Don’t Muddy the Water Issue

Posted on January 25, 2013 by Tricia

Don’t Muddy the Water Issue

(From theSun, 25th January 2013)

The water saga between the Selangor government and water operator Syabas took another turn in the latest episode of the Wangsa Maju pump station fiasco that affected more than 27,000 households in the Klang Valley. It is easy to confuse the many issues, thereby muddying them together. But first, some facts.

The Wangsa Maju pump house – which is made up of 4 pumps and 1 for standby purposes – broke down on 29th December last year and 1st January, and since then the blame game has ensued between both parties accusing the other of being at fault. The pump house has a design capacity of 180mld (million litres per day) in total.

Syabas claims that the failure was due to “operating above its design capacity for a long period of time in recent years” (Syabas, 15 January 2013). Selangor state checks, however, revealed that throughout 2012, the pumps operated beyond its capacity of 200mld for only 18 days out of the whole year.

The central issue here is whether or not the pumps have actually been well-maintained to operate consistently without breaking down. The responsibility to maintain these pumps falls under Syabas and not the Selangor government. According to standard operating procedure, ‘preventive periodic maintenance’ is a basic requirement that should have been conducted by specific capable contractors. This was apparently conducted up to 2008, after which it was only done whenever a pump was damaged.

Prevention is surely better than cure, something any water operator should have known at the outset. No regular checks by the appropriate technical experts were carried out, and this was the primary reason for the breakdown. Even if Syabas employees did routine inspection, why did they not realise the pumps were already faulty, and thereafter immediately alert their superiors? In fact, it was revealed that one of the five pumps was already reported as faulty since last year and this was not addressed.

This brings us to the next issue of good governance. The water industry is regulated by SPAN (National Water Services Commission). Syabas has unfortunately demonstrated its inability to manage its equipment efficiently, when it should have investigated the root problem even before it became a problem by following SOPs and best practices.

SPAN together with its Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water should use this perfect opportunity to correct any inefficiencies in the water delivery system. Failure to reprimand only means it is silently supporting incompetency. It is not clear whether SPAN had in fact instructed Syabas (or rather, Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd, the actual pump operator) to make urgent corrective measures.

Added to this is a revelation in the Auditor-General’s Audit Report for the operating period of 2009-2011, which showed amongst other things that the funds Syabas received for capital expenditure (capex) from the Selangor government were actually used for operating expenditure (opex). If such funds were necessary for the upgrading of water pumps, then they should not have been misallocated.

Syabas would have us believe that this has everything to do with the supposed water shortage in Selangor and the need for the monstrosity of the Langat 2 plant and Pahang-Selangor water transfer project. This doesn’t make sense, since the Langat 2 plant was slated for completion in 2014 anyway. The Wangsa Maju plant failure has nothing to do with Langat 2.

In earlier columns, I stated that this RM9 billion mega-project should be reconsidered in preference of other solutions like upgrading existing plants, rainwater harvesting, water recycling and treatment of Selangor’s raw water resources.

Some have also raised the question of why the Selangor government lays the blame squarely on Syabas when it holds 30% of its shares. Although this means attending board meetings and access to documents, Selangor is still the minority shareholder, and has no role in dealing with day to day operations. In fact, the federal government through its Finance Ministry Incorporated holds the golden share of Syabas, which allows them to flex some muscles. Nowhere in the concession agreement (which, by the way, is also signed by the federal government) does it say that maintenance of pump stations falls under the jurisdiction of the state government.

Finally, enter political drama. In a blatant fish-for-votes speech, Prime Minister Najib Razak promised to resolve Selangor’s water woes if Barisan Nasional is given the mandate to govern the state in the upcoming general election. This is most distasteful indeed, which basically says that until and unless Barisan retakes the Selangor government, the federal government will do nothing and sit idly by as the people suffer the misfortunes of an inefficient company.

Under Section 191(5) of the Water Services Commission Act 2006, the Minister has the right to determine what amounts to national interest issues, and this determination would be “final and binding”. This means the Minister – and through its regulator SPAN – would be empowered to make the best decision to resolve the water problems of Selangor, whether it means termination, restructuring, or migration to a new regime. Such action must be taken regardless of political support, and the people of Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya deserve better.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Selangor, Water | Leave a comment

A Neutral Public Service

Posted on January 11, 2013 by Tricia

A Neutral Public Service 

(From theSun, 11th January 2013)

As a public policy researcher, filmmaking was the last thing I thought I would venture into. But having received a grant and opportunity from a local NGO, Pusat KOMAS, last year to write and direct a documentary, this exciting experience has convinced me that the visual medium is sometimes more powerful than what any amount of writing can achieve. The short film, “The Rights of The Dead”, analyses the case of the late Teoh Beng Hock, who died at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission premises in July 2009 whilst being interrogated for an alleged corruption case involving a member of the Selangor Exco.

Although the documentary encapsulates the case and shockingly cut-short life of Teoh, it was meant to provoke thinking and discussion of the bigger picture. First, that this was not the first death in custody to occur, where in fact 156 people have died in custody between 2000 and 2011. Is this perhaps symptomatic of a more pressing problem, that of the structure and system that govern us as Malaysians?

Most recently, yet another body was found where Nagarajan, arrested for a drug-related offence reportedly died from a fall, although “wounds on his body raised suspicions” (theSun, 2nd January 2013). In response to this incident, the Malaysian Bar called for the establishment of a coroner’s court so that there is structural reform of inquests. Presently, although the Criminal Procedure Code deems it mandatory to conduct inquests for deaths in custody, this is not always done. A coroner’s court would bring some system into what seems to be a rather haphazard way of deciding whether or not an inquest should be formed.

At the various screenings both public and private that have taken place over the last few months, one of the points most often stressed was that it is only when the various institutions of government are independent and strong that we can have faith that the system would look out for us in time of need. Thus, for example, the Judiciary, Police, the forensic doctors in public service, government agencies (in this instance, the MACC), and so on, must behave with the utmost integrity and independence without being subservient to the demands of political interference.

