A tale of two water supply systems

Posted on June 28, 2012 by Tricia

A tale of two water supply systems

The Teluk Bahang Dam in Penang.
Photograph: Daniel Lim

By Tricia Yeoh 

(First published in Penang Monthly in the June 2012 issue).

In the days before the world’s governments went mad about privatisation, supplying utilities such as water or electricity was the main raison d’être for government and for government taxation. Those simple days are gone, and especially in Selangor, people certainly wish they would come back. But there is no way back.

The issue of water has re-emerged in the state of Selangor. Peter Chin, Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water, recently issued a statement saying his hands are tied and there is nothing the federal government can do to expedite the restructuring of the water industry in Selangor, which has reached a stalemate after more than three years of negotiations. This crisis has in the past been contrasted to the Penang state government’s successful water deal. Prime Minister Najib Razak had at the time called on other Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) state governments to follow Penang’s example.

It is worth examining the two states’ water industries when making such a comparison. Suffice to say at the outset that both states are very different in their respective water industries’ formation and current situation. Making generalised comparisons therefore makes little sense.

In the Penang water deal, the government transferred RM655.2mil worth of water-related assets (or 50% of the total) to Pengurusan Aset Air Bhd (Paab) in exchange for a restructuring of the state’s outstanding loans into a grant. Under the arrangement, the assets would be leased back to the state for 45 years for an annual fee of RM14.56mil. The Penang government would retain control over any future revision in water tariffs in the state, whilst the state would be given a further grant of RM1.2bil for the expansion project of the Mengkuang Dam. All in all, the arrangement seemed to benefit the Penang government and there would have been no reason to disagree.

Now, the Penang water industry, even before the restructuring took place, was already in the hands of a very capable corporatised body, the Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang (PBAPP). Note that this one body was – and still is – operating the industry in a holistic manner, conceptualising the entire water chain from upstream to downstream; from treating raw water all the way to distributing water to consumers. This is a key point to note. One particular indicator of its achievements is its having been able to maintain non-revenue water (NRW) rates at one of the lowest in the country, as low as 16% at one point.

The water restructuring deal was easier to manage and negotiate, since there was only, after all, one body to hold discussions with. The Selangor situation was a completely different kettle of fish, as the following paragraphs serve to tell.

The Selangor water services were originally run by Jabatan Bekalan Air Selangor (JBAS). This changed when the treatment portion of water was privatised to three companies: Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd (Puncak Niaga), Syarikat Pengeluar Air Sungai Selangor Sdn Bhd (Splash) and Konsortium Abass Sdn Bhd (Abass). The loss-making arm of water distribution was corporatised into Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor (Puas). But because it continued to make tremendous losses, it was privatised into Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas) in 2005 to ensure a sustainable water industry.

In 2009, when the water restructuring exercise began, the Selangor water industry was operated by four separate private concession holders. This was a very fractured situation to begin with, and consolidating the four companies was an uphill task to say the least.

The restructuring in Selangor began with the same intention as that in Penang, namely for the water-related state assets to be transferred to Paab and leased back to the entity that would operate these assets at a reasonably low rate. This new entity was initially planned to be a state government-run body, operating water as a complete service from treatment to distribution, exactly in the way PBABB manages water in Penang.

 

Photograph: Kwong Wah Yit Poh

What is important to note is that Selangor had to undergo the first step of buying over the four companies, and then form a holistic state-run entity (either entirely state-owned or corporatised), for it to even arrive at the status PBABB was at prior to the latter’s restructuring. And it has struggled over the past three years and more to do just that. 

In fact, there have been multiple offers made by the Selangor government (first, jointly with the federal government and then independently thereafter) to buy over the assets and equity of the four concession companies (Puncak Niaga, Abass, Splash and Syabas) but to little avail. Half of them claimed the offers were not lucrative enough.

Although it is true that such private contracts should typically not be reneged upon (their concessions last up to 25 or 30 years) – where one argument was that terminating contracts would reflect poorly on the rule of law in the country and recognition of all other private contracts – this instance should be considered an exception. First, the exercise was started by the federal government’s enactment of the Water Services Industry Act 2006 (WSIA) in the very first place, after the then-Minister of Water Lim Keng Yaik recognised the gross inefficiencies of the privatised arrangement.

Second, the concession agreement signed with Syabas was poorly designed, to the detriment of consumer interests, where tariff rates were allowed to be increased by up to 37% in 2009, a further 25% in 2012, 20% in 2015, 10% in 2018 and five per cent every three years until 2030. During the many negotiations, one concession holder, Splash, even counter-offered a deal to take over the entire industry and claimed to be able to sustain the industry and still reduce water tariffs by five per cent immediately.

Finally, the WSIA is an extremely powerful piece of legislation which does allow for the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water to make certain policy decisions he deems appropriate and in the national interest. There are occasions in which policymakers with the authority to exercise their decisions must be called upon, and this is the time to do so – especially given the fact that any further delay causes increasing damage to the current situation.

Various quarters have in fact sidetracked the issue by accusing the Selangor government of politicising another water-related project altogether, namely the construction of the Langat 2 treatment plant, which is part of the Pahang-Selangor Raw Water Transfer Project.

It is important that the stakeholders fix their eyes on the top priority, which is to ensure the water industry restructuring is settled once and for all, and according to the original objectives of the Parliament-sanctioned WSIA.

Finally, to compare the water situation in Selangor and Penang is good insofar as seeing Penang’s PBABB as an ideal to copy. However, this has not been possible given that Selangor is still one huge step behind—the four private companies have not been able to agree on a fair price. It seems likely that all parties are merely waiting for the 13th General Election to take place, before they seriously act to solve the problems.

