforming government-linked companies.

A lethal combination, in his opinion, is when there is excessive government presence in business – thereby competing with small and medium enterprises – and a weak government, since this results in cronyism.

But what made the occasion truly special was the launch of IDEAS’ National Unity Youth Fellowship, followed by a weekend-long workshop for the 20 young Malaysian leaders that were selected out of about 50 applicants.

These 20 will go through a nine-month programme, during which they will discuss issues related to politics, institutions, inter-ethnic, inter-religious, and socio-economic challenges to unity in the country, thereafter culminating in a National Unity Conference on Malaysia Day (Sept 16) this year.

Their exuberance and hope were reminiscent of the time I started out in activism and public policy discourse. This was a time at which, what was true and fair was not yet muddied by the notion that politics requires expedient behaviour.

After working in various capacities within the government, civil society and politics, one’s belief that government and politics can function without compromise is often challenged.

But what transpired on Tuesday went far beyond that. Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, being sentenced to five years in prison for sodomy, has been criticised by several reputable international organisations, including the International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch and Forum-Asia, given the nature and circumstances under which he was charged in August 2008.

Many independent observers believe this was selectively and inappropriately carried out in order to spell an end to Anwar’s political career.

Leaders come and go, but if the justice system has compromised on its own neutrality, integrity and oath to uphold the rule of law, then this is what will be internationally scrutinised in the days and months to come, at the cost of our credibility and inward investment opportunities.

At the anniversary event, we distributed copies of a book compiling quotes from the Tunku himself, generously donated by Think City. One particular saying caught my attention, given the political quagmire that engulfs us today.

He said, “There have been difficulties in our way to effect a settlement because of different ideologies that exist in the parties and the different political worlds in which we live.

Nevertheless, if men accept the principle that they must live at peace with one another and bear goodwill and friendship towards one another, much of the difficulties will be overcome.”

If the Tunku were alive today, one wonders what his opinion would be of the judgment that was so unanimously arrived at on Tuesday this week

Posted in Corruption, General Politics, Reflections, The Cause | Leave a comment

All policy is local

Posted on February 2, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 29 January 2015.

EARLIER this week, the PAS president’s statement that local council elections would eventually lead to racial riots raised ire among civil society, as well as members of his own coalition party member, DAP. His argument is that local council elections would only be advantageous to the largely Chinese urban residents, thereby widening the rural-urban divide.

This statement is flawed on several levels. First, some of the largest cities in Malaysia are actually mixed in racial breakdown. For instance, our country’s capital Kuala Lumpur’s breakdown of ethnicities includes 45.9% Malays, 43.2% Chinese, and 10.3% Indians. Johor Baru has 47.5% Malays, 34.2% Chinese, and 9% Indians, among others.

Urbanisation has taken place steadily over the last 20 years, and cities today are vibrant multiethnic and multicultural hubs. While true that the rural areas tend to be more mono-ethnic in nature, over 75% of Malaysia will be urbanised by 2020.

Second, it assumes that it is only urban-minded voters who would desire and appreciate the ability to vote in their own representatives at local government. In Indonesia – before they were abolished last year, to the chagrin of many – local elections led to greater participation by villagers and benefited several constituencies that were formerly ill represented and neglected.

Although success stories varied widely between different regions, there were rural areas that benefited from local elections through the empowerment of the residents themselves.

Third and more importantly, race-based arguments are highly unnecessary and in fact merely detract from the real issue at hand, which is that: Local elections mean giving the common man better quality public service, since people can determine which local representative can best serve your personal neighbourhood interests.

The Indonesian government enacted a Law on Public Services in 2009, which, together with their Freedom of Information Act in 2008, served as a basis to eventually adopt an approach towards a more open, transparent, interactive, inclusive and accountable government.

Although the laws themselves took a long time to implement, the relationship between the law on public services and better governance was simply that government could more easily flourish and succeed when the quality of public service delivery was improved. Giving people the ability to decide when to get rid of a councillor when the person is not giving his or her best services would achieve better delivery of public services, which is the ultimate goal of a well-meaning government.

In many parts of the country, government services are in disarray, with uncollected rubbish or poor basic amenities and infrastructure. Through local elections, you get to vote for the person who makes sure that your potholes are filled, rubbish is collected and drains are cleared. It really is as simple as that.

The Federal Court ruled last year that although the Penang state government had passed an enactment to hold local elections, it was not possible since they would still have to go through the National Local Government Council (the council is chaired by the minister of housing and local government). Both Pakatan-led states Penang and Selangor have attempted in the past to restore local elections, although it is unclear whether there was any real consensus on the matter among its three partners even since they started governing in 2008.