The corruption investigation for which Teoh was questioned took place at a time of heightened political tension between the Barisan federal government and Pakatan state government of Selangor. This then begs the question of how neutral the civil service is. Over the past five years, states led by the Pakatan Rakyat have been regularly affected when federally-appointed servants working in their states have conflicted allegiances. A recent example would be the 24-hour notice of the Petaling Jaya Mayor’s transfer, which came as a surprise to the Selangor government.

In 1845, the Northcote-Trevelyan Report, which prescribed public service ethos, emphasised that a politically neutral civil service “means complete loyalty to the government of the day regardless of its political complexion” (taken from the Chief Secretary’s website). It also stipulated that the public service should provide continuous services which are impartial and appropriate for public interest.

Increasingly, people no longer have patience for what they perceive to be an overdose of politics eating into their daily lives. When politics interferes into the ability of public service delivery agencies and mechanisms, this results in an overall net negative: poor quality of amenities, bad traffic, less time, and a lower disposable income (due to the lack of competitiveness in an over-monopolised market). But worse, politics entered the very doorstep of the Teoh family on the day they received the news of Beng Hock’s demise.

This year heralds what is certain to be an election year, with many pondering the results ahead of time. Whichever way the wind blows at both state and federal government levels, it must be stressed that the political coalition(s) in power should promote a neutral public service. There ought to be assurance given that the federal government would not discriminate against any state government that happens to be of a different political affiliation. It is also essential that in whichever post-election outcome, civil servants in all agencies behave professionally in ensuring a smooth transition or continuation of power.

Interestingly, several discussants at the screenings to date have themselves been public servants. Without mentioning any departments, it is worth noting that given the appropriate leadership, and confidence to assume the right stand in practising principles of integrity, the Malaysian public service can certainly be honed and restored to its “first-class civil service” goal.

However, finally and most importantly, providing for these institutions’ independence would be the priority of government. In the long run, it is hoped that these important steps would improve things systemically, and more crucially, in order that yet another tragic incident would not have to take place again.

Posted in General Politics, Human Rights, Public Administration | Leave a comment

The Personal and the Professional

Posted on January 8, 2013 by Tricia

This article first appeared in Selangor Times in January 2013.

Yet another Malaysian incident has made it into international news. The Wall Street Journal, amongst other newspapers since, has reported on Bank Islam’s suspension of Azrul Azwar Ahmad Tajudin after his analysis of a possible Opposition win at Federal Parliament was presented at a Regional Outlook Forum in Singapore last week.

Azrul’s presentation on Malaysia’s economic and political outlook of 2013 included a section on the domestic political landscape, which outlined three possible scenarios as a result of the upcoming 13th General Election. The first, a scenario with moderate probability or best-case scenario was a narrow win for Barisan Nasional; the second a scenario with high probability or base-case scenario with a narrow win for Pakatan Rakyat; and finally a third scenario with very low probability or worst-case scenario with a big loss for Barisan Nasional.

Since then, a group of civil society organisations and individuals have issued a statement in support of Azrul, and in protest of what is seen to be Bank Islam’s unprofessional and unjust act of suspension. In its statement (for full disclosure, I was also a signatory to this statement), it was argued that financial markets would require free access to information, and that elections analyses are of “paramount importance for the markets and the country”. Finally, that in so doing, Bank Islam showed its reporting policy of being favourable only to Barisan-friendly news.

This issue is something that all of us in professional jobs and relationships have to deal with on a regular basis. It brings up several points in question, namely whether there ought to be a distinction between one’s personal versus professional opinions on a certain – in this case, political – matter. For instance, one blogger wrote stating that Azrul should have known that working in such a corporation meant requiring him to behave in a manner expected of him. Bank Islam, a bank close to the Barisan government, would naturally have received pressure after what was perceived to be a Pakatan-friendly prediction. Other bloggers have also insinuated that because he is a member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, and had exchanged e-mails with members of the political party, this meant he compromised on his professionalism.

A second point is whether or not it is within the job function and ability of an economist to make elections predictions, the way a political scientist would have more likely been able to. For what it’s worth, Azrul did precede his analyses with the acknowledgement that he was no political analyst, and that the prediction was based on a set of factors including: analysis of voter profile, past voting trends in the 2008 election and consequent 16 by-elections, Sarawak state elections, ground visits, voting patterns with identified election issues, as well as assumed conditions under which these would take place.

Just how much of a gap should exist between our personal and professional lives? One imagines the number of Malaysians in either the private or public sector who may, perhaps, have attended last Saturday’s successful Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat (People’s Uprising Rally) in Stadium Merdeka in support of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat – but yet keep it quiet when entering their office premises on the following Monday morning, for fear that their personal sentiments would have an adverse effect on their job positions, contracting relationships with government, and so on.

Should they have to? Ought an employee to adhere strictly to the corporate code of conduct and set of beliefs of his or her employer at all times, or should independent thought be protected as the right to freedom of expression?

These answers will vary according to the specific employer in question. However, a general principle would be for the employee to behave in a professional manner as far as the boundaries of the work required of him go. In this particular situation, the question we may ask is whether as the Chief Economist of Bank Islam, it was considered fair and acceptable for him to have conducted political analyses for the purposes of determining Malaysia’s economic outlook for the year.

We know, for example, that political outcomes have a direct impact on the economy. A change in government would certainly affect markets, investor sentiment and institutional structures. It is therefore safe to state that presenting his election outcome analyses was part and parcel of behaving in a professional manner. There is a difference between expressing a theoretical analysis and a personal preference; in this case, it was the former and not the latter.

