The Economy and Political Interference

Posted on November 17, 2012 by Tricia

The Economy and Political Interference

(A version of this was published in theSun, on 16th November 2012)

In the World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2013, Malaysia’s rank improved by two spots, now placed as the 12th most competitive economy in the world, up from 14th the year before. Whilst Malaysia improved on the measures of Registering Property, Paying Taxes, Trading Across Borders, and Dealing with Construction Permits, it performed worse in the measures of Starting a Business, Getting Electricity, Enforcing Contracts and Resolving Insolvency. The improved performance is generally a welcome indicator for business. However, are there further stumbling blocks and inefficiencies to the country’s economy that still require correcting?

For instance, according to the report, dealing with construction permits seems to be the stumbling factor, where we are ranked 96th out of the 185 economies surveyed. This is compared against the regional average of 71. In fact, although the number of days required to handle construction permits has reduced gradually to 140 days, the number of procedures in Malaysia has actually increased from 22 (between 2006 and 2012) to 37 (in 2013’s report). The costs of paying for construction permits as a proportion of income per capita have also increased from 11.5 to 17.5 percent. Specific mention, however, was made on the government’s initiative in improving the One Stop Center which helped make dealing with construction permits faster.

I attended a conference recently at which another report, the Economic Freedom Index 2012 was launched, where Malaysia is ranked as the 53rd freest economy in the world. Although it improved in the areas of business, labour, monetary and trade freedom, Malaysia’s scores dropped in terms of freedom from corruption, fiscal freedom, and more importantly government spending. In particular, the report stated that “the judicial system remains vulnerable to political interference, and property rights are not strongly protected. Lingering corruption further undermines freedom and hampers long-term institutional competitiveness. Government spending has been expanding in recent years, threatening overall economic efficiency.”

Taking the two indices together, it is clear that the economy is becoming more efficient overall, but there continue to be areas which must be dealt with. The term ‘crony capitalism’ has haunted Malaysia for some time now, for example. This situation arises where a person who holds political power or this person’s close relative or friend has wealth that has come about from enjoying certain privileges that the system provides, and not from being an honest producer of goods and services. In the above two reports, political interference and corruption seem to be the two hampering factors – which increase the costs of obtaining permits and the government’s large spending amounts for popular reasons. For this same reason, Malaysians have an unhealthy distrust of the system of government, and the collusion between the state and private sector players.

The current conflict revolving around the AES, or the Automated Enforcement System, is a case study in question. This system is a public-private partnership (PPP) between the government and the private company, devices installed with the purpose of tracking vehicles’ speed and red-light running. The objective is to eventually reduce speed-related and red-light-running killed and seriously injured cases in all states. However, because of past poorly privatised entities, the public has reacted violently against this proposed system, claiming it is yet another government ploy to enrich a crony company. Pakatan Rakyat-led state governments have also suspended approval for the AES in their states, alleging that the two firms running the system would earn RM16 from every fine issued by the AES. In order to recoup RM700 million worth of investments, as many as 2.72 million speeding tickets will have to be issued, according to some lawmakers.

Whilst road safety is a growing concern in Malaysia, where Malaysia tops the ASEAN chart for having the highest road fatalities per 100,000 population (UN World Health Organisation’s Global Status Report on Road Safety), although this has been steadily decreasing since 1996. But the discussion surrounding the AES has little to do with road safety or statistics. Simply put, because of the crony capitalism practised for so many years here, Malaysians are likely to resist any privatisation or PPP arrangement as they have serious doubts about the private company’s profiteering at the expense of the people.

This should not be the case. Where public utilities and services would ideally be provided for by the government (in this case the Road Transport Department, or JPJ), there may be additional features that may require assistance from the private sector as outsourced components, and which state bodies simply cannot afford to provide. In such cases, the processes must be conducted with absolute transparency, accountability and good governance. Open tenders must be made, with clear selection criteria. Information must be transparently published for public consumption, including financial gain for any private entity – and decisions thereby justified.

For the economy to be more efficient and competitive, ultimately political interference in any business transaction must be reduced. In Malaysia, the Executive arm of government wields great power within the political system – and efforts must be made by whoever forms government at the 13th General Election to strengthen the institutions of the Judiciary and Legislative. Crony capitalism severely weakens the economy by causing tremendous leakages to funds that could otherwise be used to serve the public. Freeing Malaysia from these chains of political interference would then allow small and medium enterprises and individual businesses to flourish, making the economy freer and more competitive.

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

Change of mayor too high-handed to ignore

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Tricia

Change of mayor too high-handed to ignore

MBPJ Building
Photograph: INCOLNOSE2®

With a string of surprising transfers being made in the MBPJ, including the mayor, many questions are being raised about the structure of command at that level. For the sake of effective and good governance, it is time to discuss new solutions.

(From Penang monthly, in the November 2012 issue)

The issue of federalism and the need for decentralisation of government control emerged yet again during the recent Selangor fiasco of its MBPJ mayor’s transfer.

On October 1, the MBPJ mayor, Datuk Mohd Roslan Sakiman, was given a 24-hour notice of his transfer out of the council. He would be given a promotion to be the new deputy state secretary, a position which also doubles him up as head of the state economic planning unit. This unit’s director, Datuk Noordin Sulaiman, would simultaneously be promoted to be state financial officer, whilst the finance officer, Datuk Mohd Arif Abdul Rahman, would be transferred to Putrajaya.

Datuk Mohd Roslan Sakiman.
Photograph: Selangor Times

This caused an immediate uproar within the city council as well as the Selangor state government. First, this was over the fact that he was expected to leave within 24 hours, since it would be almost impossible to ensure all duties and responsibilities would be transitioned off to his replacement. This also comes at a time when Petaling Jaya, the most urban of cities in all of Selangor, is undergoing major urban regeneration and transformation, requiring strong leadership and direction. Mohd Arif, for example, also personally requested for the move to be held back until Selangor’s budget for 2013 is tabled in mid-November.

Second and more importantly, the state government, to which local councils report, was not consulted on the matter at all. This is reminiscent of the incident in 2010, during which the Selangor state secretary was similarly chosen and appointed by the federal government without seeking a response from the state government.