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

Decentralisation the way forward?

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Tricia

Decentralisation the way forward?

(First published in Selangor Times, on 15th June 2012).

At the launch of my book, “States of Reform: Governing Selangor and Penang” last Saturday, three esteemed panelists YB Liew Chin Tong (Member of Parliament, Bukit Bendera), YB Nik Nazmi (State assemblyman, Seri Setia) and Dr. Ooi Kee Beng (Deputy Director, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore) took on the increasingly popular but also controversial subject of decentralisation of government in Malaysia. The session was graciously moderated by Fuad Rahmat, Research Fellow at the Islamic Renaissance Front. It was an honour to have each of them present at the launch.

After the event, I asked friends, relatives and colleagues who attended how they felt about the forum’s discussion. Those present were either highly enthusiastic over the contents of the session, stating it was an honest reflection of the current state of politics in the country, whilst others felt speakers were too technical and spoke in jargon not easily understood. Perhaps it is true those within the public policy circle tend to use a language, accompanied with specific terms, that many are not familiar with.

This does not mean the issues themselves should not be spoken of, or discussed. On the converse, those with the advantage of access to information, and sufficient time to interpret and decipher such information, are armed with the responsibility of translating these messages to peers and colleagues.

Take decentralisation for example, which in the context of today’s government and politics, simply refers to the act of releasing control from the central government, and passing this on to the lower levels of government. There are three tiers of government in the country, namely the central, or federal government; state governments; and local government. In Malaysia, people are elected into government only within the first and second layers, whereas those in the third layer are appointed.

In a time when policy and political competition is at its peak, just prior to the 13th General Election, it is almost impossible to make comparisons between the two political coalitions the Barisan Nasional (Barisan) and Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan), precisely because of the nature of a centralised government in the country. In South Africa, for example, state governments have control over education policy within their respective states. This then allows citizens within that particular state to make comparisons with the previous state government on things that matter, and are real to them on a daily basis.

The recent move by the Higher Education Minister, for example, for initially attempting to withdraw all PTPTN (higher education student fund) loans from students at Universiti Selangor (Unisel), is a perfect example of how a highly centralised government currently makes decisions all on its own for students living, and studying in, a state university. Although they eventually backtracked, this example goes to show the magnitude of power concentrated in a single entity, which then governs all states across the country.

In an ideal world, decentralisation would therefore allow us as voters to pick and choose from a host of different political parties based on their accomplishments in their different state, or local governments. Just as how libertarians take pride in their utopian world where there is perfect choice in a free market system, likewise such market-based policies would allow for perfect competition amongst voters who are armed with perfect knowledge of the options available to them.

Or so in theory. Despite my personal advocacy for decentralisation, I recognise the challenges that would be faced were this system to be adopted without simultaneous measures being executed. This is what one of the panelists, Liew, referred to when his condition for decentralisation was that democratisation should take place concurrently.

Meaning that there ought to be full efforts made towards ensuring a free and fair society – a free and independent media, a strong civil society, an independent civil service, and the many other fundamental freedoms many have pushed for in the past. Without these institutions being put into place, it would be fairly difficult to ensure a level playing field despite a more equal distribution of powers between federal and state governments.

One of the interesting questions from the floor was to what extent should we push for decentralisation? Which are the areas which ought to be devolved from the central administration, and distributed to the lower tiers of government? One could possibly begin with the areas which were formerly of the states to begin with, such as water treatment and distribution, and solid waste management. The reason the federal govenrment has given for “centralising” these functions is that they can be better and more efficiently managed given financial support comes from them.

The real reason, however, in these two instances, is that these functions have been privatised under lucrative concessions to private companies. Thus, when centralisation of power takes place, it is only inevitable that there exists a centralisation of decision-making (and contract-selecting) as well. Although decentralisation may also incur a ‘decentralisation of corruption’, with the emergence of new local warlords, these problems might just be easier to solve than dealing with large corporations given mega-projects of contracts to handle, which is presently the case.

We are a long way indeed from anywhere near a decentralised government. But we were not always this centralised. And we are, on paper at least, a federalism. Other federated countries like Australia would be a good case study to learn from, in terms of financial and operational separation of functions. In all of this, however, it requires political will from both sides, where right now there is insufficient incentive from the incumbent Barisan coalition to want to give up anything, least of all power and control.

Tricia Yeoh is author of “States of Reform: Governing Selangor and Penang”. The book is available at bookstores nationwide, at RM28. 

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

Decentralise Crime Management

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Tricia

Decentralise Crime Management 

(A version of this first appeared in theSun on 15th June 2012).

A recent spate of events have left urban dwellers reeling and fearing for their safety and those of their loved ones. A woman was reported to have been kidnapped in her own car at the basement carpark at the Curve, a popular shopping mall. Not long after, two women were allegedly robbed of RM80,000 also in the same vicinity. And most recently, Bersih 2.0 committee member Wong Chin Huat was beaten up by five men whilst he was jogging, presumably unrelated to any political motive.

Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein has responded, saying that any perceived increase in the crime rate is only a matter of perception, and alluded to the fact that these highlighted cases were merely isolated incidents. Whilst it is true that one-off crime cases are usually sensationalised (because we shudder to think of what would happen to ourselves in such situations), no authority should make light of crime.

Nevertheless, judging from the Reducing Crime National Key Results Area Report 2011, Malaysia’s crime rates have fallen significantly. Based on the report, there has been a 39.7% drop in street crime and a 11.1% drop in index crime. In addition, Malaysia was ranked as the 4th safest country in the Asia Pacific region, and the most peaceful in Southeast Asia, by the Global Peace Index (GPI).