Bank Islam does emerge from this looking the loser, and may have to conduct some public relations messaging to defend its actions. By suspending Azrul, the message it sent was “we do not tolerate opinions that are favourable to any party other than the ruling government”. Going forward, employers at all levels of companies would be forced to consider how to balance their employees’ needs with their personal sentiment; is there a ‘line’ to maintain, and if so, what justifies this position? Ultimately, what must be remembered is that individuals when undertaking their jobs based on their professional duties as required should not be persecuted for political reasons alone.

Posted in Elections | Tagged | Leave a comment

State Budgets 2013: The last for now

Posted on January 4, 2013 by Tricia

State Budgets 2013: The last for now

Photograph: Benson Kua

Photograph: Benson Kua

It was a fairly significant moment when the Selangor and Penang Pakatan state governments tabled and passed their final budgets of their first five-year term in power for the year ahead. It was an opportunity to showcase the success stories of the respective states over the last five years, and to set out plans for the future – in the hopes that voters will continue to place their trust in the same parties.

FINANCIAL HEALTH:
Both states placed a similar emphasis on achieving financial health. Penang projected an increase in revenue as high as 83.6% in 2013 compared to RM385.9mil in 2012. It also recorded a budget surplus of RM138mil for 2011, an increase of 312% compared to RM33mil in 2010 when there was a 95% reduction of debt. In the meantime, Selangor too recorded positive results with an increase in revenues from RM1.57bil (2010) to RM1.634bil (2011), as well as a 22% increase in its consolidated fund from RM1.58bil (2010) to RM1.944bil (2011). Both Penang and Selangor did well in managing their financial health.

ECONOMY-CENTRIC THEMES:
The Penang budget was themed Agenda Ekonomi Saksama (AES) or Equitable Economic Agenda, which Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng used as a sarcastic quip to draw comparison with the federal government’s way of managing the economy, exemplified by their Automated Enforcement System (AES), a traffic monitoring system privatised to two companies (see this column in December 2012). Selangor’s budget was given the theme Selangor Peneraju Ekonomi Malaysia or Selangor at the Forefront of Malaysia’s Economy. The emphasis on the economy is telling; although state governments have no jurisdiction over macroeconomic policy, they are all too aware of the importance people place on economics, which ultimately determines their daily welfare.

Photograph: Kwong Wah Yit Poh

Photograph: Kwong Wah Yit Poh

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S 2011 REPORT:
Another financial success that both states were proud to announce in their budget speeches was the commendation given by the Auditor-General’s 2011 Report. The report praised Selangor for its financial performance, increase in savings, revenues, investments and financial management. Specific mention was given to the fact that nine out of 12 of its local councils and five statutory bodies recorded surpluses; there was an increase in state revenues (as mentioned above); there was healthy public debt repayment; and state development was positive based on expenditure and the number of approved projects. Eight agencies were awarded a 4-star rating. Similarly, four of Penang’s agencies were also given the 4-star rating, and the state’s finances were also praised.

VALUE FOR MONEY:
Both state budgets made mention of the terms “value for money” and “open tender”, with Selangor’s Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim repeating the former phrase several times throughout his speech. For instance, under one of its strategies of pushing for innovative and modern development, Selangor’s act of having its local councils take over waste management service from its previous contractor Alam Flora saved the state RM80.95mil through the use of open tenders. These savings were then used to provide a 25% rebate for quit rent to low cost flats. In fact, contracts worth RM446.9mil were done via open tender from January to October 2012, which saved the state 18.6% or RM102.2mil (original tenders were estimated at RM549mil). Penang’s adoption of open tenders for the Material Recovery Facility (also for solid waste management) was also mentioned.

BALANCED BUDGETS:

Both Selangor and Penang saw higher budgets being tabled for 2013. Selangor’s budget grew to RM1.63bil from RM1.43bil, an 11.89% increase from 2012. This was a balanced budget, with an increase in development spending of three per cent and a slight fall in operational spending of 0.5% (the latter was due to the reduction in debts owed to the federal government). Penang, however, passed an RM1.13bil budget, an increase of 50.68% that almost doubled the RM752.53mil budget of 2012. This deficit budget (of RM262.04mil) was not the first for the Pakatan-led government, and the Chief Minister stated that this deficit would be funded by the state’s accumulated savings of RM710.81mil from 2011. In 2012, although it had originally tabled a deficit budget, Penang eventually recorded a surplus and, based on the budget speech, it hopes to do the same in 2013.

Once local councils took over waste management from Alam Flora, they managed to save the state RM80.95mil and the savings allowed them to provide a 25% rebate for quit rent to low cost flats.

EXPENDITURE:
The bulk of Selangor’s budget was allocated for infrastructural projects, including public amenities, as well as its annual social programmes under the Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor (MES), or People’s Economy, and finance-based projects. Specific mention was made of the RM300mil Selangorku Grant, out of which RM37.4mil has been spent on infrastructure projects (whilst others are for human development, women and voter empowerment purposes). Apart from this, RM500mil of reserves will be used to build the third bridge in Klang (RM300mil), developing storm water as a source of water (RM100mil) and drainage systems (RM50mil). The Penang government allocated RM20mil for the year to top up any gap between household income and its state-decreed minimum wage of RM770 (increased from the previous amount of RM600, to be at least above the poverty line income of RM763).

There was an 11.89% increase in the Selangor budget in 2012, from RM1.43bil to RM1.63bil.