Local residents’ associations, including the Selangor Residents’ Association Coalition (Apac), equally shared their disappointment, as many appreciated his consultative style of working closely with community leaders. The federal government had also not informed the state government or local council on the replacement mayor.

Following the series of harsh criticism levelled against the transfer’s short notice, the federal government made the decision to extend Mohd Roslan’s transfer till December 1, giving him more time to delegate his tasks accordingly.

Several lawyers have cited Article 10 of the Local Government Act 1976 (LGA), which states clearly that “The local authority shall consist of the Mayor or the President… to be appointed by the State Authority”. Here, because the state authority had not yet revoked Mohd Roslan’s appointment, the argument is that the Public Service Department (PSD) was not allowed to override his statutory appointment. According to this view, until and unless the state government revoked his appointment, he would legally still be the city’s mayor.

Whilst it is true that the state government has the right to appoint the mayor of its choice, it is worth exploring the reasons for which the federal government took such an action in the first place.

The letter directing that the transfer take place is from the PSD, which executes policies crafted by the Public Service Commission, which in turn (as do all civil servants within the federal government) reports to the Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Ali Hamsa. The PSD does have the right to make decisions concerning those public servants who are registered with it, and who therefore fall under its jurisdiction, which includes Mohd Roslan.

Therein lies the complication. Although the LGA gives the state government the right to appoint the mayor, this mayor happens to originate from the pool of PSD officers, over whom the headquarters in Putrajaya have full authority.

This conflicting view is exemplified by comments given by the respective quarters: state exco member Ronnie Liu stated that it was up to the Menteri Besar to decide whether or not to order a transfer, and “… not the Chief Secretary”, the mayor himself as a dutiful officer responded to media questions that this was a lateral transfer, and that, “As a civil servant, when the PSD (tells) you to leave, (you) have to do so.” This makes for an interesting hypothetical argument: if the state government were to appoint a mayor who is not a PSD officer, then it would be clear that the state government has complete say over the matter.

Ronnie Liu

Ronnie Liu
Photograph: rocketkini.com

The fine print of the law and regulation may stipulate as such, but it is important to recognise the real reasons for which such a transfer would be initiated at all.

It is highly suspicious that such a transfer is taking place now, given the proximity to the 13th General Election (which is expected to fall within the next four to five months), the results of which may affect the position of the state government and local councillors. In any case, it is certainly not wise to make changes to key positions at this time when no new major policies or programmes are due to be announced; the affected positions in this move would be the Petaling Jaya mayor, the deputy state secretary and the state finance officer, the latter of whom is instrumental in the running of a state government’s daily affairs.

The sheer coincidence of this taking place at such an inopportune time leads one to believe that the mayor’s transfer is politically motivated.

This incident further strengthens the argument that too much power is presently concentrated in federal hands. Even if it had the right to transfer its high-standing officials, decent courtesy would have dictated the need for the state government to be first consulted, seeing as local councils fall under the purview of the state, and that mayors or presidents of all 12 local and municipal councils in Selangor report to the Menteri Besar and the state executive council.

This is also a good opportunity for the state government to consider several options. First, since the LGA allows the state authority to appoint any person, including one who does not come from the pool of PSD officers, perhaps it is time to explore obtaining council mayors from any interested party. Although the salary scheme may not be very attractive (since this would be a civil service position), this does not exclude the possibility of individuals wanting to take up the post. The state government could consider advertising for such positions in the future, and selecting the person best suited for the job based on capability, experience and interest. Secondly, groups have also begun proposing that mayoral elections be conducted, on top of the existing call for local council elections.

Finally, where think tanks and academics have discussed the issue of decentralisation of late, where there should be greater devolvement of power from the federal to state governments, it is also worth exploring how much should be also given to the local government. At my book launch in Penang recently, academic Dr Wong Chin Huat (also fellow at the Penang Institute) suggested the possibility of having two-tier governments instead of three-tier governments in selected states. These states would be geographically smaller, which may not need either the state or local government’s presence to ensure efficient public delivery. In the future, what role do we want to confer to local councils, over and above what is presently the case? And more relevant to this case study, is it time to consider an alternative method of selecting and appointing city mayors?

Posted in General Politics, Public Administration, Selangor | Leave a comment

Can Overseas Malaysians Contribute?

Posted on November 3, 2012 by Tricia

Can Overseas Malaysians Contribute?

(This was first published in Selangor Times on 2nd November 2012).

At the Singapore FreedomFilmFest 2012 where the three documentaries were screened (including The Rights of The Dead, on the late Teoh Beng Hock’s story), a sizeable number of Malaysians interspersed the audience. Roughly making up 20 percent of the crowd size, the question-and-answer session following the screening reminded me of the aspirations Malaysians living overseas continue to have about their country, back home.

The interactions I have with Malaysians in Singapore usually centre on whether or not things are improving in Malaysia. During the discussion, one person even asked directly if life in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore is better for me as a young Malaysian. There was a genuine sense of struggle that I felt amongst them – the emotional ties they have with their tanahairku, but yet making the difficult decision to leave because of better salaries and an education system, amongst other reasons like marriage.

The World Bank report on Brain Drain released last year stated that out of the 1 million Malaysians living abroad, close to 60 percent are in Singapore, out of whom almost 90 percent are Chinese. Two out of ten Malaysians with a tertiary degree migrated in 2000 to Singapore and other OECD countries, more than twice the world average. More than a third of those interviewed cited career prospects as the primary reason for leaving, and social injustice as the second reason.

With this staggering number of talented Malaysians abroad, the question has always been: how can the country continue to develop and grow without them around? But the truth is that migration is a global phenomenon, and all developing countries are facing this problem equally. The best way to tackle the issue is to accept that cross-border movement is inevitable. People will move to where they feel opportunities exist, and trying to stem this tide may be futile.