How exactly does the index crime work? Index crime refers to crimes that are reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation. ‘Sufficient regularity’ would be offences that occur commonly or regularly, where for example kidnapping through a distressing offence is not considered common and is therefore not factored into the index.

On the other hand, snatch theft although small in gravity is included. An occurrence is considered a crime when it is reported either by the victim, witness or on the initiative of the police upon discovery of such criminal activity. The index crime is divided into two categories, namely violent crime (murder, gang robbery, rape and so on), and property crime (housebreaking, theft, among other sub-categories). (Source: Crime and Safety Policy Factsheet, Centre for Public Policy Studies, 2008).

Although statistics is often a good indicator of national trends, the police also acknowledge the existence of dark figures, which represents unreported crime in the country. So when any official document is released, of course one has to take these figures with a pinch of salt, as there will always be a gap between reported and unreported crime.

The police force has borne the brunt of the criticism, with allegations that they are not doing enough to fight crime. The truth is that the police officers are also subject to the system under which they work. Think tank REFSA highlights that there are only 9,335 or 9% of the 106,079 police personnel in the Crime Investigations Department (CID), and 4,184 or 4% in the Narcotic and Special Task Force. In the meantime, 53,323 or 51% are located in the management and logistic units, with 5,102 in the special branch and 14,551 in the General Operations Force (formerly to combat communist insurgents in the jungle). (Source: REFSA Focus Paper, 2011).

At the launch of my book “States of Reform: Governing Selangor and Penang” last weekend, the discussion steered toward the issue of decentralisation. One idea that emerged was the possibility of decentralising security forces. The responsibility of combating crime is presently vested completely within the central police force, as well as more recently, RELA officers (People’s Volunteer Corps), which is also centrally controlled.

Local and community-level players could for example be given some liberty to ensure safety and security on the streets, and in other areas where the police are unable to cover due to insufficient personnel. However, when the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) attempted to form its own auxiliary police force, this was rejected by the federal government.

Although this may take some logistical co-ordination, the government must realise there can be mutual ground upon which both political sides can agree to work on together. Especially in instances of life and death, quite literally.

Many an e-mail has been circulated of late, informing wives, daughters, children, of what to do under circumstances of a potential rape, kidnapping or otherwise. Although it is sometimes useful to refer to reports and statistical graphs that show a glowing reduction in crime, it might be more effective to consider out-of-the-box ways of managing crime.

Allow state and local governments to tackle crime in local constituencies. And the private sector can chip in too, by adopting selected neighbourhoods, sponsoring areas and working with local councils to deploy additional security officers to patrol the area by day and night. The police has started a mydistress.net website for those with smart phones to alert the police in times of emergency, and this should be lauded. We ought to employ any innovative means at our disposal to ensure our own people feel safe – at home, when driving, and out on the move. This is one issue I believe is bipartisan enough for the federal government to consider relenting a little of its control over.

Posted in Crime, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Seeds of Reform

Posted on June 2, 2012 by Tricia

Seeds of Reform

(A version of this was published in theSun on 1st June 2012).

Politics creeps into our lives like a steady, stealthy creature, and before you know it, it envelops you. This is a matter of fact – it encompasses almost every aspect of daily living, since having decent public services, education, healthcare, a safe and clean environment, and an efficient public transportation system are dependent upon the policymakers at the different tiers of decision-making levels.

And so it is that all Malaysians concerned about their or their families’ livelihoods must inadvertently be interested in political development, if not necessarily playing an active or direct participatory role in it. To care about yourself and your loved ones means being alert as to the changes taking place in your surroundings.

Over the past four years, Malaysia has undergone significant changes, much of which one could possibly attribute to the general elections of 8th March 2008. In short, the event in which the Barisan Nasional lost two-thirds of its majority at the national Parliament, as well as ceding defeat to its Pakatan Rakyat opponents in five of the 13 states, was merely the catalyst which sprung about tremendous shifts in the way policies and politics run in this country.

Of course there were moments where politicians reacted violently to this sudden change in the air – one can count the number of incidents involving explicit videos or photos, playing dirty through all sorts of underhanded tactics, false accusations, innumerable court cases, civil suits, peaceful as well as ugly demonstrations, and the sum total of which probably reduced national productivity (in real terms) somewhat. The response of many Malaysians to these incidents is: “Too much politics these days.”

And yet, despite the frustration which many express, it has also been a period of great reflection. Oftentimes even the most basic of concepts, beliefs and ideas require some deconstruction before having them rebuilt again, and yet again. And to go back to square one in re-conceiving national identity, together with its hopes and fears, is not always a bad thing.

For example, the very idea of how government works has altered, where both sides of the political divide are now clamouring to ensure they obtain public participation as far as possible in their projects and programmes. Although not all of these may be effective for now, such attempts at reaching out to the public ought to be considered a direct effect of the political tsunami of 2008. If political competition is what is needed for society’s needs to be eventually met, then so be it – this is the marketplace of political ideas, thoughts, programmes and projects.

The future of the country rests with the ability to produce fresh, new ideas that are executed well. Easier said than done, one may imagine, but this is also true – that the new state governments under Pakatan Rakyat also offered an alternative way of running administrations. Malaysians were able to look at how the governments of Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan were running the show, to see a different way of doing things.

Selangor and Penang in particular have been interesting case studies to observe, since they are the two of the most urban states in the country, the combined economies of which contribute significantly to the country’s total GDP. In addition, Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan states accounted for 53 percent of all investment in Malaysia (domestic and foreign) in 2010.