INVESTMENT AND OTHER SECTORS:
Over the four years of the Pakatan governing Selangor from 2008 to 2011, the state attracted RM38bil worth of investments, whilst it topped the charts amongst all states for the first half of 2012, recording RM6.08bil and estimates the full year’s amount to total RM7.7bil. Penang led the investments record in both 2010 and 2011, and it hopes to target new sectors for growth in electronics (LED), avionic, photovoltaic, semiconductors and biotechnology, with a particular emphasis on SMEs. Selangor’s budget focused on ensuring the state’s assets were well recorded and taken care of (water services, particularly), developing new methodologies for water sources, ensuring affordable housing and urban living amongst others. Penang’s budget placed equal importance on housing (the Singapore Housing Development Board is to provide assistance), whilst emphasising tourism, cultural preservation and public transport as highlights. Allocations were given in both states to the following categories: environment, health, youth and sports, women, spiritual development, Islamic affairs, education, public utilities, entrepreneurial

Posted in Economics, Selangor | Leave a comment

Time to Take Stock

Posted on December 28, 2012 by Tricia

Time to Take Stock

(From theSun, 28th December 2012)

Former President of the United States Bill Clinton would use a Nasa-loaned moon rock, carbon-dated 3.6 billion years old, to help him gain perspective on things, saying, “We’re all just passing through, take a deep breath, calm down, let’s see what makes sense.” (FT Magazine, 14 Oct 2011).

As the year draws to a close and a new one is about to begin, people will gather with friends and family around the country, conversations centred around generally two items: new year resolutions, and the 13th General Elections – one more predictable than the other.

Political campaigning has already begun, which will only escalate in the new year, lasting up to the day of polling (which has to be held at the very latest by 27th June 2013). Some Malaysians may be excited at the prospect of a dynamic elections, whilst others may be simply exasperated, hoping to get on with their lives without excessive ‘politicking’.

Whichever category we belong to, some perspective might be useful in weighing out how we are to respond intellectually and emotionally to events that are to come.

In 2008, Malaysia witnessed an unprecedented election outcome. For the first time, the Barisan Nasional coalition lost its two-third majority since independence, and the Pakatan Rakyat opposition gained control of five states (Perak was later wrested back by Barisan in a long drawn-out constitutional battle). Over the last almost five years, we have observed the sometimes messy unfolding of democratisation, and the reaction of people unused to such lack of certainty or clarity.

Despite the ugly personal swipes and butt-shaking, we ought to also recall the many accomplishments that have taken place precisely during this period. Public discourse on policy matters ranging from economic affirmative action, education policy and civil service reform is flourishing. Malaysians are flexing their mental muscles as they taste the possibility of reshaping policy from the condition it is in today.

The Pakatan coalition either through direct action or political agitation contributed to the Federal government abolishing the Internal Security Act, commemorating Malaysia Day on 16th September (now a national public holiday), and implementing a minimum wage, amongst others. Several Pakatan states have also blazed the trail in their Freedom of Information Enactment and recognition of native customary land rights for the Orang Asli, which ought to be considered by Barisan states.

Today more than ever, public expectations of their governments and their officers are high, and rightfully so. It is not so ridiculous to expect a transparent process where Ministers and their family members do not benefit from political position; that public funds are used for their intended purposes; that there is equal opportunity provided to all Malaysians alike.

In this political competition, the balance struck between the people’s demands and what alternate governments have to offer combine to produce the best possible outcome of efficient public service delivery. Because of 8th March, both sides have to now compete on the value of their policies and actions to voters who now have a choice, as parties are forced to be more responsive to an electorate that have the freedom to be more demanding.

At the same time, voters should also be responsible and more forward-thinking in their demands, calling for what benefits all Malaysians as a whole rather than retreat to their particular community’s wants, or engorge themselves on the unhealthy fast food of purely short-term policies with no long-term value. Greater thought and reflection is needed as to what eventual consequences each demand would result in.

It is therefore important that whilst the campaigning takes place, the rest of us are not silent watchers but pro-active participants to the political and policy process that will shape the future. Malaysians must use this opportunity to evaluate based on the election manifesto (and other policy documents) developed by either side which positions they identify with, comparing that against their achievements or failures in the past, and making a choice based on these.

In fact, political participation does not take place just once every five years, but continuously throughout the years in between, hence voicing out expectations needs to be done on a constant basis through collective action.

So the rigour of two political coalitions sharpening each other ought to be viewed positively because this relationship offers the best backdrop for civil society to educate the public of their rights and duties as citizens. It is only through education, after all, that we empower and awaken our minds – without which we would continue depending on government to provide all the solutions.

And so, before the frenzied year begins, it is hoped that the calm before the storm will provide some valuable time and perspective on the often detested political dramas, that in fact these are necessary for the healthy development of an active, robust democracy. Voters no longer form the mere docile audience of the political stage-play; whether we like it or not, we are fully complicit and part of the game. We might as well exercise our existing right as participants, based on the full range of options available to us (reading, writing, speaking, campaigning, joining a community group, teaching, and finally of course, voting). Finally, Merry Christmas and here’s to a fulfilling new year ahead to all Malaysians.

Dedicated to the late Tun Lim Keng Yaik. May he rest in peace.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, The Cause | Leave a comment

The PAS conundrum – or is it really?

Posted on December 22, 2012 by Tricia

The PAS conundrum – or is it really?

(From Selangor Times, 28th December 2012)

At a recent policy dinner at St. Mike’s, a cozy Ipoh restaurant, I spoke of civil society, reform issues and my experience of having worked at the Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor government. The discussion eventually centred on one subject alone, that being the ‘PAS conundrum’ (titled by me); conundrum being defined as a confusing and difficult problem or question.

This has been a recent trend, where I am often asked questions like, “How can we be sure that the radical, conservative Islamic right of PAS won’t wield a bigger influence in Pakatan?”, or “If Pakatan forms the next Federal Government, would PAS push its agenda of an Islamic State nationwide?”, reflecting the real fears and concerns of a certain section of Malaysians.

The recent reports of the PAS-led Kelantan state government’s gender-segregation regulations for hair salons that were initially imposed on non-Muslim outfits (which were later withdrawn), as well as two non-Muslim couples being issued summonses for indecent behaviour, have contributed to such sentiment.

The narrative being played up daily by MCA (not UMNO, for obvious reasons) is that non-Muslims in Malaysia must therefore reject Pakatan wholesale based on the assumptions that first, these are bad policies; second, people do not like these bad policies; and third, if PAS can do it in Kelantan, they are likely to do it elsewhere.