Despite not having a clear way forward on local elections, it might be pertinent to point out that in fact, Selangor under the Pakatan government had in the past put this into practice already. In 2011, three of its Chinese new villages – Kampung Baru Sungai Jarom in Jenjarom, Kampung Bagan in Pulau Ketam and Kampung Baru Pandamaran – carried out local polls to elect their new village chiefs.

And Selangor was the first state to hold democratic elections of mosque committees, as far back as in June 2009, and surau committees in June 2010. The experience of it showed that more professionals and locals were being appointed on the committees, as opposed to appointments being made from the religious council (many of whom were speculated to be heads of party divisions).

Likewise, the Penang state government also allowed mosque committees to be elected as opposed to being appointed, which at the time was vehemently opposed by Umno and newspaper Utusan Malaysia.

This principle of allowing everyone to democratically elect their leaders can be applied at all levels, from mosques, to Rukun Tetangga committees, and therefore by logical extension, to local councils. If you voted for your classroom’s head monitor in primary school, you would be able to apply the same at local government.

There are certainly numerous issues to iron out before local elections can be implemented, but these can be addressed. For example, there is a need to re-examine the structure and governance of local councils, and possibly the size of existing local councils in states that are in fact small enough to be able to self-govern. Finally, the roles, responsibilities and budgets given to state governments versus those of local governments, and how these ought to be balanced out by function.

Having said that, these issues would only be dealt with if indeed local elections were to be seriously considered. Ultimately, although political parties by their very nature are defined by their survival, they also ought to think of the larger trajectory of where Malaysia is headed.

Already the annual Economic Intelligence Unit’s 2014 Democracy Index labels us as a “flawed democracy”. There are a great many flaws in the system to correct, and having local elections is one that democratically minded leaders could certainly consider supporting.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, Federalism, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Oil and a more open budget

Posted on January 15, 2015 by Tricia

(First published in the Edge Malaysia on 12 January 2015, here).

THE budget department of the Malaysian Treasury could be spooked by the current low price of crude oil that has fallen by almost half since Budget 2015 was announced, especially since oil and gas takings contribute 30% to total national revenues.

The prime minister tabled a budget of RM273.9 billion last October, when global crude oil prices were at US$100 to US$105 (RM356.44 to RM374.26) per barrel. They have since fallen to below US$50 per barrel and look to continue to dip further. Analysts estimate that for every US$1 drop in the price of crude oil, Malaysia’s oil revenue will decline by RM400 million to RM500 million.

This has both immediate and long-term implications on the national budget. In the short term, the government will probably not meet its budget deficit target of 3% of GDP, perhaps falling back to 4% or more. It will also be important to observe whether international rating agencies will re-evaluate Malaysia’s sovereign credit rating, given these latest changes.

While it is a good sign that Malaysia has now moved away from fuel subsidies to a managed float for fuel prices, low oil prices have become a major setback for maintaining fiscal discipline. The additional takings from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) that will be implemented in April this year may not be enough to compensate for the loss of revenues due to low oil prices.

In order to rein in expenses, the government could very well revise some of its estimated costs, such as those in the category of “supplies and services”, the second highest operating expenditure item in the budget.

“Supplies and services” makes up RM38.1 billion of the 2015 total budget, a more than 60% increase in spending compared with RM23.8 billion five years ago. This is an unusually significant increase for an operating category that basically covers payments for maintenance and repairs, utilities, and for professional and technical services. This is also the category highlighted in the Auditor-General’s reports for its many discrepancies in payments for services.

The long-term and more important implication for those managing the country’s economy is that Malaysia needs to build up its non-oil sector to eventually comprise a larger percentage of total revenues. The truism is that oil-dependent nations are vulnerable to price swings, as is being revealed this year — the sudden drop in global oil prices is an external trend that simply cannot be controlled domestically. It would have an immediate impact on the country’s ability to spend, and even expenditure on basic infrastructure, education and healthcare could be affected.

One way to ensure that the lucrative oil revenues earned during high prices can be sustainably utilised over the long term is to have a natural resource fund. Malaysia already has a natural resource National Trust Fund (Kumpulan Wang Amanah Negara) that is currently managed by the Central Bank. The fund has accumulated about RM9 billion since its formation in 1988 (predominantly supported by contributions from Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas). This is a good start, but the rules governing the fund are still relatively weak. An Ideas policy paper that will be released soon elaborates on this in greater detail.

The idea of a well-governed natural resource fund is not new — it is basically meant to function as a savings fund for future generations. The Norwegian Global Pension Fund is a good example of a natural resource fund that is well managed. It has a full website, complete with information about the fund’s objectives, value and rules on transparency. As it states in its introduction, “The Government Global Pension Fund is saving for future generations in Norway. One day the oil will run out, but the return on the fund will continue to benefit the Norwegian population.” The same should apply in Malaysia.