The two states of Selangor and Penang introduced some good measures, such as the “No Plastic Bag Day Campaign”, Freedom of Information legislation, and have pushed for Local Government Elections, amongst others. It is curious to see if other state governments, or perhaps the federal government, might also follow suit in taking up such initiatives which are, ultimately, beneficial to the public.

Likewise, the federal government responded to the 2008 polls by (amongst others) setting up its special Pemandu (Performance Management and Delivery Unit) taskforce to tackle specific problems facing the country including public transport, corruption, crime and education. There is still much to be done, especially in terms of developing democracy, local empowerment, and of course electoral reforms (the topic of much debate today).

It may feel like things are messy, but this is how a democracy often works. We must be willing to speak about things that are not functioning in order to improve them. Opposition exists only because of the dissatisfaction that Malaysia has the potential to be a great country, and the deep desire for this to come to fruition.

It is my belief that the healthy competition between state governments, and between state and federal government (inter-coalition), must continue in order to present policy and governance alternatives to the voting public. Coupled with a growing public awareness, one hopes that a day will come where these seeds of reform will take full shape and people are conscious about the policies they want, vote for, and expect to obtain. Until then, we have to bear with petty and crass acts of bullying and buttocks alike.

Tricia Yeoh’s book, “States of Reform: Governing Selangor and Penang”, will be launched at 10am on Saturday, 9th June, at the Central Market Annexe. The launch will be officiated by the Selangor Menteri Besar, YAB Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

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

Political Waters

Posted on May 19, 2012 by Tricia

Water in Selangor is a pet subject, and fellow columnist Azman Ujang and I have had quite a number of opposing pieces in theSun. This one was published in theSun on 18th May 2012.

Political Waters

Fellow columnist at theSun, Azman Ujang, wrote earlier this week that the Selangor government is politicising water by not approving the Langat 2 treatment plant. He was referring to the Pahang-Selangor water transfer project which aims to transport water from Pahang to Selangor.

In his article, he says the pipeline would cost RM3.94 billion. In reality, the project involves more than just the pipeline. It also includes the construction of the Kelau Dam, and Langat 2 water treatment plant. When considered together, the project cost comes up to RM9 billion in total (17th August 2011, New Straits Times).

“Water Crisis”?

The main premise of his piece rests on the speculation of a “looming water crisis” in the state of Selangor, and he quotes Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as saying that “Selangor’s water reserves are at 2.4%, way below the ideal level of 20%.” (15th May 2012, theSun).

It is unclear where these figures are obtained from. In fact, a quick check at the Selangor Water Management Board’s website (www.luas.gov.my) which monitors water resources in the state shows that reservoir levels in March 2012 are actually more than sufficient and way above critical water levels in six of the seven dams located in Selangor, Klang and Langat. Charts also show healthy and steady rainfall rates in Selangor.

Second, the major area of water loss actually comes from “non-revenue water” (NRW) which refers to water lost as a result of pipe leakages and unbilled water. Under the concession agreement signed with private operator Syabas, they are obliged to fulfill their responsibility to reduce NRW in Selangor. However, the National Water Services Commission (SPAN) reports that Syabas is struggling to bring the NRW below the 30% target. This is the commitment that they signed up for when sealed the deal with the state government and federal government.

Syabas is reported to have sent data to the state government, showing that the state is facing critical water shortages. Since many of us are not privy to such information, it would be good for them to release the data publicly so independent water engineers and consultants could evaluate the situation as well.

Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer Project

The Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer Project was first proposed as a result of the National Water Resources Study 2000, commissioned by the Economic Planning Unit, and carried out by three infrastructure-related consultants. This Study seems to have grossly over-estimated future water demand in Selangor, which for example predicted consumption at 500 to 1224 LCD (litres per capita per day) in 2010 but in reality Selangor’s domestic water usage was only 235 LCD in 2009.

To decide on such a large-scale project based on inaccurate projections must surely have been an oversight.

Since the project’s inception, several water-related NGOs have called for the project to be reconsidered for a number of reasons. First, that other alternatives had not been exhausted when looking at ways of ensuring consumers in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur are not deprived of clean water. This includes implementing a water demand management strategy, that aims to manage and reduce consumers’ use of water rather than endlessly increasing its supply.

Other solutions that could have been relentlessly pursued are upgrading existing plants so they can operate at full design capacity, which if carried out efficiently could be ready before 2014, as well as investing in water conservation through rainwater harvesting and recycling of water.

Further, others have also pointed out that the Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer Project would cost many Orang Asli families their traditional livelihood, since they occupy lands that would be flooded by the Kelau Dam. There are also possible ecosystem implications resulting from this project’s massive inter-state construction, which must be explored.

The Real McCoy

It is ironic that some have called on parties to stop politicising the Langat 2 deal. In fact, the real issue has been conveniently waylaid, that is the restructuring of the water industry in Selangor. In short, the federal government’s intention was to consolidate the fragmented water industry in Selangor (there are currently 4 private operators). However, two out of the four rejected the state government’s offer to buy over their companies, claiming the offers were not high enough.

Before any further decision can be made on water-related developments in the state, it seems clear that the first hurdle must be passed. That is, to ensure the water industry’s current state of limbo is resolved quickly. This is something the federal government through its ministry and water commission can expedite, since its role as policymaker is to monitor the situation and push for efficient outcomes.

Together with the state government, some bi-partisan co-operation is needed to seek a solution for the water industry: not just on the Langat 2 treatment plant, just one fragment of the larger equation, which is to settle the water industry’s future in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya by returning to the original aims of the restructuring exercise.

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

Wading through the so-called “Water Crisis”

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Tricia

The BN government has been using the “water crisis” to spark fears in Selangor. This has been raised time and again, so it’s important to remember the real reasons behind its claim. This was first published in Selangor Times, in May 2012.