At the very core of this discussion is the question of how the three Pakatan parties are able to agree on public policy and its implementation were it to take over in the upcoming 13th General Elections, given their differences most starkly between DAP and PAS. The former is clearly opposed to the Islamic state, championing the cause of the secular state whilst the latter holds the Islamic state close to heart.

First, let us acknowledge that Malaysia is far from homogeneous, its society made up of an extremely wide range of ethnic backgrounds, religions, cultures, class, genders, and more relevant to this discussion: worldviews. The reason we are afraid is because we have not truly known the other. This we may attribute to a rigid education system, political party structure, history, the British practice of divide-and-rule thereby segregating the races, all of which resulted in frail identities that we are not confident about and therefore fearful of losing.

Any political coalition that attempts to mirror this complex makeup of Malaysian society is bound to face challenges. The Barisan Nasional model of having race-based parties coming together in a coalition is becoming obsolete not because our society is necessarily becoming less defined by our respective cleavages (whatever they are, may it be class, language, ethnicity or otherwise). It is outdated because that structure inherently requires that each party retreats to their ethnic voting base and panders to their needs, almost always at the exclusion of others.

That the Pakatan coalition is multiracial is not a statement of lines blurring between these identities. In fact, it is an acknowledgement that these numerous (and sometimes multiple) identities exist, but are encouraged to flourish whilst looking out for the other within one big family. This is the approach that appeals to me. That I am not segregated by my race as a Chinese from others, but that whilst celebrating my Chinese-ness, I am also working alongside my Malay sister within the same party towards building a better country.

Now, to address the PAS issue. I highlighted it as a conundrum because keen Pakatan supporters who are worried about such trends above feel they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They seek change in Malaysia and ask themselves, at what cost is this change worth?

At the policy dinner, several views were given in response, including my own. First, that although PAS may have its strong views in Kelantan, it is a coalition of three parties rooting to be the next government. No policy decision would be made without consensus from all three parties. This must be emphasised. No one party would be able to decide all on its own the policy of the coalition, since each pary’s point of view would have to be given equal consideration even at the policy formulation stage.

We can also see how a state like Selangor, which has the most mixed representation from all three parties amongst the Pakatan states, has been governed, as an example. Even when difficulties have come up over the past four years, these are resolved by recognising the concerns of all three parties, and then making a decision after such negotiation. This represents a sort of new politics, completely different when compared to the UMNO-style dominance in the Barisan coalition.

Pakatan also has the advantage of raising concerns that are not necessarily based on race, and therefore a closer reflection of society’s needs (poverty, education and so on). This is therefore an opportunity to use the political process itself as a method by which concerns that are representative of a people as a whole can be pushed forward rather than that from an exclusive segment of people alone.

Second, we can refer to existing policy documents that have been officially endorsed by all three parties to figure out their principles of belief. There are 7 altogether so far: the Common Policy Platform, Buku Jingga, Kuching Declaration, Women’s Agenda, Tawaran Jingga, and the 2012 and 2013 Shadow Budgets. Nothing in these documents have any remote reference to the imposition of the Islamic state.

Finally, for the benefit of us all, it is important that Malaysians move out of their comfort zones. By this I mean instead of hanging out in circles we are most familiar with, we should be expanding our scope of friendships with others. I find most people critical of PAS have not had any real interaction with its members, much less having a deep conversation with them.

We have to acknowledge the breadth and depth of identities in this country. We have to recognise that there will be huge differences between our belief systems and that of others, that there will be liberals and conservatives and we have to find a way of co-existing harmoniously in this land, whilst accepting these differences. Pakatan Rakyat is a microcosm of Malaysian society, and is the best possible opportunity to lay out the issues upfront – through the processes of negotiation and persuasion – instead of sweeping them under the carpet.

Note, however, that when the time does come to govern collectively at the national level, this will be fervently monitored by ardent critics and observers. Pakatan would do well to tread carefully in this terrain. Until then, it is hoped that other more pressing concerns are paid more attention to by all parties alike, such as the economy, corruption, crime rates, civil service reform and the education system.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, General Politics, Religion | 1 Comment

Governing from the Bottom Up

Posted on December 14, 2012 by Tricia

Governing from the Bottom Up

(From theSun, 14th December 2012)

The recent public war of words between former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and his ex-colleague Datuk Ramli Yusoff over criminal links, abuse of power and political connections has awakened what has up to now been considered the widely known but largely unaddressed problem of police corruption.

These are former top leaders of the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) making serious allegations of political patronage and granting of favours, which begs the question, to what extent is this culture still prevalent today, seeping across all levels down to the rank and file officers? Worse, what impact does this have on the ability of the police force to address our daily needs of crime-busting in the neighbourhoods?

The discussion on police management intensified over the past few months with the ‘perceived’ notion of crime escalation. Just how best should the Malaysian police be managed, to ultimately deliver the services in a “Firm, Fair and Prudent” manner, as its slogan seeks to establish?

Decentralising as an Option

One resource is the Tun Dzaiddin-led Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police, which recommended amongst others that 22% uniformed personnel could be freed to go back to active core policing work. Redeployment is a solution that has been proposed by several crime-watch groups, think tanks and political parties. Yet another is that of decentralisation, which this column has previously considered. I raise this again to explore the deeper issues of decentralisation that were not previously covered.

At a recent Forum of Federations, a global coalition promoting the practice of decentralised government, I presented aspects of Malaysia’s highly centralised system of administration. The fact that most powers are centred at the Federal Government makes it difficult for either the State or Local Governments to make any meaningful decisions that could truly impact the lives of people’s everyday needs.

A colleague from India, for example, expressed surprise that in Malaysia, the police force is controlled completely by the Federal Government, with no say from the State or Local authorities. Although the Chief Police Officer (CPO) of each state would provide updates in regular meetings with the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister respectively on crime and other statistics, the line of authority comes clearly from the central government and no other.