The more pertinent things to ask are: first, how can Malaysia be so attractive that its citizens would prefer staying back? And second, even if they were to move abroad, how would it be possible for them to contribute from wherever they are, to the development of the country? The first issue is something Talent Corporation is trying to tackle, but it cannot do this alone given that it is the structural problems of Malaysia that need working on – if the education system was improved, economic barriers of cronyism and corruption removed to allow for greater opportunities, and the handling of the police force was more systematic, for example, things might change in the minds of those intending to migrate.

However, the assumption that Malaysians cannot help the country by being away can also be questioned. One of the best tools at our disposal in helping to open up minds is the Internet. Because we have a fairly high Internet penetration rate at 60%, and an equally high social media penetration rate of 91% of those who have access to the Internet, the power of online organisation should not be underestimated. This is precisely the medium within which overseas Malaysians can, and already have been, contributing to. Writing articles or using the medium of video is just one way of doing it.

The experience of overseas Malaysians in their respective fields of interest is an important resource that ought to be tapped on. All around the world, Malaysian experts exist in a variety of fields including medicine, engineering, the arts, and science, all of which are areas that will be needed to expand our own economy in the immediate and long-term future. These professionals can contribute to Malaysia by either conducting trainings for locals, or building networks with Malaysians for transfer of knowledge.

MyOverseasVote, a group of overseas Malaysians advocating for the right of Malaysians living abroad to vote in the elections, believe that Malaysian citizens overseas can be engaged “in charting the future course of Malaysia”. As such, they are bringing legal proceedings against the Election Commission, challenging the Election (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002 that only members of the Armed Forces, public servants, students and their spouses living overseas are eligible to register and vote as absent voters.

One argument against overseas voting is that because they are not physically present in Malaysia, and are therefore not paying taxes to the Malaysian government, they ought not have a right to determine policies and plans for citizens within the country – since they too would not be recipient of such policies. However, this is a fallacy, given that many Malaysians abroad do harbour hopes of returning to the country. They may also have vested interests within their home land for their parents and relatives who still live in Malaysia.

Can overseas Malaysians contribute? It is my opinion that it is a resounding yes. Especially for the 60% of the 1 million Malaysians living in Singapore, it is likely that they form an extremely important pool of influence and opinion-shaping that would be crucial for the future. Coming from all over Malaysia, they are more likely to return for Chinese New Year, other festivities, or to vote, given the proximity of the country to home.

In one sense, Malaysia can be likened to a lover who can make or break your heart. It is hoped that the social and political movements of change taking place in and outside of the country will help to eventually convince overseas Malaysians that they, too, still have a crucial role to play in charting the course of the country forward.

Posted in General Politics, Outside Malaysia, The Cause | Leave a comment

The Internet and Political Education

Posted on November 3, 2012 by Tricia

The Internet and Political Education

(A version of this was published in theSun, on 2nd November 2012)

At a forum on the Internet and citizenship recently held at the Perdana Leadership Foundation, I had the privilege of speaking with Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah to an estimated 180 public and private university students. The Internet has transformed the way in which politics is managed today, but there are opposing views as to whether this increased exposure or tools such as social media have genuinely increased the political education of Malaysians or not.

Malaysia has 17.5 million Internet users, roughly reaching 60% of the population. It has the second highest social network penetration in Southeast Asia, at an estimated 91%. Social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter, for example, account for about a third of all Malaysian Internet traffic. With half of the country’s population on Facebook (in terms of the numbers of accounts), Facebook has grown over the last six months to reach more than 13 million users. (Sources: socialbakers, forbes.com)

The social media landscape might seem foreign ground and incomprehensible to those accustomed to reading mainstream media alone. The intensity and speed with which news items are posted online can be a cause of stress for politicians who are forced to respond almost immediately in today’s political climate. Contrast this to the past where politicians would only be required to issue a press release within the day, in time for the following day’s news run.

Has this led to the ideal world where there is perfect access to all sides of a story, a utopia of limitless information in a society that was considered shielded in the past? One might imagine so, since alternative media websites such as Malaysiakini and the Malaysian Insider are freely accessible online. In one sense, it is true that a wide range of news reports, opinion pieces, videos and announcements are made readily available to the public.

However, on the other hand, social media has also changed the way in which news is channelled and read. These news items are now user-driven, no longer centred on the publisher of the website or blog per se. It is customary for the social media generation to scan through their live feeds of either Facebook or Twitter and pick out the most interesting stories that are being shared by their own friends. Hence, the hottest pieces (on issues such as sex and political scandals) would be the most virally shared and read, whilst the less popular items (poverty or underprivileged refugees) would not be as widely distributed.

In this “peer-driven” environment, what sorts of messages are being filtered out of society’s consciousness? When political news is shared, would only the most controversial piece generate interest, to the exclusion of others? Although there may be greater knowledge on the latest political hype, it is not necessarily the case that political education is being deepened as a result of this. Would, for example, Malaysians have a greater knowledge of the Federal Constitution’s contents, or the manner in which the judiciary does – or does not – work?

A good illustration of this is a map generated by an online group, Politweet.org, which does excellent research on the landscape and activity of Malaysian politicians on Twitter. The map displays nodes that represent both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat politicians and the numbers of followers they respectively have. The results showed that Barisan politicians had 2.8 times more followers than did Pakatan politicians (at the time of their analysis). However, interestingly, Pakatan has less exclusive followers at 48.3% than their Barisan counterparts, at 82.1%. This means that Pakatan followers are more likely to engage with Barisan politicians, whereas Barisan followers would less likely read Tweets by Pakatan politicians.

The danger of self-directed social media networks is therefore that the flow of information increasingly becomes more directed to those within one’s own personal networks, and there is no grasp of the larger universe of news or opinions if those in your self-selected circles are not sharing it. This creates a distortion of what issue is popular or of a greater concern, amongst what is perceived to be representative of the general public, when in fact these items are being shared to a more limited group.

Although it is necessary to be aware of these when conducting analysis of social media networks and their corresponding impact, I believe there has been a nett positive effect of the Internet and social media in contributing to Malaysians’ exposure to political news. Of course, a comprehensive survey would need to be conducted amongst Malaysian youth to explore how this has specifically encouraged their understanding of politics and government in the country. Second, whether or not this exposure has spurred them on to desire to participate in the process of local democracy, and finally, take action in the number of available ways.