Wading through the so-called “Water Crisis”

Election fever is in the air, and the games have begun. Last month, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak stated that Selangor was heading towards a water crisis, after the state government blocked the building of the Langat 2 water treatment plant. He also said that this issue “should not have been politicised”, even though the state and federal governments are led by different parties. He also asked how Selangor could become a developed state if the people’s water supply was constantly disrupted.

There are several accusations and assumptions made in these statements which ought to be carefully considered by those of us living (and voting) in Selangor.

First, it is important to elaborate on the current situation of the state’s water industry which sets the context for the Prime Minister’s statements. The water operations in Selangor is fragmented into four different companies, that is three companies that treat raw water, and one company that takes this treated water and distributes it to the some 5 million consumers in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.

Along with other states, Selangor’s water industry was to have been restructured into a holistic entity which would streamline all parts of the operation into one body. This ensures the losses borne by water distribution (the more expensive, and less profitable, part of water operations) would be more than compensated for by water treatment (the less expensive, and hence more profitable, part of water operations).

This water restructuring has reached a stalemate after more than three years of negotiation between the Selangor state government, the water companies and the Federal government. The main issue is the unwillingness of some water companies to accept the offer of the state. These are companies alleged to be hostile to the Pakatan Rakyat as they were selected during the previous Barisan Nasional government’s time in power.

Running parallel to this increasingly hostile negotiation process (which eventually broke down) was the dispute over the Langat 2 water treatment plant approval. The previous Barisan Selangor government signed an agreement in which it would buy raw water from the Pahang government, which would include the construction of a massive pipeline between the two states, a dam, and a water treatment plant.

The current Selangor government has stated its position that it is unnecessary to construct these massive structures to transfer water from Pahang, for several reasons, namely that Selangor has sufficient water supply through its water resources (rainfall, lakes, rivers) as well as the fact that a better way is to ensure water is not wasted. Reducing non-revenue water (NRW), which is water that is lost through leaked pipes, or stolen, would also make up additional water resources for the state’s consumers. Finally, conserving water through means such as rainfall harvesting and recycling water would be more ideal. These are better solutions than indulging in mega-projects, beneficiaries of which would be, ultimately, construction companies engaged for the projects.

The Prime Minister’s second accusation is that such an issue should not be politicised, which is a little bit of a joke since practically everything has become political fodder these days. In the case of water, ideally both governments should have come to the negotiating table in the interest of consumers’ needs. This is one instance in which a bi-partisan stand and solution would have worked out well.

However, it is ironic that despite the state government’s intention of resolving the water restructuring stalemate by ensuring a holistic, and therefore more efficient, model is accomplished, the Federal government that initiated the process in the first place has remained silent on the issue.

Finally, water disruption is simply a reflection of poor water services. The water distribution company in Selangor, Syabas, is a case in point. Their side of the argument is this: that they have insufficient capital expenditure required to make pipe replacements and hence the quality of water – and water services – is deteriorating.

This really just emphasises the point that water privatisation in Selangor has not been successful. If a private entity that was given a long-term concession to carry out water operations, and granted substantial loans and grants, is unable to deliver its services well, then this marks failure for that private entity.

Privatisation if done efficiently, fairly and transparently, is justified. The Selangor case is not an example of such privatisation.

The solution to this messy situation is for the issue to be tackled head-on by both the Federal and state governments in seeking resolution. However, it is now increasingly unlikely that any headway will be gained, since all parties involved are most likely waiting for the General Elections itself, results of which would impact upon the decision on both water restructuring and the water treatment plant.

Whichever political coalition it is that eventually runs Selangor, it is hoped that they would choose wisely which approach to take on water resources. Yes, it is true that water disruption is not pleasant. It is true that it ought not to be politicised. However, it is important to examine what are the root causes for these problems in the first instance.

Finally, the worse crisis is one in which politically-connected private sector players continue to reap financial benefits at the expense of the consumers they are expected to serve.

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

Early election: Can Penang and Selangor get the ball rolling?

Posted on May 8, 2012 by Tricia

Early election: Can Penang and Selangor get the ball rolling?

Photograph: Kwong Wah Yit Poh

Rules surrounding elections in Malaysia are intricate. Now when some states are governed by parties opposed to the federal government, things get even more complicated–and exciting. Perhaps it is time to fix a universal voting day. 

(From Penang Monthly): Speculation is rife that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak will call for the 13th General Election this year. Rumours are aplenty on the actual date – and most consider either June or September to be the favourable months, after considering various factors, which include the school holidays, Malaysia’s multiple cultural festivals, the public listing of Felda Holdings, and so on.

The present parliament must be dissolved by April 28, 2013 and polls held by June 27 that year. The strongest reason for Najib to call for a relatively “early” election would be to validate his position as Prime Minister. In the past, Malaysian Prime Ministers with no mandate from their electorate would call for an election early in their premiership to achieve exactly that, which in this case has been difficult to execute, given public sentiment and economic conditions.

For Najib therefore, choosing a date will purely be about immediate strategic advantages.

In March, Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) leader Anwar Ibrahim said that the Pakatan state governments may not hold elections concurrently with the national polls should the Election Commission (EC) fail to implement meaningful electoral reforms (in response to the parliamentary select committee’s recommendations). Prior to this, Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim was quoted as saying that Selangor would not participate in the polls if it was called any time earlier than June 2012.

Legally speaking 
This bold statement is based on the assumption that the decision to dissolve a state’s legislative assembly and thereby call for an election lies entirely with the executive head of state in question, in the case of Penang and Selangor, the Chief Minister and the Menteri Besar respectively. However, is this really so, and what does the law say about it? Can these two Pakatan states choose not to go to the polls?

