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

Lessons from Selangor show way forward

Posted on September 15, 2012 by Tricia

Lessons from Selangor show way forward

(This was first published in Selangor Times, on the 14th of September 2012).

It was an entertaining thought that my friend, Keith Leong, would have spent long hours in the very English Cambridge University writing his MPhil thesis on the Selangor experience under Pakatan Rakyat. Working with the Selangor government at the time, it gave me a glimmer of hope that there were others far away, not necessarily part of the system of politics and government, who were equally interested in and rooting for these new developments taking place in Malaysia.

Indeed, I am glad he has chosen to publish the thesis into a book – the importance of documenting such significant changes in the socio-political landscape cannot be underscored. It was also an honour for me to have had the book I edited on Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) in Selangor used as one of his references.

Leong centres his book on an argument by academic Jesudason, who wrote in 1996 about the difficulty faced, and almost impossibility, that any opposition party would succeed in Malaysia. Elaborating upon this argument, Leong then uses numerous examples explaining why he disagrees with Jesudason, drawing from the Selangor experience being governed by the Pakatan coalition. Finally, he mentions several challenges ahead of Pakatan.

According to Leong, Jesudason’s core argument was that Malaysia is a syncretic state, which can be defined as “a product of a particular historical-structural configuration that has allowed the power holders to combine a broad array of economic, ideological, and coercive elements in managing the society, including limiting the effectiveness of the opposition as a democratizing force.” (Jesudason 1996:129). Based on this, the Barisan Nasional (Barisan) model of having each ethnicity represented by each party would have been extremely difficult to counter.

In the past at least, this was true. The Barisan style of government would be able to “straddle (the) competing interests” of different ethnic and cultural community’s needs. Quite cleverly, for example, each party would cater to the needs of their respective constituents, sometimes even making wildly differing statements depending on the audience and occasion. For example, Leong cites how they might use coercion (state instruments such as the Internal Security Act) against groups or co-opting (political, business, ethno-religious) groups to prevent any coalitions from forming against them.

However, the Pakatan coalition seems to have – at least for the last five years – overcome this problem. Important to note is that, as Leong states, the three individual parties (the DAP, PAS and PKR) spent the years before that, between 2004 and 2007, regrouping and “attempting to address both their internal weaknesses as well as obstacles to cooperating with each other”. As Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid likes to quip in his speeches, where in the past the DAP and PAS would hardly be expected to sit at the same table, now they were willing to negotiate. Today, they are working together on policies, and programmes in government.

Further, the PKR successfully attracted party leaders and candidates from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the business community, thereby fielding more “credible, diverse candidates”. This would in a sense also broaden the support from a wider range of people, on top of those already involved in direct politics.

Another major factor in Pakatan having overcome this problem was to win over unoccupied intellectual and policy space, for instance speaking against the New Economic Policy (NEP) as ethnic-based affirmative action. It was indeed “previously considered unthinkable for a Malay political leader” to do so. This move would solidify PKR’s position as being a reformative party, central to straddling the sometimes opposing positions of either DAP or PAS.

In fact, taking this approach would become the key modus operandi. Instead of the Barisan communal model, Pakatan came together based on common principles of “justice, good governance, human rights, accountability, transparency”, which transcended race or religion. In a sense, as Leong states, Pakatan has now created a “syncretism” of its own, to challenge Barisan’s approach altogether.

Of course, this has not always been easy to handle. Naturally, because of the parties’ individual roots (PAS being an Islamic party, DAP traditionally a Chinese party despite its multiracial philosophy), there would be conflicts. Leong mentions three such examples, namely sectarian issues (where race would still rear its ugly head, for example at the cow-head protest, or the UITM incident), inter-party conflict (where PAS would disagree with DAP on the sale of alcohol), and intra-party conflict (defections and factions within parties).

Any coalition attempting to straddle the issues of Malaysia would come face to face with this. And in a way, this is very much the reality of our intricate and complex society. Much better to thrash things out, and emerge with a solution commonly agreed upon by all parties, than to sweep things under the carpet. As such, despite a “huge temptation to retreat into their own familiar space” as pointed out by Leong, Pakatan has instead reaffirmed and not detracted “from its commitment to multiracialism”, which is very encouraging.

In the lead-up to the ever-nearing 13th General Election, one may wonder what stance the parties take. In recent years, they have affirmed their conviction to common policy announcements, beginning with the Common Policy Framework, followed by the Buku Jingga (Orange Book), and the Pakatan Alternative Budget 2012.