The Decentralisation Argument: Pros and Cons

I have previously argued for a decentralised police force, where State and Local authorities, together with their local police officers, are allowed to tackle street crime. The RMP responded that decentralising the police force would reduce efficiency and effectiveness, increase the cost of maintaining peace and order, and cause overlapping of powers and responsibilities. This is generally the same response given by those who disagree with the very idea of decentralisation, including those who are against the bringing back of local government elections.

On the one hand, it is true that a less centralised government may not always result in improved efficiency. For instance, another colleague at the Forum from Indonesia spoke of the problem of local elite capture, where corruption was essentially decentralised as well, rife with money politics. In addition, the quality of public service had not necessarily improved throughout its numerous regions across the country following the very intentional process of decentralisation policy it adopted in 1999, post-Suharto.

However, one of the most compelling reasons for decentralisation was raised, which I consider extremely relevant for the Malaysian context, and it is this: that decentralisation was necessary in countries in which there are high levels of diversity. In Indonesia, decentralisation was needed to unite its 13,667 islands. In India, cultural diversity is the very reason for which local communities are empowered; they would never agree to give more powers to the central government otherwise.

In these culturally diverse countries, decentralisation was required to maintain a healthy relationship between the central government and local communities. Failing which, there would be a growing dichotomy of interest between the elected head and local constituents. An extreme case would be minority regions or states wanting to secede from the country altogether.

Governance should therefore not be viewed solely with the end goal of achieving efficiency alone. This is certainly an important aspect of running a nation, for sure. But a federalist system ought to be seen as a way to combine regional or cultural interests and demands, with self-rule, and then making use of a range of tools to ensure the best efficient outcomes possible (which are too lengthy to elaborate upon here).

Federalism and decentralisation can be used for greater efficiency if executed well. But perhaps more importantly, as we consider issues as wide-ranging as that of police force management to the growing demands of Sabah and Sarawak to restore their position as partners in Malaysia, we must consider how to respond to local needs and circumstances, as well as promoting participation, local responsibility and accountability.

Ultimately, another lesson learnt from my recent intense discussion on decentralisation is that in order to make it really work, the culture of wanting self-rule is crucial. If Malaysia is to be ready for such a discussion at both the theoretical and implementation levels, this must be the desire of locals in each district, state and region. This is important food for thought as we continue to discuss Federal decisions on other matters such as Lynas (Kuantan, Pahang), Automated Enforcement Systems, or AES (all states of Malaysia), water management (Selangor), oil royalty (Sabah, Sarawak, Kelantan, Terengganu), and so on.

Posted in Public Administration | Leave a comment

The AES in Pakatan Rakyat states

Posted on December 8, 2012 by Tricia

The AES in Pakatan Rakyat states

(From Penang Monthly, December 2012 issue)

The Automated Enforcement System (AES) has emerged as another issue which the Pakatan-led states, namely Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan, have come to a common policy agreement not to implement for the time being. The controversy is centred on a traffic summons service that is privatised to two companies, ATES Sdn Bhd and Beta Tegap, under a Public-Private Partnership with the Road Transport Department ( JPJ).

Under the agreement, cameras, which are able to automatically capture images of cars either speeding or running the red light, will be installed in all states of the country over the next 18 months. In an interview, Dr Radin Umar Radin Sohaidi, who headed the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research and came up with the AES, states that its objective is to eventually reduce speed-related and red light-running “Killed and Seriously Injured” cases (The Star, November 11, 2012).

However, the issue has more to do with the financial benefits accrued to the companies under the agreement. The amount due to both companies comes up to RM700mil in total; RM80mil each for the first five million summonses and RM540mil under the second tier of the agreement. But in order to hit this RM700mil, a total of 13.6 million summonses of RM300 each would have to be issued. A five-year term is given to the companies. This is just for the break-even amount; to make any additional profit on top of this, additional summonses would need to be issued. (Facts and figures as reported by The Malaysian Insider on November 6, 2012).

This has drawn a number of detractors, chiefly from Pakatan leaders. Criticisms are levelled on the basis of the following: one, that it is not an appropriate solution to solve road accidents, injuries and death; two, that the project is being privatised at all; and three, that these two companies will stand to profit with large margins at the expense of people’s summons fines.

On the first point, Member of Parliament William Leong states that other factors also cause road accidents, including the lack of motorcycle lanes, pedestrian crossings and proper street lighting. However, according to the Transport Minister, there has been a drastic fall in the number of offences in the 14 areas where the cameras have already been installed. Selangor has suggested that an independent evaluator should study the AES, assessing it for its feasibility, effectiveness and steps required for its implementation; while Penang’s Chief Minister has asked for its suspension pending review.

Even more interesting are the second and third issues, of the privatisation of public services and the profits that will eventually be earned by the private companies. A similar approach has been adopted in the UK and is also being heavily opposed. The local council of Barnet is facing backlash against its proposed local government privatisation, a £1bil “One Barnet” scheme that will see up to 70% of its public services privatised.

The theory is that privatising public services would bring about greater efficiency, since private companies would have sufficient capital to invest towards improving infrastructure and other things necessary to ensure best service delivery, for which the government may not necessarily have the funds. Malaysia followed suit in the 1990s by privatising a number of state-owned enterprises such as Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia Airlines, Telekom Malaysia, Indah Water Konsortium and Proton. Water services were also gradually privatised, the results of which we see today, especially in the state of Selangor whose industry is fractured into four separate concession companies, and which has suffered as a consequence (I have written previously about the water problems in the state, to which the reader may refer).

However, the Malaysian experience has been such that the very public nature of these privatised entities means that “the government is unable and unwilling to allow such enterprises to fail because of the essential nature of these goods and services, and the social and political costs involved” ( Jomo and Tan, United Nations Public Administration Network [Unpan], 2003). As a result, the government had to bail out most of these companies that were in the red, many of which were renationalised, costing the country billions of ringgit. Good and effective regulatory systems are required for any privatised scheme to work, but this system is “only as effective as the state’s ability to enforce sanctions to ensure compliance” ( Jomo and Tan, Unpan, 2003).