Both the Penang and Selangor State Constitutions have broadly similar provisions outlining the manner and authority through which their respective assemblies’ dissolution is to take place. In the case of Penang, it is the Yang Di-Pertua Negeri (YDPN) who is to dissolve the legislative assembly, whereas in Selangor this responsibility is placed with the Sultan of Selangor. Once the state assemblies are dissolved, both constitutions stipulate that a general election is to be held within 60 days from the date of the dissolution.

However, both the YDPN of Penang and the Sultan of Selangor are expected to act upon the consultation and advice of their state governments – the YDPN through consultation with the Chief Minister and the State Executive Council, and the Sultan with the advice of the State Executive Council – and such consultation is also required for the dissolution of the state assembly. In fact, following the consultation, it is also mandatory for the YDPN and the Sultan to thereafter act in accordance with such consultation.

The YDPN or Sultan therefore cannot choose to dissolve the state assembly on their own independent decision without consulting the state Chief Minister and Executive Council (in Penang) and the Executive Council (in Selangor). However, if the Chief Minister or Menteri Besar in Penang and Selangor respectively ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly members, and if he does not request for dissolution (to which the YDPN or Sultan would oblige), the YDPN or Sultan does have the authority to tender the resignation of the entire state executive council.

Another interesting aspect is that the YDPN or Sultan can choose to withhold consent to a request by the Chief Minister or Menteri Besar to dissolve the legislative assembly . This is where the YDPN’s and the Sultan’s personal discretion is maintained, and therefore not required to act on advice.

What this all means simply is that if the Penang and Selangor state governments do opt out of an early election with the rest of the country, they are theoretically allowed to do so, in accordance with their state constitutions. However, this has never been done before in these states. In the 1999 General Election, however, the states of Sabah and Sarawak did choose not to hold their state elections on the same day as the parliamentary elections.

Pakatan Rakyat representatives in the Selangor state assembly.
Photograph: roketkini.com

Political calculations
There are different arguments as to whether or not the Pakatan states should participate in the polls simultaneously should Najib call an early election. On the one hand, holding elections together would make more sense for several reasons.

First, it would be more cost efficient, since political parties would only have to spend on campaign materials that one time. Second, should state polls be held separately, it would be disadvantageous for the Pakatan states to confront Barisan Nasional (BN) under such circumstances where the latter can concentrate its financial resources on just those states.

On the other hand, it would be best to push for a maximum term of the full five years, where the Pakatan states can truly perform and demonstrate the effectiveness of their governments’ policies and programmes.

But if Najib were to call for early elections, and the Pakatan states choose not to participate, Najib would be in a fix. Winning back the states previously lost to Pakatan forms a large part of his campaign. He would also be forced to draw from political funds a second time round.

Other factors would come into play, since the results of the general election would invariably affect voter sentiments going into a full-term state election in Pakatan states, depending on whether the outcome leans to the BN’s or Pakatan’s advantage. But Najib would also have to consider the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) party election, which is due within months of the end of this parliamentary term, itself a long-drawn out exercise that would also require vast resources.

Predicting the general election date has become somewhat of a guessing game that exhausts tremendous time and energy – time that could be well spent on actual governing of the country. Perhaps it is time Malaysia considers walking in the footsteps of the UK, which has recently passed into law the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Under the Act, parliamentary elections are fixed, to be held every five years (this will begin from 2015). Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in his Parliamentary speech said that “by setting the date that parliament will dissolve, (the) Prime Minister is giving up the right to pick and choose the date of the next general election…” (BBC News Online, July 22, 2010). Similarly, Election Day in the US is set by law to take place on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Fixing the date of the elections would relieve Malaysians of unpredictability and speculation, and would provide some semblance of stability in what is a potentially unstable political environment. It would also remove the arbitrary manner in which the Prime Minister and EC currently decide on the election date. This would also ensure a level-playing field where all political parties, civil society and the public are able to plan and prepare their campaigns in advance.

Whether or not the Pakatan states choose to participate in the event of an early general election, it is clear that Malaysians will continue to be subject to intense political drama in the coming months. We can merely hope for some measure of wisdom and rationality amidst what will most likely be an election full of intrigue, debate and shadow-play.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, Selangor | Leave a comment

Protect against Agitators

Posted on May 5, 2012 by Tricia

Remembering Bersih 3.0 and all that happened, this was my article written following certain violent incidents that took place, not in small part due to the police. A version of this was published in theSun on 4th May 2012.

Protect against Agitators

It would be fairly difficult to avoid the subject that has invaded the news all of the past week, both mainstream and alternative. The incidents that took place in the city centre last Saturday during the Bersih 3.0 rally for free and fair elections have left Malaysians divided as to their responses to the peaceful event that unfortunately turned violent. The bigger question is what impact the rally has on public sentiment towards the ruling government, and the subsequent decision by the Prime Minister on when the 13th General Election will be called.

Before getting to the details of the event, remember that it was the last installation of the rally, Bersih 2.0 held last July, that was catalyst enough for the Prime Minister to set up the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reforms. Without sufficient pressure, this committee would never have been formed, and the report with recommendations to the Election Commission would not have been issued.

Having said that, let us recall the reasons for which the Bersih 3.0 rally was held. After the report submission, Bersih announced that these reforms were not good enough. Coupled with analytical reports from Dr. Ong Kian Ming about the significant numbers of suspicious voters on the electoral roll, it was decided that a protest was in order – to demonstrate that Bersih and its supporters were serious about their demands to implement these reforms before polls are called. Note, however, that the Election Commission had not yet responded to the PSC report and whether or not these recommendations would be taken up.