Leong predicts that it is likely that they “will maintain their pluralist stand” – and I hope this will certainly be the case. Pakatan must realise by now that these pluralist negotiations are imperative, and necessary for its own survival. The criticism of some that this newfound pluralist face of PAS, for example, as “convenient masks by which to gain power”, must be silenced, an effort that Pakatan parties will have to prove. The Chinese, for example, voting for PAS is a start in cross-ethnic voting.

Does Leong successfully disprove Jesudason’s notion that the Malaysian “syncretic state” cannot be managed by any other than the Barisan coalition? In one sense, the Pakatan example over the past electoral team has shown that with the right amount of sheer political will and some strategic compromise, the answer is yes. Of course there will always be conflicts occurring – and this is natural in any dynamic society, especially that in our very layered and complex Malaysia.

Leong perhaps best sums it up by saying that even if Pakatan were to lose Selangor and perform dismally in the Federal Government elections, Pakatan has demonstrated the “plausibility of multiracial opposition to the ruling regime.”

This was an enjoyable read of a short 91-page book. Perhaps where Leong could have expanded upon would be delving into the reasons for which Malaysian society may be more receptive to a pluralist approach at present as opposed to its traditional communal one in the past, since the success of Pakatan could also be accounted for by demographic and sociological changes. Other external factors could have contributed to this sudden shift in receptiveness – social media, the Internet, civil society, a larger youth voting base, and urbanisation (the latter of which Leong does mention). In conclusion, it is my personal hope that all he says is true – that indeed, this marks the end of our dependence on a politics defined along communal ethno-religious lines.

Posted in Public Administration, Selangor, The Cause | Leave a comment

In Search of National Identity

Posted on September 8, 2012 by Tricia

In Search of National Identity

(A version of this was first published in theSun on 7th September 2012).

It has become somewhat of an annual affair in August and September that Malaysians obsess about our national identity. Although laughable at times, this also speaks volumes about our inability to grasp at what is truly our national narrative.

Finding this common idea that binds us together as Malaysians has confounded even the most brilliant of academics. Adding to this already complex issue, this year over Independence Day the government had to deal with its poorly designed logo, negative response to its ‘Janji Detepati’ theme (said to be politically motivated), and its accompanying song (which has garnered 38,548 dislikes on the YouTube channel to date).

Driving around Kuala Lumpur last month, one would have noticed the visibly few cars flying the Malaysian flag to commemorate our Independence Day this year. Despite my inclinations against the need for national paraphernalia, I do admit such symbols are helpful to define a part of – but not all of – a citizen’s sense of loyalty. But the question then becomes: What is the measure of patriotism?

A study by a local university in 2007 measured patriotism in Malaysia based on several factors, amongst others the person’s ability to converse in Malay, whether the person was born in Malaysia, and whether the person would choose to continue living in Malaysia. My then colleague who happened to be born in London, not particularly fluent in Malay, and willing to move to any country that promised better job opportunities, was adamant that these factors made her no less Malaysian.

Finding this one narrative continues to be a struggle. Prime Minister Najib Razak attempted to encapsulate this with his “1Malaysia” slogan, which has been overshadowed by his party’s political play. In fact, a Malaysian Political Values Survey by Merdeka Centre in early 2010 found that 46% of those surveyed considered the “1Malaysia” concept a political agenda to win non-Malay votes.

But perhaps we have been so used to textbook responses of what unites us that we have stopped to think outside the box. Respondents in the same survey stated that the values that unite are “democratic participation, economic security, national integrity and affirmative action” (Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, 2010). Perhaps there are alternative markers for what instills a sense of pride in our nation.

Two young men are being investigated by the police under the Sedition Act for flying a “Sang Saka Malaya” flag during the National Day celebration at Dataran Merdeka. In a blog entry, their explanation is this was the exact red-and-white flag used by the Malay Nationalist Party (MNP), and since the MNP stood for independence against British colonialism, they felt it was appropriate to fly the flag alongside the official Malaysian flag. (It is believed that a separate party altogether was responsible for pamphlets urging for the national flag to be changed.)

This is an interesting development, where young Malaysians are seeking out alternative narratives to our collective history. Where government textbooks taught me of the evils of communism, for example, other sources also state they were genuinely nationalistic in nature. Fahmi Reza, director of the documentary “10 Years Before Merdeka”, in his research has also uncovered valuable bits of Malaysian history. For example, the fact that the British military had a continued presence in Malaysia up to 1971, despite the fact that we had gained independence from the British more than ten years earlier in 1957.