As the 13th General Elections draw near, young netizens will surely rely on the Internet – and their social media networks – to build their understanding of both political coalitions on their policy positions, including education, the economy, housing, religion, crime, public transport and so on, to equip them with the knowledge necessary for their voting decision.

Posted in Education, General Politics | Leave a comment

Malaysian education blueprint- Weighing unity against diversity

Posted on October 24, 2012 by Tricia

Malaysian education blueprint- Weighing unity against diversity

Malaysian Education Blueprint

Photograph: Kwong Wah Yit Poh

Nation-building strategies all over the world have education as a central element. Malaysia is no different. However, the multicultural nature of the population means that education has always been a hugely controversial and highly sensitive subject. The latest blueprint must also consider the question: is diversity a benefit or a dilemma?

By Tricia Yeoh

(First published in Penang Monthly’s October 2012 issue).

The Deputy Prime Minister recently launched the draft version of the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) with great fanfare. With that, the Education Ministry seeks feedback prior to launching its final version in December this year. I had the privilege of attending a focus group session at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) earlier this week to discuss how the education system can better cater to the objectives of national unity and multiculturalism, in light of the blueprint. This article explores only issues insofar as these twin objectives are concerned – what the blueprint contains on the matter, and the role of the Penang and Selangor state governments in this matter.

The discussion at Isis centred on what emphasis should be given to language and cultural education at schools, when in fact the elephant in the room – how national-type or vernacular Chinese and Tamil-based schools would be treated – was not given sufficient attention. Granted, this is always a tricky issue to handle, but one must tackle the subject squarely and rationally.

The issue at hand is whether or not vernacular schools will continue to exist in the long run, as well as what proportion of state funding will be allocated therein. The blueprint obviously places an emphasis on ensuring that national schools become the “school of choice”. Although the current structure is to be maintained, Wave 3 (2021-2025) will see “SKs and SMKs emerge as schools of choice for all parents, irrespective of ethnicity or socioeconomic background.”

This objective is placed against the context of reported statistics, such as the fact that the proportion of Chinese students enrolled in Chinese-type primary schools increased from 92% in 2000 to 96% in 2011; the increase in Tamil-type primary schools was even greater, going from 47% to 56% enrolment over the same period. The blueprint states that these statistics suggest a “risk of declining diversity and ethnic mixing across all school types”, which “reduces the ability of schools to effectively foster unity through inter-ethnic interaction”.

Methodist Boys' School

Photograph: Jeffrey Hardy Quah

Dr Denison Jayasooria in his column, “Reflections on the Education Blueprint” (The Malay Mail, September 17, 2012), criticises this target of making national schools the school of choice, as he considers that a greater appreciation of diversity could have been incorporated into the blueprint. He argues that vernacular schools should be recognised as a “heritage to be cherished… contributing to nation building”.

On the one hand, national schools ought to be the ideal space for inter-ethnic interaction, as experienced by many in the past, myself included. However, on the other hand, due to the lack of trust in the quality of education offered in national schools (a combination of teacher quality, poor syllabus content and an increasing emphasis on Islam without sufficient recognition of other religions’ roles in society), parents who can afford it have increasingly chosen to place their children in alternative schools.

As a result, statistics show that ethnic diversity within Chinese-type primary schools is greater than within national primary schools at present, with nine per cent of students in SJK(C) schools being Bumiputera (12%, when combined with Indian and others), compared with six per cent non-Bumiputera students in SK schools (Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2012). One might then argue that vernacular schools should be given an even greater proportion of funding, for this reason.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons that support the argument that national schools create the most natural environment in which inter-ethnic interaction can take place, if indeed national unity is the foremost target. First, they simulate real-life societal ethnic breakdown and therefore increase the chances for inter-ethnic relationships to develop in such a manner. Second, the national language is the medium of instruction in national schools, used by the majority of the country, allowing for easier communication amongst the largest numbers of the population. Finally, multiculturalism can be maintained by ensuring more languages (Tamil, Chinese and others) are taught in national schools, as part of compulsory syllabus.

Diversity as a policy does have its plus points, since it is also natural that individual communities peppered across the country would organically form to start their own schools eventually. This includes religious schools, schools started by non-government organisations and so on. However, the issue is what kind of state funding should be given to such schools that are initiated by private means.

State governments have little jurisdiction over the education policy, where circulars are even distributed to disallow Pakatanelected representatives from entering national schools. Nevertheless, the states of Penang and Selangor have contributed where they can. The Penang government contributed RM12mil to Sekolah Agama Rakyat, Chinese, Tamil and Mubaligh schools in 2012. Similarly, the Selangor government contributed RM16mil to Chinese, Tamil and religious schools in 2012. Selangor also allocated RM30mil to its Education Support Programme (Program Sokongan Pendidikan) for schools that need help to provide basic education facilities.

School Children

Photograph: Daniel Lee

There are no equivalent figures that show the amount of allocation given to national-type schools by the federal government (Estimates of Federal Government Expenditure 2012). This is unusual since allocations to sports schools, integrity schools, vocational schools and so on are published. A healthier, more transparent publishing of such information would help the policy debate tremendously.

What is the role that state governments can play in promoting national unity vis-à-vis the national education system? Very little, since states do not oversee policy. However, the education blueprint proposes for an informal structure to encourage national schools and national-type schools to engage in greater co-curricular activities and community service, and to instil patriotism amongst students. The BN government could, by allowing state government representatives access to national schools in Pakatan-run states, do this programme a great favour. State governments, together with local councils and neighbourhood communities, would then organise activities in common geographical areas between national and vernacular schools.

To abolish vernacular schools altogether would be political suicide for either coalition at the moment. But in the long run, policymakers must sincerely consider which options are the most feasible in achieving national unity whilst embracing multiculturalism.

Posted in Education | Leave a comment

In What Shape, Democracy?

Posted on October 20, 2012 by Tricia

In What Shape, Democracy?

(A version of this was published in theSun on 19th October 2012).