Bersih 3.0 Rally Day 

So, Bersih 3.0 was held to call for a free and fair election, as a peaceful sit-in. And things could have stayed that way, if only the application for the selected venue could have been approved accordingly. If permission for the said venue was granted, and plans made to facilitate easy access for the public to proceed there and back, the planned-for sit-in would have ended in all of two hours. The festival-like environment with yellow balloons, ribbons and balls – which were present at the start – would have been all there was to it.

But that’s not realpolitik, is it? A court order was obtained to render Dataran Merdeka off-limits to the public for four days, starting from the 28th April. Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan respected the law and committed not to traverse the barricade of barb wire set up all round the area. However, it is worth asking on what grounds the constitutional right to freedom of assembly –  as guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution – was denied. What would the police’s standard operating procedure be from hereon?

There is a range of reports and speculation as to the culprits behind the breaking of the barrier. At the time of writing, there exists insufficient evidence to prove that any one person or persons were responsible for this. It could have been a combination of factors. Suffice to say that the minute the boundary line was crossed, the police took that as a cue to react. And react they did.

Some issues therefore crop up, which need some serious probing and resolving. First, to what extent was the response of the police legitimate? Were its actions of firing teargas and water cannons all the way down to roads many kilometres away, and allegedly beating protestors, commensurate with the reported provocation by protestors? Second, related to the first, why did the police seemingly target the media, by arresting journalists and photographers, and taking away their cameras?

The third and most troubling issue is, who ought to claim responsibility over protestors who did behave like hooligans, throwing bottles of water and broken concrete slabs at the police? Now, this is a difficult question to answer given that anyone who wore a yellow t-shirt that fated Saturday would be pointed at by the government and accused of being a Bersih supporter. Easy enough, isn’t it? So, how then could Bersih (or any other protest organiser) protect itself from potential agent provocateurs in the future?

Lessons for the future

One simple but tedious solution is one that stems from the experience of Indonesian activists that organise rallies regularly on a range of various issues, namely to pre-register protestors weeks beforehand. Each locality, say Taman Tun, or Bukit Bintang, would have a leader to whom anyone wanting to attend a rally would need to submit their names and identity card numbers. Anyone who is later caught causing trouble or bringing weapons, and is not on the registered list, is not the responsibility of the rally organiser.

This would require some massive co-ordination and early preparation, but it is well worth it. If good organisation is not possible, then perhaps such a rally should not be organised at all.

Finally, political parties should play an insignificant role in rallies which are not theirs to begin with. This would allow for a cleaner and neater separation of causes, and champions behind those causes – thereby allowing some legitimacy and empowerment of those who claim neutrality of campaigns and movements.

Mainstream media has to date painted an ugly picture of the Bersih 3.0 rally, naming and shaming the protestors as violent and unruly. Sadly, this fails to capture the spirit of most of the people present that day. If public perception swings to the ruling coalition based on these accusations, and the Prime Minister makes the decision to call for an early election, Malaysians will witness how well a peaceful gathering-turned-chaotic was maneouvred to a certain side’s advantage. This was, after all, a violent ending that could well have been avoided from the very beginning.

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

That Religious Issue: Faith, Space and Justice

Posted on April 25, 2012 by Tricia

Religion just keeps coming back to haunt us. This time, it was Hasan Ali (yes, the former Selangor EXCO) who went on a warcry on supposed conversion of Muslims. This was published in Selangor Times in April 2012.

That Religious Issue: Faith, Space and Justice

Every now and then arises a hot potato issue that few are inclined to comment upon, namely that of religious sensitivities. This week former Selangor state executive councillor and head of new NGO JATI, Hasan Ali, revealed a video of purported proselytisation of Muslims by a group of Christians.

This piece will not comment on the veracity of the event, but on the steady complexity of dealing with a multiracial and multireligious society, a characteristic of Malaysia that will never change.

In recent years we have been witness to several alarming events, namely the church-burning incidents following the controversy of the use of the word “Allah” by East Malaysian Christians (whose native tongue is Malay), the raid of the DUMC church when officials from the Selangor religious department JAIS suspected that Muslims were also present, as well as the trampling upon a cow head (the cow is a holy and respected creature in the Hindu faith) in relation to a temple relocation dispute in Shah Alam.

Sharing Common Spaces

Asians are a religious lot. With the exception of your urbanite atheist and agnostic, religion and its manifestations in public life is pretty much here to stay in all of its various forms. And given the multiplicity of faiths in Malaysia, figuring out just how to live in a common public space has been the million dollar question.

Miroslaf Volf from the Yale Center of Faith and Culture writes about a ‘reciprocal relationship’, where we are ‘interested not only in what we think about ourselves and about others but also in what others think of themselves and us’. Rowan Williams, up to recently the Archbishop of Canterbury in Britain says similarly that ‘we have to see that we have a life in other people’s imaginations, quite beyond our control. (Sivin Kit, 2009).

One of the best ways to bridge the gap between ourselves and those around us is to seek to understand those different from us. The danger that accompanies living in a plural society is that each community begins to adopt an insular approach, one that is inward-looking and creates isolated silos. Living in Malaysia does not necessarily mean knowing, truly, the heart of your fellow neighbour Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/animist: what are his motivations, dreams, hopes, fears and needs?

Sharing a common space is more than about sharing a common physical space. If the lowest common denominator as Malaysians means being together and merely not breaking out into a brawl, then circumstances are sad indeed. We must aim to reach a stage where we share common ideals and goals. And this is entirely possible if one were to use a faith-based context.