Another example is our tendency to lump ourselves into broad generic categories of Malays, Chinese and Indians, when in fact our communities have originated from a multitude of ethnicities, including the Bugis, Javanese, Achehnese, Batak, Burmese, Hokkien, Cantonese and so on. In fact, such divisions and segregations were introduced as a result of European perceptions of ‘race’ (Charles Hirschman, 1986).

Malaysia has a rich history, but only if we are willing to dig up these little-known nuggets and learn about them with open minds and hearts. It may not be possible to identify this singular grand narrative that defines the Malaysian spirit, but that is perfectly alright. There may not be that one thing that binds us all, but it is precisely our varied past and heritage that makes us unique.

It is time that we seek out a narrative that allows us to embrace a Malaysia that is inclusive, plural and diverse, and one that is true and fair to our past. We should be comfortable with celebrating our differences, whilst at the same time acknowledging we are equal Malaysian citizens alike. A belated Selamat Hari Merdeka!

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, General Politics, Reflections | Leave a comment

A Matter of Sacrifice

Posted on August 25, 2012 by Tricia

A Matter of Sacrifice

(A version of this was published in theSun on 24th August 2012).

I started fasting alongside my Muslim friends in 2009, making this year the fourth time I observed the full Ramadhan month. Many friends ask why I follow the fast so strictly, right to the minute. I do it for several reasons: health, discipline, camaraderie. But perhaps more importantly, fasting involves a tremendous amount of sacrifice. It is an intentional giving up of something, and in the process, something beneficial emerges.

The Raya open house conversations I had the privilege of attending were interwoven with, inescapably, those of politicians’ various antics, including the hudud law accusation being thrown by MCA towards Pakatan Rakyat and the latest Facebook posting whose account is allegedly managed by Umno Youth. The poster alluded to the fact that Pakatan Rakyat intends to make Christianity the official religion of the federation of Malaysia.

It is most frustrating that race and religion continue to dominate public space. Perhaps it is only when the collective ‘we’ of Malaysians stop lending credence to what is basically the politics of fear and insecurity that we can move on. Until then, we are compelled to discuss it.

On these issues, there exist completely polar opposite sides in which different groups fall. This forms an impasse between conservatives on one end of the spectrum, and liberals on the other. What is moral truth to one greatly differs from that of the other. Arguments made by one side are often dismissed by the other, making it problematic for any real discourse to take place.

Race and religion obviously have a tremendous influence on the discussion around public policy as well. But in the long run, due to market and demographic changes, it is likely that certain shifts will invariably take place. There is a danger that this may be seen as a giving up of certain ethnic communities’ needs and wants, but in reality these changes would take place precisely because they are for the common good of all communities – and these decisions would likely be made organically over time, and done so together.

A perfect example is the doing away with race-based affirmative action policy, which Malays and other Bumiputera are presently resistant to because of the insecurity that they are unlikely to succeed in the absence of such support. This goes for the various policies present, whether in the form of scholarship awards, housing loans, education requirements, government procurement conditions, and so on. When the time comes, Malaysians will compete on merit, and welfare policies distributed by need to benefit all alike.

Another example is the issue of National-type primary schools in Chinese and Tamil, which are currently mostly funded by the government. This has been a bone of contention where some feel such schools contribute to polarisation and would prefer a uniform national school system. On the other hand, others believe that having such schools opens up options for parents who can make the decision for themselves as to where to send their children.

The real issue is whether these schools would be able to survive without government funding, if this situation so arises. Again, because of market demand, these communities would most likely respond naturally. Private community schools – whether Chinese, Tamil, international or Islamic-based – would possibly be a scenario of the future, existing alongside public schools. Under such circumstances, the government’s role would likely be as regulator.

One interesting case study of responding to market demand is that of the restaurant Coliseum, whose non-Malay restaurant owner made the decision to cater to the growing Muslim population by going halal in 2004. This is just one example of how non-Malay businesspeople are responding naturally to demographic changes without government regulation.

Another possibility is that the giving up of certain lifestyle practices may ironically be something that communities of different ethnic backgrounds actually appreciate. One such example is gambling.

However, what is discussed here is obviously an extremely tricky subject, which will require greater elaboration and development than what this column length permits, but it hopefully provides some food for thought. When the time comes in the future that certain communities feel their practices gradually changing, we must guard against the emotion that we are forced to sacrifice against our will.

On the contrary, such shifts are likely to take place because these particular outcomes would work for the better of us all together, and would be a natural occurrence.

In this season of giving, we could perhaps aspire to think less of our personal needs and demands – and more of what works for the collective good. If in the process of fasting I learnt anything, it is that standing in another person’s shoes is sometimes the best vantage point from which to observe our complex society and its needs.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, Reflections | Leave a comment