Over the past few weeks, I have had the privilege of travelling to places like Bukit Mertajam, Kempas, and Parit Yaani in Peninsular Malaysia on the FreedomFilmFest 2012 roadshow, where my documentary on the late Teoh Beng Hock, “The Rights of The Dead”, has been screened to groups of all races and ages. The documentary analysed the case, the impact of his death on his family, and the system of government that caused the incidents that unfolded, following his death in 2009.

The discussion that follows such screenings usually takes on the theme of reform, whether through internal or external structures. Indeed, in my various other speaking engagements at conferences, there seems to be a consistent thread that runs throughout. Simply, participants generally acknowledge that the system – whether economic, social, institutional, judicial, educational, religious or otherwise – can certainly be improved by many degrees.

The point of dispute between attendees at such public events is usually: what is the best modus operandi through which improvements can be made? On one end of the spectrum lie those more comfortable working within bureaucracy, who believe that change is more likely to occur from the inside out. After all, if you are not the one holding the reins of power, what kind of reform can you realistically seek to achieve? By having close proximity to key decision-makers and policy-makers, they believe they can be the voice of change in the places that matter.

On the other end is the view that the system is rotten to the core, and there is a lack of political will to truly transform things so fundamentally. They therefore submit that the only way is to democratically elect a new set of leaders in place, and that a new government will correct the wrongs of past undoing. In this view, working within the system can sometimes co-opt one’s previously idealist views, which may change as a result to suit the system.

Then there is the growing voice of neutrality, with those insufficiently convinced by either side of the political divide, and as such are unwilling to throw in their lot with one party or the other – or, that, because the system is rotten, either side will not govern well. This third middle-ground and independent group may consist of individuals who prefer to work within the means of civil society and NGOs to agitate for change from the outside in.

It is true that if it is the system that needs changing, one must caution whichever political party in the seat of power that it is incumbent upon them to change the system and its inherent built-in failures, into one that ensures institutional independence – or if not, risk sliding down the same slippery slope of power that corrupts absolutely.

A book I read recently shed some light on the subject, namely “The Audacity to Think: An Invitation to Rethink Politics”, by Steven Sim. Although the author is a young politician himself – a DAP member and counsellor for the Seberang Perai City Council – his words are worth considering.

He rightly cites the trend that today, neutrality is seen as “superior to partisanship, as if it is greater than taking sides”, but goes on to rebut this stance by saying all of us speak and act from our own biases, whether we are aware of it or not. This is because of the respective environments we grew up in, the manner in which we were socalised into the world. Each of us has our individual prejudices and worldviews to begin with; to perceive we are an empty slate devoid of values is therefore an unrealistic premise.

I am in agreement with the author that this leads to the gross lack of discussion of values and worldviews, which should ultimately drive the discourse on politics in our country if we are to move forward. Specifically, “we must demand debates of ideas and ideologies in our public arena, not merely endless discussions on personalities.” Today, a large percentage of the Malaysian population continues to vote according to either the ethnicity or personality of the given candidate in question.

If we are to focus the discussion on political reform on ideas and ideologies, then the ideal is to vote based on policy lines. If, for instance, you believed that ‘A’ and not ‘B’ is the solution to, say, fair economic growth and distribution in Malaysia, the most logical is to therefore vote for the candidate who equally subcribes to ‘A’.

This is why, in the lead-up to the 13th General Election (speculated to take place within the next four to five months, and must be called for by June 2013), it is imperative for voting Malaysians to educate themselves on the policy stands taken by both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat on a range of issues, including that on education, healthcare, fiscal policy, public transport, and economic matters. Finding out what each side stands for on a particular subject, and then making a decision based on this, is the best way to mature and shape our democracy.

As for those who continue to take a neutral position, consider this. In my documentary, one interviewee puts it succinctly, that the Executive arm of government is extremely strong in our system today, practically controlling the Judiciary. It is for this reason that steps must be urgently taken to strengthen the independence of institutions. In the Teoh Beng Hock case, the Attorney General ultimately made the decision not to prosecute any of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officers named as responsible for his interrogation (as cited in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s report, 2011).

In the final analysis, the political side that agitates that changes are urgently needed to the system itself, toward greater institutional independence – which is the most needed today – is the one I would personally support.

Posted in Civil Society, General Politics, Media | Leave a comment

Models for state and city

Posted on October 13, 2012 by Tricia

Models for State and City

(This first appeared in Selangor Times, published on 12th October 2012).

As part of the Penang launch of my book, ‘States of Reform’, as well as the FreedomFilmFest screenings of my documentary, ‘The Rights of the Dead’ in the same state, I spent several days in Penang recently (a sister state of Selangor, in the sense that both are governed by the Pakatan Rakyat coalition as a result of the March 2008 elections). The trip was a personal exercise in analysing just how the Penang state government has done over the past almost five years in comparison with Selangor.

One question I have been commonly asked, from the Selangor perspective, is why the Penang state government seems to have done a better job than Selangor in selling itself over this last electoral term. Indeed, news of its now cleaner streets, more vibrant arts life, a dedication to preserving its heritage and culture, and a more flourishing tourism industry has spread to the Klang Valley. And without a doubt, comparisons would be made between the two as they represent the new states governed, whilst having common characteristics.

It is true that both states are similar in several ways, namely the fact that both are two of the most urbanised states in the country, as well as contributing significantly to the country’s economy through the existence of numerous industries including manufacturing and other business entities.

There are, however, differences that one must note when comparing the two states. First, the geographical size of both states: Penang’s area is 1,048 square kilometres whilst Selangor’s is 8,104 square kilometres. Penang’s population is estimated at 1.5 million, compared to Selangor’s at 5.4 million (the state with the largest population in Malaysia). Where Penang has two local councils, Selangor has 12 local and municipal councils combined. The ethnic breakdown differs, with Penang having 45.6% Chinese, 43.6% Bumiputera, 10.4% Indians and 0.4% others; and Selangor with 52.9% Malays, 27.8% Chinese, 13.3% Indians and 6% other ethnic groups.

