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

Reviewing the economy

Posted on July 17, 2014 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 10 July 2014.

FEW writers and analysts are able to both identify precisely the challenges facing the Malaysian economy as well as communicate these in a manner easy to digest. Shankaran Nambiar’s new book, The Malaysian Economy: Rethinking Policies & Purposes does so with bold and relevant commentary. Dating from 2003 to the present, this compilation of writings focuses on six broad themes including the need to strengthen institutions, the importance of competitiveness, regional trade, fiscal reform and finally, the reality that is the influence of elections and politics over economic policy.

What is prevalent throughout the book is the clear economic position he takes, arguing for a more open and free economy, one in which companies and traders would be able to compete without the shackles of a large and interventionist government. He takes cognisance that our neighbours are moving at a rapid pace, and mentions specifically China in its ability to out-compete many in the region, but that Malaysia would need to “develop our human capital and readjust our institutional framework to align it with global requirements.”

Of course, on the economic ideological continuum, criticisms often abound of the far-right leaning liberal position. More specifically, public sentiment in Malaysia has weighed heavily against the free market and privatisation. This is not surprising, since the Malaysian version of “free market” and “privatisation” is anything but. It has been but a muddied example of what a free market could actually do to improve the quality of goods and services.

Nambiar does not shy away from this oftentimes-controversial debate. He states explicitly, “privatisation, in theory, implies giving markets a bigger role … privatised companies have to be efficient … and cannot rely on the government to bail them out.”

Theoretically, yes. But in the execution of it – and Malaysia has done a poor job at this – privatisation has not been done in a fair, competitive way. In fact, what took place in our context is that when public entities were privatised, instead of improving efficiency, things got worse. Again, Nambiar hits it squarely on the head: “What was once a government monopoly now becomes a private monopoly. One form of inefficiency is substituted with another.”

Reading the book, one would initially conclude that he is a hard-hitting liberal – libertarian in American circles – and based on many principles, indeed this is so: his firm belief in competition, economic freedom, strong institutions and a legal framework, property rights and so on.

But what is refreshing to note is that he does not blindly accept what would typically be a liberal’s position, but views all subjects with a critical mind. Instead, he agrees with the need for a minimum wage because based on empirical research, this would transform the economy into one that is technologically advanced and contribute towards high value-added growth. A hardcore liberal economist would usually argue against the minimum wage as it is a false and forced imposition by government, which does put many small and medium companies out of business.

Second, he takes a similarly nuanced position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and the then-hotly debated (and still unconcluded) US-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement. For instance, although he considers it positive that the latter would “push us towards greater liberalisation”, he also thinks that US firms would be “better equipped to enter Malaysian markets than the other way round.” Likewise, the TPPA would be an opportunity to be part of a global community, but also understands the need to continue certain domestic policies that are “beneficial to the nation”.

Finally, as many things seem to be in Malaysia, economic policy is subject to political influence, and this is evident in the many examples Nambiar provides, such as how the federal government transfers revenue to individual state governments, Najib’s electoral position determining whether or not the goods and services tax is introduced, and other “inappropriate policies” that are introduced “because of the polls”, which is “as if we have an economy balancing on the tip of a pin”, which is dangerously accurate.

Many proposals have been expressed elsewhere, on the need for fiscal reform and discipline, addressing structural issues (income distribution, corruption, crime, education), and so on. But the book’s beauty lies in its concise and deft articulation of problems and solutions. The commentaries are candid, and arguments tight. He also comes across as rational and fact-based, criticising or praising whenever necessary. This neutral, non-partisan position of analysing economic (or any other) conditions in the country is rare and must be valued.

As Malaysia enters into its final year of the 10th Malaysia Plan in 2015, and draws up its next set of policies for what would be the last five-year plan before the year 2020 – the 11th Malaysia Plan (2016 – 2020) – it is certainly worth examining Nambiar’s publication that spans the last decade or so. Where exactly are we going? Will the problems raised in his book 10 years ago start to manifest themselves in the next 10? What happens to an economy that pays little attention to such recommendations, and fails to strengthen its institutions?

Policymakers, politicians, academics and students ought to pick up this slim and thoroughly readable volume to gain a historical perspective of good and bad policy. History may not repeat itself, but its leaders may very well do – so it is up to the electorate like us to know which pressure points to press, well before the alarm bells start ringing.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

A transparency tool we can use

Posted on June 22, 2014 by Tricia

First appeared in theSun here, on 20 June 2014

DURING the 2015 Budget Consultation, the World Bank representative said explicitly that Malaysia would have to cut its annual budget down by 2.5% each year starting immediately, if it is serious about fiscal prudence. This is highly unlikely, given that the budget has always grown and never shrunk, not to mention the need for very large supplementary budgets too each year.

In a sense, Malaysia has never quite needed to exercise great fiscal prudence, since we have been able to rely upon revenues reaped from the expansive oil fields off Peninsular and East Malaysia. As stated in my previous column, Malaysia is highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, contributing more than a third of our government coffers.