Because of such appalling history, it comes as no surprise that Malaysians are naturally inclined to have suspicions regarding any sort of privatisation; they have been burnt too many times to trust that competent companies are being selected.

Is privatisation inherently flawed? For the specific context of public services, certain criteria must be set for privatisation to work. First, the regulatory body in charge of setting, monitoring and enforcing rules that apply must be given tremendous independence from the Executive, something almost impossible to achieve in this country. In the UK, the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) is given such independence in the economic regulation of all water and sewerage sectors.

Second, the market rules governing economic incentives – which in turn are meant to promote competitiveness and efficiency – must be maintained. In the Malaysian examples given, the government provided support for capital expenditure in the form of soft loans or state guarantees to secure commercial loans, both of which significantly tamper with the incentives to companies to compete towards their best possible performance.

Finally, the rule of law which stipulates that elements of good governance must apply – transparency, accountability, publicly available information, open tenders and so on – ought to be adhered to. This would significantly reduce the likelihood that unfair contracts and concession agreements are signed, with dubious parties and individuals, and with grossly favourable terms to the private partner (as a result, unfavourable to the government). Malaysia has far too often experienced large contracts given to privileged friends and family members under loose conditions.

Returning to the specific case of the AES, there are conflicting messages emerging from the government. For example, the police mobile speed trap cameras will be maintained alongside the new AES, which may result in redundancy. Second, the terms of agreement must be thoroughly justified by the government. Why were these companies chosen? What is their competitive advantage? What happens if the number of summonses is insufficient to even break even? Does the contract have clauses requiring the government to make up for any losses?

Under market circumstances, the incentive of a private company is to maximise profits, thereby supposedly enhancing efficiency. In this context, would the AES companies be incentivised to create conditions that would increase the number of summonses being issued? Can Malaysians be assured that the regulatory body – in this case the Transport Ministry or JPJ – will operate transparently, with integrity and independence, enforcing strict terms and conditions on ATES and Beta Tegap? Until these numerous questions and doubts are clarified, it seems highly unlikely that the Pakatan Chief Ministers and Menteri Besars would allow the AES to begin operations within their respective states.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Selangor | Leave a comment

‘Tis the season to be rallying

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Tricia

‘Tis the season to be rallying 

(From Selangor Times, 30th November 2012)

The past weekend has been a busy one indeed. Not only was the city’s annual arts festival, Urbanscapes, taking place, but this time Sigur Ros, the atmospheric Icelandic band graced the occasion and performed right in the heart of Petaling Jaya. Parti Sosialis Malaysia’s Socialism conference, “Revolt of the 99%”, was also held over the weekend.

And most relevant to the civil society movement were the twin rallies, Himpunan Hijau (Green Gathering) to protest against the rare earth Lynas plant which is about to begin its operations in Kuantan, as well as the Dong Zong (Chinese association)’s protest against the draft Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013, in particular its seeming lack of emphasis on vernacular type schools. One might consider this weekend as an example of the flourishing arts, political, and activist scene in Malaysia. Or within the Klang Valley, at least.

Why the need to rally and protest on the streets? This is the question many debated hotly during and following the Bersih 2.0 and Bersih 3.0 rallies. After all, is it not enough that an organisation can be formed peacefully, and then seek very civil meetings and brainstorming sessions with the relevant government agency?

Would we not achieve the same goals by putting together a private or public forum where representatives could sit nicely on stage to carry out intellectual discourse? If problems can be settled arbitrarily by the parties involved in a calm, rational manner, then what is the purpose of a street gathering? (After all, it creates conditions in which traffic is worsened, whether due to police’s active work of carrying out roadblocks and spot-checks or by the sheer size of the crowds, does it not)?

I would submit that attempting civil discourse and dialogue with the authorities ought to be the first line of action. In advocating any policy change, the decision-making stakeholders – chief of which being policymakers within the bureaucracy – form the first level of a target audience. In civil society and public policy work, one method is therefore to try getting the message delivered to as high the decision-making body as possible.

Malaysian NGOs are experienced in this regard, for instance sending memorandums backed with facts and figures to the appropriate ministries, Members of Parliament, and so on. In fact, the trend of late has been to deliver such notes to members of the royalty, either the Sultan or Agong. But there is also disagreement as to whether the monarchy ought to be ascribed such great attention given their very minimal executive powers in reality.

But quite apart from mere gimmickry in the delivery of such notes, neither that for the reason of making it a publicity stunt, the first course of action ought to be real engagement with decision-makers and opinion shapers. This may not necessarily be individuals within government, but could be those wielding influence say from within think tanks, professional associations (depending on the issue), the corporate sector, retired civil servants, the media and so on.

If, however, all lines of communication and attempts at getting a particular message across consistently fail, then it is certainly worth considering targeting a more radical approach. It is all well and good to work from within the system, but when the system itself fails to acknowledge any semblance of real reform – despite the verbal commitment to it – then there must be alternative routes, an example being peaceful demonstrations which have the potential to send a strong message. Bersih 3.0 was an example where no serious move was seen to be taken by the Election Commission despite the passing of the Electoral Reform Parliamentary Select Committee’s report in Parliament, hence the organisers’ decision to hold the third rally in April this year.

In the case of Himpunan Hijau, protestors feel their fears and concerns of radioactive waste disposal are unheard and disregarded. As for Dong Zong’s protest, it was a way of displaying their sentiments on vernacular schools and although the Education Blueprint is merely at draft stage, this would send a political message that the current government ought not neglect Chinese-type schools especially so close to a general election.

Having said this, it is open to debate whether or not these movements had truly tried the first route of continuing closed-door dialogue with the government, failing which, that street or public protests were a measure of last resort.