Having established these figures, the spread of issues shared by both states are similar, especially with respect to the cities represented within (although managing them sometimes require different modus operandi given the differences in size and ethnic makeup). In Penang, the main cities and towns concerned would be Georgetown and Butterworth; in Selangor, in order of population size, these would be Subang Jaya, Klang, Ampang Jaya, Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya, Cheras, and Kajang.

And the issues of city living are many: public transportation, water services and sanitation, waste management, roads and traffic control, sustainable development, ensuring sufficient public parks and recreation, crime and security, and the list goes on. At a recent public talk entitled “Your KL? My KL?” I spoke at, organised by Genta Media during the Art for Grabs festival at the Central Market Annexe, a quick poll amongst the participants on city living concerns reflected existing frustrations with traffic jams and the cost of living.

Penang has done several things successfully, and these are several interesting models worth exploring.

My little amble along the streets of Georgetown’s Heritage Trail was a pleasant one. Because of the city’s status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a number of organisations have contributed to its renewal. In a sense, it possibly gave new life to existing bodies dedicated to the preservation of the state’s history, like the Penang Heritage Trust, an NGO that existed since 1986, and the Georgetown World Heritage Incorporated (which reports directly under the Chief Minister).

Another interesting experiment is Think City, a special project vehicle established under Khazanah Nasional specifically tasked with implementing a grants programme in Georgetown. It selects projects to contribute small grants to for the purposes of conservation, restoration and revitalisation works. Old shophouses and hotels are given an incentive to beautify the exterior of their previously shoddy buildings, whilst streets have signboards elaborating on the history of their names. This demonstrates the ability of a federal government agency to work closely with the local councils of the Pakatan-led state government, for the sake of bipartisan interests.

The formerly Gerakan-led think tank for Penang, the Socio-Economic & Environmental Research Institute (SERI) was also transformed when Pakatan took over the state. One of its first projects was to revamp the existing newsletter, the Pennag Economic Monthly, into a monthly magazine that would eventually be sold all the way in Singapore and Selangor. This eventually became the Penang Monthly.

The institute itself was also rejuvenated with new ideas and researchers, now renamed the Penang Institute, housed in a beautiful old bungalow and lovely grounds. The think tank is responsible for conducting numerous public fora on a range of topics including most recently on the Malaysian Education Blueprint and on decentralisation (at my book launch-cum-forum). It has also established itself by inviting world speakers such as Jeffrey Sachs, world-famous economist and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who is due to give a lecture on 20th October.

Selangor, given its many institutional and existing strengths, such as having a university under its helm, Universiti Selangor (Unisel), could also consider the possibility of establishing a think tank under it. The university could also perhaps initiate short courses, lecture series, elective subjects and public discussions on public policy, political philosophy and so on. It is important to build a generation of thinking young Malaysians already exposed to current political affairs and engage them in conversation on these matters. Such a think tank would also engage in public policy research and publications on behalf of the state.

Plans for urban regeneration and renewal in Petaling Jaya are already underway, and ensuring local communities and civil society are thoroughly involved in its process is extremely important. Building a community of individuals who participate in the development of their own areas would allow them to decide for themselves what sort of city of the future they desire. Multi-stakeholder engagement, although sometimes tiring, truly does work when properly done.

Pakatan-led states when collaborating would form the best possible model, adopting the best of each state’s examples, slowly laying the blueprint for other states to follow in the future – whether Pakatan or Barisan. This, perhaps, is an example of what the heads of states had in mind when discussing the ‘economic network’ of Pakatan states two years ago during the second Menteri Besar’s Summit held in Shah Alam. Indeed, this would go well to demonstrate to Malaysians that the coalition is determined to improve people’s lives, which is ultimately the chief reason for which governments are elected into power.

Posted in Public Administration, Selangor | Leave a comment

A Budget’s Responsibility

Posted on October 6, 2012 by Tricia

A Budget’s Responsibility

(A version of this was first published in theSun on 5th October 2012)

Over the past two weeks, several documents were unveiled for public scrutiny. Prime Minister Najib Razak tabled the 2013 Budget for debate in Parliament a week ago, and the Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim released the Pakatan Rakyat Shadow Budget 2013 two days earlier.

The budget debate in Parliament has been less than substantive, especially given the fact that no Cabinet ministers were in the chambers during Anwar’s response to the budget. One would expect the Prime Minister or a senior minister at least to have the sense of decorum to be present.

The budget is essentially the key financial document that indicates how much of national funds will be spent for the following year. Together with the Auditor General’s report – traditionally tabled at the same time as the budget but which has been delayed two weeks for the second time running – and the Economic Report, these three documents form the measure against which the public evaluates government performance.

For 2013, the federal government will spend RM251.6 billion, an increase of 2.3% from this year’s budget of RM246 billion (including the supplementary budget amount).

Fiscal Responsibility

One main challenge of a budget is to find the right balance between public spending and national savings. Although it is reported that we have accomplished a lower budget deficit of 4.7% of GDP in 2012, the country is running a budget deficit for the 16th consecutive year. More alarmingly, our public debt has grown to RM502.4 billion, 53.7% of GDP, which is the highest in our history and just below the statutory debt limit of 55%.

To exercise fiscal responsibility is to ensure revenue is more than sufficient to finance expenditure. But this in itself presents a conundrum. Because oil and gas income contributes more than one third of the federal government revenue, and these are non-renewable and unsustainable over the long term, alternative revenue streams ought to be solicited.

The generous 100%, 10-year tax holidays given to Tun Razak Exchange (TRX)-status companies and qualified companies in petroleum refinery activities would certainly not help to generate additional revenues.

Although not directly mentioned, Najib’s budget speech alludes to the introduction of the GST, where “the transition from income based taxation system to a more comprehensive and fair taxation system will eventually benefit the rakyat.” It is unclear as to when or how this will be executed, and more information would be welcome. It may not, however, be the best time to introduce a steep taxation scale given an unstable global economic outlook, which inevitably affects Malaysia.

On the note of transparency, the government has fallen into the practice of tabling exorbitant supplementary budgets during a separate parliamentary sitting. This means actual spending is always higher than the amount tabled during the budget speech each year, an unhealthy practice which should be done away with.

“People-Friendly”?