Faith and Justice

It has been said that all religions preach justice. And certainly, social justice does feature prominently in the main faiths practised in our country. That said, what then of the points of contention that keep recurring? What happens when the interpretation of justice sought for each faith group conflicts with that of another faith group? When each community’s needs and demands rub against each other’s and cause friction – how is justice then achieved?

This is where some cool heads, rational minds, steady conversation, prolonged interaction and wisdom come into play. The whole point of building a network of people from different religions was to ensure these sorts of long-term relationships would develop. When emergencies or fringe cases take place, this group of concerned citizens of Malaysia would work closely with various other stakeholders – government, NGOs, community groups, faith groups respectively – to solve the problem in the best way possible.

If there is something to learn about ourselves, it is that the diversity is here to stay. And the sooner we recognise that, the sooner we will realise the importance of working with and reaching out to groups that we consider not worth our time.

This works both ways between Muslim and non-Muslim faith groups. The chasm might seem overwhelmingly wide between the two at times, but like it or not, this is Malaysia in its full glory. Conservative and liberal groups may not see eye to eye on almost every subject, but when circumstances demand resolution, some compromise (not theological compromise but that of personal pride, perhaps) may be necessary. Where Christians fear their minority rights being eroded, Muslims fear their own community being weakened and converted, for example. A recognition of this is needed at the first instance.

Some intellectuals continue to argue for a separation of religion and state, and whilst I may personally believe this is a solution theoretically, this is not a realistic outcome in the near future. In a country (and region) that is so deeply steeped in the history and tradition of religion, this will continue to be a prevailing theme.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, Religion, Selangor | Leave a comment

PTPTN and the lack of Petronas specifics

Posted on April 21, 2012 by Tricia

This was written just as PKR announced its plans to abolish the PTPTN fund. It got me thinking about our national funds. This was published in theSun on 20th April 2012.

PTPTN and the lack of Petronas specifics

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) raised brows last week when it announced that if Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) were to form government, it would abolish the national higher education fund (PTPTN). The PTPTN was formed in 1997 with the objective of providing education loans to students unable to afford fees in local higher education institutions. The larger argument of this proposal is to channel PTPTN funds more effectively to ensure more Malaysians can access education, itself a policy debate that surely must be taking place today.

Public focus, unfortunately, has somewhat shifted away from the issue of higher education itself, following Pakatan leader Anwar Ibrahim’s suggestion that outstanding PTPTN loans of an estimated RM43 billion could be written off with Petronas funds. Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Muhyiddin Yasin stated in response that by doing so, this would mean “squeezing Petronas dry” and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

This is certainly an interesting development, since it brings the discussion to a different level. Have Petronas funds been effectively used anyway, for all these years? How, indeed, is our government making use of the country’s oil and gas revenues? Are they being responsibly managed? What kind of governance and accountability is assured to us in the process of managing such a tremendous amount of wealth, contributed by our natural resources?

Overseeing our oil funds

Malaysia is classified as a resource-dependent nation, since about 40 percent of our national revenues comes from oil and gas. I have written previously about the dangers of oil dependency and the need for better resource management (column published on 25th November 2011). In this piece the focus will be upon oversight of the oil and gas sector in Malaysia, and whether there is a sufficient institutional framework to support transparency and accountability of the funds involved.

The oil and gas sector is governed by the Petroleum Development Act 1974, which concedes full rights and responsibility over oil and gas to Petronas, which is a fully government-owned corporation. According to the Act, Petronas only has to report directly to the Prime Minister, who assumes full control and direction of the corporation. There is therefore no other party legally responsible over the country’s oil and gas resources apart from Petronas’ Board of Directors and the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

However, for a body that deals with a great amount of public funds, it would make sense for Petronas’ detailed financial accounts and operational reports to be submitted and tabled to Parliament. This would allow for some legislative oversight. At present, funds from Petronas are channelled directly to the Treasury, under the Ministry of Finance, with no external or independent body that monitors such transfers.

Using funds responsibly

The National Trust Fund was formed in 1988 to ensure “optimum use of our depleting natural resource revenues, in order to provide a stable stream of income for future generations”. These reports at least are tabled to Parliament annually (although the latest report that can be obtained is from 2008). However, the same problem of oversight and management applies, where the Act that governs this fund gives almost unchallenged authority to the Minister of Finance over any decision related to its collection and usage of funds.

Ultimately, the question for us as Malaysians is this. If the government can argue that Petronas funds should not be squandered away to write off student loans, then it is implying that these funds are currently being used wisely and responsibly.

But because oil and gas funds are put into a consolidated federal government fund, it is actually impossible to earmark how petrol funds are specifically being used in our country. It is therefore difficult to determine just how responsibly we are handling profits coming from our oil and gas industry. Of course, one could evaluate more generally how government expenditure is being managed.

When it comes to the specifics of Petronas expenditure, at least one historical case reminds us of the potential damage such discretionary powers over large funds can have. Petronas bailed out Bank Bumiputera by paying Permodalan Nasional Berhad (BMF’s major shareholder) RM1 billion and took over BMF-related loans at a write-down value of RM1.25 billion (Gomez & Jomo, 1999). Today, Petronas holds 84 percent of Putrajaya Holdings, and also owns Prince Court Medical Centre, the latter of which suffered a net loss of RM451 million in its 2010 fiscal year (The Star, August 24 2011).

This is not to say that the same carelessness will repeat itself, nor that this government will not under such circumstances act with wisdom. But what is clear is that the institutional framework that currently governs our oil and gas sector is nowhere near robust enough, should Malaysians truly want to monitor whether these funds are truly being used effectively or not. Stronger parliamentary oversight, and transparent publishing of detailed operations and accounts are some examples of what we should hope to expect in a more accountable environment.

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