This would be a more structured way of dealing with oil revenues, as opposed to the government determining how much dividend Petronas should declare annually. The Ministry of Finance has stated explicitly that Petronas does not have the full authority to decide the amount of contribution it should make annually, and that such authority lies with the government as the sole shareholder of the national oil company.

Clearly, this intervention is seen as unhealthy. Petronas, as a professional international company, needs to be more independent, and better governance of the entire management of the country’s oil and gas resources is much needed.

Over the long term, the government also needs to practise greater transparency and openness in engaging with the public. Already there are calls for the government to make an official statement on how lower oil prices will affect the budget (both in terms of deficit figures and overall spending abilities).

On its part, Ideas is launching the Open Budget Index 2015 in the middle of this year, which evaluates how transparent and well-governed the government budget is — along with the entire budgetary process — in comparison with other countries around the world.

It is also imperative for the Ministry of Finance to come up with various possible oil price scenarios. If prices continue to fall and there is a need to restructure Budget 2015 based on these changes, then so be it.

This would send a positive sign to the investing community, as the government explores how the fluctuating oil prices will affect the budget and the economy and what strategies can be employed to deal with the situation.

Posted in Economics, Oil and Gas, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Where values begin

Posted on January 10, 2015 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 8 January 2015, here).

FOR all of our technical analysis of how to improve such-and-such a public policy, the most current of which being the deforestation decisions that may have contributed largely to the flood disaster, the main question often asked is whether there is political will to follow through.

This is the conundrum that policy wonks like us in think-tanks have to face squarely each day: whether or not facts and figures really influence policymakers at the end of the day (both civil servants and politicians).

Sure, it is still crucial that someone does the job of number-crunching and doing comparative policy research.

But perhaps it is equally – if not more so – important that non-governmental organisations like ours get our feet dirty to wade in the more difficult waters of changing cultural values in a more direct way.

It is our values that shape us, which influence our weltanschauung (worldview), sometimes “through a glass darkly”. These values are inculcated at a young age, influenced by the society we keep, both family and otherwise. The great divide we have observed in the ethno-religious debate in Malaysia is a perfect example. Just like how you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, it is near impossible to convince several deeply entrenched NGOs that the Sedition Act should be abolished, for instance.

If I were to recall my personal motivations for doing the things I do today, one would need to trace the values imbibed from a young age. Books that I read, experiences encountered during those very impressionable years of teenagehood, and most profoundly, people I looked up to as leaders, who eventually became – and still remain – mentors to me during periods of vocational self-doubt in this journey.

It is for this reason that IDEAS, after much deliberation, decided to embark on a new and exciting project, based on the understanding that it is the shaping of values from a young age that can truly transform the future of this now fragile nation. Through this, we hope to provide the same experience that many of us now working hard in civil society had the opportunity of having those many years ago.

We are calling for 20 of the brightest young Malaysian leaders from all over the country to be part of a nine-month National Unity Youth Fellowship programme, during which they will engage in a series of roundtable discussions, seminars and national conference where they will interact with community and religious leaders and other speakers we will identify. This is being done with the support of the National Integration Research and Training Institute at the Department of National Unity and Integration.

We hope that by the end of this period, we would have built up a strong and united, multi-ethnic and diverse “fellowship of 20”, whom, through their close-knit interaction, discussions and purposeful sessions of working together to formulate solutions, will become advocates for liberal ideas in tackling the problem of unity that we face today.

It is not enough that the youth of today have access to online media. Being connected to the internet ensures young Malaysians are exposed to the many dimensions of a particular issue. But a structured programme like this allows for young leaders with the greatest potential to be given specialised training on technical skills, the opportunity to build relationships with academics, opinion-shapers and thinkers, and most importantly, the ability to network with other like-minded leaders from different states across both Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak.

It is a continuing challenge for the moderate-minded in Malaysia who feel frustrated over the way this nation of great potential has instead regressed. Overhauling the system would be ideal, but it will also take a long time, with many corresponding layers to tackle.

We have instead chosen to channel those frustrations into this programme that can have an immediate impact upon the young. It is hoped that at least one or two eventually feel that this intervention was meaningful to them, and that the right leadership, mentorship and training helped them reframe the way they see Malaysia and its plethora of identities. Perhaps we would then have contributed to the values of these future leaders, whatever they choose to do next with them – this is where values begin.

Posted in Civil Society, Ethno-Religious Politics, Liberalism, Philosophy, Religion, The Cause | Leave a comment

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