The term ‘people-friendly budget’ has been used almost annually, and this year has been no exception. Given that this is Najib’s final budget before the 13th General Election, there were certainly goodies for selected sectors. For instance, a 73.4% increase of development expenditure is allocated to ‘agriculture and rural development’. This comes with the knowledge that Barisan’s traditional supporters lie in the outskirts and smaller towns of Malaysia.

However, compare this with the significant reduction in development expenditure on ‘social services’, a fall of 18.5% compared with the year before. Of this, the government will spend RM6.49 billion worth of development expenditure on ‘education and training’ in 2013, 24.1% less than in 2012. Since the government is about to launch fresh programmes stated within the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025, one would have imagined an even higher increase of development expenditure on education in the coming year.

Much ado has also been made about the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia 2.0 (BR1M), the one-off RM250 cash handout to “single unmarried individuals aged 21 and above and earning not more than RM2,000 a month”. The government will spend RM3 billion to finance this populist gesture. (The first instalment was double this amount, of RM500).

Although slated as helping to increase disposable income, one-off payments are hardly helpful over the long term. It is also symptomatic of the failure of existing mechanisms within the economy to increase currently suppressed wages and purchasing power. These measures are akin to giving out little pills to treat a growing cancer, without addressing the root problem.

Structural Reform

Although the budget indicates government’s financial spending, it is not the only document that governs public services and the economy. The 10th Malaysia 5-Year Plan (2011-2015), and the Third Industrial Master Plan (2006-2020) are sometimes forgotten amidst the rush of a budget. It has to also be considered in light of other plans such as the National Transformation Plan, the fourth Outline Perspective Plan (2011-2020), the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) and Government Transformation Programme (GTP).

Against this context, it is disturbing to note that the budget speech does little to address the problem of structural economic problems, which this column has previously referred to. Here, the Pakatan budget provides some solutions, proposing the formation of an Anti-Trust Act and Unfair Public Contracts Act to break up monopolies and oligopolies, and dismantle cartels. These businesses have effectively stifled the growth of the private sector.

It is only through genuine competition that our economy will begin to once again blossom, opportunities given directly to honest, hardworking companies instead of through middle rent-seeking channels.

It is hoped that the federal government will urgently make the necessary changes to the economy’s structure. By addressing cronyism, corruption, wastage and leakage through the process of open tenders, transparent public procurement, and the breaking up unfair monopolies, this would allow for Malaysia’s economic competitiveness to improve, eventually increasing GDP, reducing government debt, and increasing personal incomes – all objectives of the budget that we look forward to achieving each year.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

GLCs Crowding Out Investment

Posted on September 22, 2012 by Tricia

GLCs Crowding Out Investment

(A version of this was first published in theSun on 21st September 2012).

Deep structural changes are urgently needed to improve the country’s competitiveness, chief of which is dealing with government-linked companies (GLCs) that are presently crowding out private investment. The World Economic Forum (WEF) in its Global Competitiveness Index 2012 ranked Malaysia in 25th place, falling four spots from its 21st position last year.

Based on its report, Malaysia performed well in its “efficient and competitive market for goods and services” and “supportive financial sector”, but these were not enough to climb up the index ladder. Despite efforts made by the government to boost economic competitiveness over the last year, countries like the UAE, New Zealand, Korea and Luxembourg worked harder, successfully overtaking us. Amongst the indicators Malaysia performed worse in were “wastefulness of government spending”, “government’s budget balance position” and “intensity of local competition”.

This is a disturbing result, since Prime Minister Najib Razak, together with his Pemandu team, have waxed lyrical about the ability of the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) to improve the country’s competitiveness standings, even attributing Malaysia’s sudden jump in 2011’s ranking to their good work.

This comes in the wake of an indicting economics paper published earlier this year by the Asian Development Bank, titled “Malaysia’s Investment Malaise: What Happened and Can It Be Fixed?” (Menon, Asian Development Bank, April 2012), from which this article quotes heavily.

This very excellently researched paper concludes that the twin problems causing our economy to be increasingly unattractive as an investment destination are: the ethnic-based affirmative action policies remnant of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the dominance of GLCs and government-linked investment companies (GLIs), both of which combined create great market distortions.

Private investment is needed in any local economy – it also acts as a good indicator of an economy’s attractiveness, not falsely propped up by government. In Malaysia, private investment used to flourish, accounting for more than 70% of total investment in the boom years (1993-1997). But since 1998, “private investment has been equal to or less than public investment” for 10 out of the 14 years. This means that government’s role is dominant, with more public investment being injected into the economy.

But this comes as no surprise, really. In fact, the government’s own New Economic Model (NEM) admits that “GLC presence has discouraged private investment” (NEM, 2010). Its policy recommendation for government to divest its shares even had a clear timeline, with 33 GLICs identified for divestment.

In the report, Najib Razak himself stated that the reduced direct participation of government in the economy would minimise crowding out the private sector. But in reality, the reverse is happening. Menon (ADB, 2012) cites numerous GLC acquisitions of private sector property developers that have taken place recently, which seemingly defies any government divestment strategy. One such example is Sime Darby’s 30% acquisition of Penang-based Eastern & Oriental Bhd in late 2011.

Of course, a rebuttal one might make is that yes, government is indeed selling off its stake in selected entities: take the reported proposal to sell off state-owned Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) operations to Malaysian Mining Corporation (MMC), for instance.

A closer look, however, would reveal the ownership of MMC under the wealthy Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhary, who already owns a significant portion of public goods and services including major ports, rice, sugar, transport and logistics, finance, energy and utilities, amongst others.

Is the Malaysian economy therefore dominated by government and a very small select group of individuals? The figures seem to speak for themselves. GLCs account for “approximately 36% and 54% respectively of the market capitalisation of Bursa Malaysia and the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index”. GLCs and GLICs are the major players in the economy.

‘The private sector is the engine of growth’ seems to be a mantra oft-repeated in many government plans. The dominance of government in numerous sectors seems to reflect otherwise. The NEM has given sound recommendations on steps necessary to open up key areas to create a more fair, transparent, healthy and competitive business environment, but these unfortunately have taken a backseat.