And as predicted, the debate surrounding the issue of oil royalties in oil-producing states is growing, having begun in Sarawak, and creeping slowly to Kelantan, Terengganu and Sabah. The federal government has largely maintained its silence on the issue, but the reality is that it may well have to engage with civil society and other opinion shapers in the near future. After all, the discussions are already taking place, especially so in cyberspace and ignoring it would only contribute to further speculation.

One of the main reasons there is growing dissatisfaction is the perception that the lucrative returns from oil and gas have not been put to their best use. Of course, it is difficult for a neutral party to conduct a fair assessment of this without sufficient information. Although some figures can be found from Petronas’ annual report and other government documents, they do not contain other information that would be crucial in determining the benefits accrued by each of the states.

Some examples are information on licences that are given out to companies (emphasis is usually placed on upstream companies, although increasingly information on downstream companies such as service providers have also been published), production data that is disaggregated by company and state, details on state-owned enterprises, as well as social and infrastructure investments.

In fact, in an international tool called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), many of these are requirements that would help to clarify the benefits received by any one country resulting from its natural resources. In Malaysia’s case, this is most useful when investigating the oil and gas industry.

On that note, lDEAS had the pleasure of hosting Jonas Moberg, head of the EITI International Secretariat based in Norway, for a two-day visit in Kuala Lumpur last week. This is part of a research and awareness-building project to introduce the EITI to Malaysian stakeholders.

Several roundtable discussions were conducted with government officials, members of the media, several parliamentarians and civil society. Whilst it is positive that representatives from government agencies were present, it is too soon to tell whether or not they were receptive to using the EITI to benchmark Malaysia against.

In its simplest form, the EITI is an international standard that governments voluntarily subscribe to, in committing to a platform where an agreed-upon set of information is published transparently each year. It started out by adhering to the simple principle of “publishing what you pay”, wherein companies would publish what they pay to governments and governments would publish what they receive – and see if there are any discrepancies between the two. It has now grown to become much more than that, requiring licence information, transfers between federal and state governments, and even encourages contract transparency.

The EITI is also a very unique arrangement in that it is government-initiated, but multi-stakeholder in composition. It is required for the government to form a multi-stakeholder group with representatives from civil society, oil and gas companies, and government itself. The ownership varies from country to country, for instance the EITI secretariat in Afghanistan is parked under its Finance Ministry, whilst in Indonesia it falls under the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs.

Many questions were asked throughout the various engagement sessions, chief of which was how the EITI could help to improve economic conditions, since it is just a transparency tool. And perhaps this is an argument that needs to be made about transparency itself – what is the benefit of transparency?

Transparency itself does nothing to advance the cause of reform without consequent use of such transparency. But equipped with the right information, facts and figures, citizens have the opportunity to carry out their own analysis and keeping the relevant parties on their toes. The EITI is similar in this respect, where it is useful only to the extent that an active civil society community will make use of the information to reveal discrepancies, if any, in payments made to and received by government.

More importantly perhaps is that government has an opportunity to build trust with civil society, taking the initiative in making more information available than less. This would be a timely move, seeing as there is some public distrust surrounding the financial agreements between the federal government, Petronas and the various oil-producing state governments. Educating the public with information will surely mitigate some of these misgivings.

44 countries around the world are either implementing or candidate EITI countries. In the region, this includes countries like Indonesia, Timor Leste, the Philippines and most recently, Myanmar. What is most interesting is that Petronas has agreed to be part of the Myanmar EITI multi-stakeholder group, which means that in time to come, it will have to publish how much funds it is paying to the Myanmar government. In that one step, Malaysians will also have such information available when investigating our involvement there. This applies for other EITI-implementing countries in which Petronas operates.

We are still a long way from seeing the EITI coming close to being considered for adoption in Malaysia. But it will certainly be a boost to our international reputation, since we are already well known as a country that has used our oil revenues well, relative to other “resource-curse” nations. We could do more on both counts: in being proactive to promote transparency as well as set high standards that show the international community that Petronas practices the same level of integrity, transparency and accountability as other international oil companies.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

Push for a better quality of life

Posted on June 6, 2014 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 5 June 2014, and can be accessed here).

AS I prepared for my presentation to the prime minister last week on what the government can do to enhance Malaysians’ quality of life during the Ministry of Finance’s annual budget consultation, I asked myself what exactly “quality of life” means. After all, this could mean different things to different people, especially comparing against regional, gender, age, income and ethnic variations.

After reviewing international data and weighing it against personal considerations, my proposals eventually centred around three broad themes of improving public services, having better jobs and a work-life balance, and finally enhancing civic participation which a transparent and accountable government would complement.

In the Economist Intelligence Unit’s “Where-to-be-born Index 2013”, previously known as the “Quality of Life Index”, Malaysia ranks 36 out of 80 countries with a score of 6.62 out of 10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst. Switzerland is in the top spot with Singapore in 6th place, South Korea in 19th and Thailand 50th positions.

Measures used to define quality of life in this index are material wellbeing, life expectancy, climate, many of which are fairly intuitive and to be expected, especially job security and physical security. Interestingly, quality of family and community life were also included, and perhaps most relevant to civil society activists, governance and gender equality.