Another related point is whether or not people marching are aware of the issues they are fighting for. A cynic’s argument would be that “they know not what they do” and therefore be dismissive of an entire movement on these grounds since it becomes merely a populist mob, or ‘the cool and hip thing to do these days’.

An idealist would state that whilst the entire population is being thoroughly educated and made aware of a certain issue (say, the alleged detrimental environmental impacts of the Lynas plant), not all supporters need to know the specifics of why they are protesting – that by being part of the movement is the first – important – stepping stone in participatory democracy and exposure to issues affecting the nation. Without a doubt, the spirit of comradeship and camaraderie is extremely strong during and immediately after a gathering advocating a certain cause.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Ought we educate the young and only upon their thorough understanding of an issue, grant them blessing to participate in an activist movement? Or allow them the space for involvement, growing whilst gaining knowledge, speaking to more experienced individuals, and in the process eventually being ‘conscientised’ into the language of participatory democracy? The latter seems to be the preferred choice, and that continual efforts at public education are carried out at the same time.

‘Tis the season to be rallying; which ones are worth time and attention? To come to any conclusion, one would have to evaluate them based on their issues, subject content, methodology and advocacy efforts to stakeholders, messaging, impact of the said rally, and eventual objectives they respectively seek to achieve for the betterment of Malaysian society in the long run.

Posted in Civil Society, Human Rights | Leave a comment

Dear Dr. Mahathir, we do seek greater reforms

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Tricia

Dear Dr. Mahathir, we do seek greater reforms

(From theSun, 30th November 2012)

Dear Yang Amat Berbahagia Tun Mahathir Mohamad,

In your address to the 2012 Umno General Assembly earlier this week, you stated that the Barisan Nasional has “pandered” to the country’s demands for civil liberties whilst staying true to the objectives of protecting the welfare of the nation, race and religion. You then asked what further reforms Malaysians want, given that the government had already repealed the Internal Security Act (ISA) amongst many others.

You are right that there has been a slate of legislative changes made recently – for instance, the lifting of three Emergency Declarations, amending the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Police Act, and repealing of the Banishment Act 1959 and Restricted Residence Act 1933. These are certainly positive steps in the right direction, which we applaud and congratulate.

Nevertheless, perhaps it might be pertinent to point out that many of these reform measures would not have taken place had it not been for the years of civil society’s campaigning and advocacy – work which, if I recall correctly, you were not necessarily a fan of during your time as Prime Minister. Had these NGOs not made demands for greater freedom of speech, the press and other fundamental human rights over the years (often labelled as troublemakers and worse, at times incarcerated, as a result thereof), the ruling government would not have responded.

However, it must be noted that in recent years you have certainly contributed to similar movements by promoting peace efforts in the Palestinian region and against war crimes; do keep up the good work.

You also made mention of Barisan Nasional ensuring inclusiveness by accepting parties from Sabah and Sarawak, as well as the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Gerakan and “even PAS” over the years. Whilst it is positive that there is representation from a wide spectrum of varying communities within the ruling political coalition, and it may have been the best solution at the time, the term ‘inclusiveness’ has grown to mean much more than that, which has become somewhat perceived as mere tokenism to the public eye.

In the past, where there may have been interest groups solely representing their particular ethnicity or religion, today this has changed. Whilst there still exist some organisations advocating for their own myopic communal needs, others have moved with the times by pushing for issues regardless of race. This, with all due respect to organisations that you personally support, is the way forward for the country.

Movements that promote good governance with utmost commitment to public accountability, sound economic policy based on merit and need, an electoral system which allows for a level-playing field, along with basic civil rights, are some examples of how young Malaysians are participating in nation-building in an inclusive manner. When one speaks of citizenship, patriotism and belonging in a country, this is it – no longer in need of a singular, grand-standing ‘national identity’ that we have tried to create but in vain.

Sir, you also stated recently that democracy has its limitations; if people know nothing of implied responsibilities, this would result in instability, which in turn would not permit development. Herein lies the ongoing debate, namely the priority between civil and economic rights. My response would be that yes, it is true that there requires responsibility in every act of being a citizen of a country.

But in order to ensure all citizens are aware of their responsibilities, they must equally be educated on all possible aspects of a democracy. It is precisely the basics of a democratic state that, if done properly, should result in eventual positive development; equal access to education, the rule of law, clear separation of powers between the Judiciary, Executive and Legislative, institutional independence, individual freedoms, and the curbing of corruption, cronyism and nepotism at all levels so that, for example, mega projects do not benefit a small number of privileged individuals.

These are the things people are asking for. And far from an intent to create instability in the country, the reasons Malaysians are urging for more of such democratic reforms are exactly that they wish for a more developed nation for their children and grandchildren. They do not want a violent revolution – far from it. But to change things fundamentally, the system and structure with which the country is run, requires some great shift in the way people think and operate.

Many Malaysians remember you as the Prime Minister who put Malaysia on the world map. But the right question is not to ask “what further reforms we want”, as if it were unreasonable to accede to such requests, but “how else can all Malaysians partner in order to achieve these reforms”. Simply put, we all of us do want a better future, and it is the constant, often tiring, process of negotiation and difference in opinion on how to get there that makes for societal conflict.

Finally, Sir, you alluded to the fact that the opposition would demonstrate if they were to lose in the upcoming 13th General Election. As long as the Election Commission carries out its duties in a professional and fair manner, the results of the polls should be respected. As such, it is hoped that no matter which side emerges the victor to form the government, the loser should take the outcome in good spirits and ensure for a peaceful transition or continuation – depending on the results – of government. Most Malaysians would hope that both sides can commit to this.

Thank you for your commitment to the country you led for 22 years, and here’s to the next few exciting months ahead.

Yours sincerely,

A Malaysian who loves her country

Posted in Civil Society, Corruption, Economics, Human Rights, The Cause | Leave a comment