One must caution that in the process of privatising government-owned entities, this does not create a top-heavy income society either, by benefiting a handful of individuals. Real growth ought to take place with the development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which the Competition Act 2010 and corresponding Competition Commission try to encourage (but is constrained by the limits of the Act itself).

Given the amount of media space and public attention to the GTP, ETP, and the alphabet soup of corrective measures to Malaysia’s competitiveness, one would hope for things to change. In fact, there’s no denying that we have to. Unless we address the structure under which we – and our economy – operate, we may continue to see such lacklustre performance in the coming years.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Power of the arts

Posted on September 22, 2012 by Tricia

Power of the arts

Photograph: Gabija Grusaite

The arts are powerful tools of expression. The impact of a film or a song can be so significant that governments find it hard to stay away. Finding a balance between encouraging the arts but without politicising them is a difficult but necessary duty.
 

By Tricia Yeoh

(First published in Penang Monthly’s September 2012 issue).

As the heated controversies over the recent movie “Tanda Putera” which depicted the May 13, 1969 riots demonstrates (even before being publicly screened), art can have a tremendous impact on the national psyche. The movie was accused in online media for portraying a racially skewed version of what transpired and who the agitators were.

Although this particular film may not be the best example, throughout history, art has sought to present penetrating perspectives on life. Where policies and political campaigns fail to capture public imagination, art can assume roles that are more effective; it can be the conscience, the detractor, the sarcastic commentator or the teacher.

Malaysia has seen various official institutions sponsoring and promoting projects in this field, such as the National Culture and Arts Department, National Film Department of Malaysia and National Film Development Corporation of Malaysia, amongst others.

A total of RM233mil was allocated to the Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture in the 2012 Budget, which represents 0.1% of total government expenditure for the year. This is compared to, say, our neighbour down south, Singapore, whose budget allocated S$1,138mil to their Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, representing 0.02% of their budget. Although a smaller percentage of their budget, the total sum contributed to the arts is significantly higher for a much smaller population.

During the economic slowdown, there have been debates about how much the arts need to be supported by the state. In some countries in Europe, for example, artists and communities who had previously received government or institutional grants have suffered as a result of austerity measures. Ironically, although public funding of a certain theatre in Rome shrank by 25%, audiences have grown over the past year (Hooper, The Guardian, July 27, 2012).

In Malaysia, despite the many grants, there are many independent artists who do not receive funding and have to rely on other means.

So how involved should the state be in the sponsoring of the arts?

The state governments of both Penang and Selangor have portfolios that deal with the arts, but they are skewed towards culture and heritage. The Penang government allocated RM3.8mil for the preservation, exhibition and promotion of culture and heritage in its 2012 budget, whilst the Selangor government allocated RM500,000 to restore the Royal Selangor Theatre to become fully operational, which would include arts and theatre activities and dialogues. An additional RM2.8mil was allocated to develop the Sultan Alam Shah Museum. Penang, of course, has other arms such as the Penang Heritage Trust, which has done such admirable work.

 

Photograph: Penang Global Tourism

How much does the government spend on the arts? 

However, apart from cultural preservation, the state governments have also begun to invest in other forms of the arts. The flourishing of performance art in Penang, for example, has been widely talked about all the way down to the Klang Valley. The recent George Town Festival, which took place for a whole month, was a resounding success with acts of theatre, opera, dance, music and film. It offered locals and visitors a taste of local heritage with, for example, street performances in the older parts of the city. In this case, many different Penang bodies collaborated – official actors partnering with various private sector companies. Other events that have sparked interest include the George Town Literary Festival, also supported by the Penang state government through its Penang Global Tourism body – not to mention numerous other events peppered all throughout the year, such as the Penang Jazz Festival.

This level of artistic programming has unfortunately not reached Selangor, despite the latter being the more urban of the two states. One possibility is the thriving tourist industry of Penang. Secondly, quite independent of the state government, artists and performers already living and working within Selangor have their professions carved out for them. For example, independent performing arts centres such as the PJ Live Arts in Jaya One host equally creative acts such as the Malaysia Ukelele Group, comedy performances and so on. Urbanscapes, an annual music and arts event, will be held at Selangor’s Padang Astaka for the second consecutive time this year – whose 10th anniversary will feature the internationally celebrated band Sigur Ros and Malaysian singer Yuna. In this sense, Selangor benefits from the energetic capital of Kuala Lumpur itself.

The last time the Selangor government sponsored something closely related to the arts was perhaps the Selangor Young Talent Awards 2011 (Setya), organised by Gen-S (Generasi Selangor, or the Selangor Youth Secretariat). Held for the second year running, the event recognised artists below the age of 35 under the four categories of creative writing, music, visual art and performing arts. Prior to that, the Selangor government was also the official sponsor of the annual Komas FreedomFilmFest in 2010.

Preservation of Malay culture is specially featured in Selangor, with the formation of Perbadanan Adat Melayu dan Warisan Negeri Selangor (Padat), the Selangor Malay Culture and State Heritage Body, which has as its objectives to gather historical information on Malay culture and Selangor heritage with the purpose of preserving and educating the public on the same. It is understood that a resource centre is to be established for this.

Photograph: Daniel Lee

State-sponsored arts have their place, but there are times this can also result in utter failure. In the lead-up to the country’s 55th Independence Day, the federal government’s commissioned logo and song accompanying its theme of “Janji Ditepati”, loosely translated as “Promises Kept”, received dismal response from the public. Although the significance of a design is very subjective, in this case there was hardly anything artistic or creative to be said about the logo. This sparked a debate on the extent to which it was commissioned on an open basis.

The relationship between the state and the arts is similar to the state’s role in business and civil society – to play a facilitating role but not actively dictate the rules of the game. Where governments can provide support and funding, artists and players themselves must be given the freedom to be creative and fully express themselves. The two negative examples of this year’s national day logo and the government-sponsored “Tanda Putera” are perfect case studies of a government providing the funds but producing output that is less than desirable. Pakatan state governments can take their cue from this, and learn from the mistakes made.

Posted in Media, Culture, Literature, Public Administration | Leave a comment