The OECD has an excellent “Better Life Index”, which asks what matters most to people around the world. Although only a small set of 122 responses in Malaysia were obtained, it shows that health, work-life balance, life satisfaction, education and safety rank very highly.

Respondents in Australia, Norway and Sweden, the top three in the index globally, chose housing, income, jobs, community and even civic engagement as the most important in determining the quality of their lives. The more developed the country, the more likely it is that people seem to value community and civic engagement.

Improving public services

The first proposal was to improve public transport. For instance, the share of public transport in 1985 was 35%, 16% in 2005 and fell drastically to 12% in 2011. Although efforts have been made recently to consolidate the previously fractured administrative units covering public transport through SPAD and Greater KL initiatives, there are still outstanding areas that need attention.

First, state and local governments are not being sufficiently empowered. Public transport cannot be only centrally controlled, as problems start at the local levels. Councils should be used to identify gridlock areas, and errant bus operators. Public transport desks in local councils can be set up to liaise with SPAD, which the Ipoh City Council recently announced. Selangor has set up its Public Transport Council, and it is positive that SPAD has been co-operative thus far.

Extended walkways and bicycle lanes should be prioritised, but these should be built closer to train stations. Bikes should be allowed on all railway options.

Companies can be given incentives if they allow shower facilities. Cycling to work is a healthy option that would reduce traffic congestion, but conditions must be right. Finally, public transport efforts should not focus within the Klang Valley alone, but also cover cities like Malacca, Ipoh and Penang.

The second proposal was how the non-state sector could contribute to helping in education services. IDEAS conducted a nationwide survey on parents from the bottom 40%, on the challenges they face with children’s education. We found that only 15% of poor parents benefit from the Poor Students’ Trust Fund, among other findings.

There are 10,000 public schools in Malaysia, and the government should be open in working with non-state players to help poor families. But we, outside of government, need clear, defined guidelines on how non-state players can contribute to education services.

School boards should be actively restored and encouraged, so that alumni and even surrounding community members can get involved in helping the school. NGOs and social enterprises can be set up through venture funds.

The Ministry of Education should also release school rankings publicly. This includes both academic and extra-curricular performance, as this would encourage competition among school leaders to improve.

Households in the Klang Valley recently suffered the consequences of a water shortage. This could have been avoided by adopting water demand management early on, which was my third proposal. This requires a paradigm shift from planning for water supply to water demand.

This would avoid the need to even develop new resources, and instead encourages water recycling and conservation. Incentives can easily be given to developers that install water-efficient equipment. SPAN as the water regulator should strictly enforce water operators’ activities especially on Non-Revenue Water.

I was mugged twice last year (once in Petaling Jaya and once in Malacca), and still get paranoid when I hear motorcycles on the road. This affects my quality of life and mental health. My fourth proposal was on combating crime, where more personnel should be moved from the Special Branch to the CID as a matter of priority, with a strong focus on street crime.

An important aspect the administration has not considered is to provide transparent data on crime hot spots.

Finally, the public ought to be involved. We all have smartphones and tablets. Just like the apps we use to update Facebook and Twitter on-the-go, why not share crime hotspots, crime incidents on social media?

Beat the criminals by getting the public flooding an area in instant time that a certain crime has occurred. There simply isn’t enough of co-operation and sharing of information between the police and all other stakeholders.

Better jobs and work-life balance

A better work-life balance is difficult enough as it is for city-dwellers, and much more so for working women who are also mothers.

Talent Corporation has already developed a “flexibility in the workplace” programme that provides tax incentives to companies that provide flexi-hours, and childcare centres to accommodate working mothers.

Women should also be encouraged to take part in public office, since being city councillor may offer the kind of flexibility needed for the work-life balance they seek.


Transparent government and civic participation

By conventional standards, a transparent government does not directly impact on the rakyat’s lives. But transparency and openness equals a government actively engaged with its people. It enhances life satisfaction through civic engagement as people get involved and increase their respect and trust for the government.

The first is on the Open Government Partnership, an international platform for governments to make public their commitments to being more open, accountable and responsive.

The second is the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), an international standard to improve the governance of natural resource revenues via collaboration between government, civil society and oil companies in the oil and gas sector.

Oil revenue contributes 40% to our national coffers. We do have a Kumpulan Wang Amanah Negara (KWAN), or Heritage Fund, which is managed by Bank Negara, but such data should be published regularly since its objective is to ensure oil money is sustainable for future generations.

This is not the case currently. Signing up to these two initiatives would reflect strongly upon the government’s commitment to governance.

Finally, the two most important measures in improving civic participation are the Freedom of Information Act and local government elections. Allowing citizens to access data means they are more empowered and involved in decisions, thereby making them feel included by building a sense of ownership over the country and outcomes.

Local councils are the very first point of contact that we have. They provide the most basic of public services, and therefore need better accountability.

These were the 10 recommendations I presented on improving quality of life in Malaysia. We shall see if any of these are considered for inclusion when the 2015 budget is tabled in Parliament on Oct 10.

Posted in Civil Society, Crime, Economics, Public Administration, Water | Leave a comment