Civil society and Pakatan governments

Posted on March 8, 2012 by Tricia

When PR took over state governments in Selangor and other states, civil society had to re-evaluate. At the same time, civil society would have to consider what kind of distance it would want to maintain with politicians they personally knew before. This was first published in the Penang Monthly issue of March 2012.

Civil society and Pakatan governments

Civil society plays an essential role in ensuring that governments deliver on their public commitments and do so in a transparent and accountable manner. However, the relationship between NGOs, governments and opposition parties is always a complicated one.

Interestingly, many individuals from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) made the decision to join (then) opposition parties and contest in the 12th General Election. Following the Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) coalition’s win in several state governments, these former civil society representatives are today elected representatives serving at the parliamentary, state or local council level, or have been absorbed into the political or state government system as aides and in numerous other roles.

This raises several questions. First, how did civil society fill in the gap left behind after these individuals chose to leave activism or advocacy to move directly into political or government positions? Second, what change in the role of civil society has there been? One school of thought argues that civil society should maintain a very clear distance from government or politics, whilst another argues that some relationship is necessary in order for effective programmes of shared interest to be carried out.

The balance that needs to be struck between maintaining clear boundary lines and interacting with the appropriate people within, for example, the state governments of Penang and Selangor, is one that is explored in this piece, especially given a context in which civil society itself would already be well-acquainted with former activists in government. Elizabeth Wong, state assemblyperson of Bukit Lanjan in Selangor, is a good example of a former human rights activist (Suara Rakyat Malaysia or Suaram) turned politician, whose relationship with existing Klang Valley NGOs is still strong.

Civil society groups within the two states of Penang and Selangor have chosen to take similar but also varying paths to address this issue. In Penang, the Penang Forum which was formed just before March 8, 2008, but was only truly activated after the Pakatan takeover, has a clear raison d’etre. This coalition of “progressive public-interest” civil society groups aims to “promote participatory local democracy, sustainable planning and development, economic justice, affordable housing, environmental consciousness and heritage conservation.” The 15 groups listed on its website (www.penangforum.com) meet regularly, and have had an impressive track record over the past four years holding conferences and roundtable discussions.

Penang is historically known for its flourishing civil society, and it is also clear that under the new Pakatan state government, the groups took it upon themselves to continue this trend more concertedly. As such, four Penang Forums have been held, during which important state issues were raised, including that of sustainable development, good governance, environment and federalism. It is understood that specific working groups have been formed to date, such as on healthcare, environmental issues, arts, women, transport, heritage, labour, local government elections, persons with disabilities, youth, and poverty and security. The Penang Forum also meets with the Penang state government – no less than the Chief Minister himself – regularly to raise issues and air grouses.

In Selangor, a similar coalition of civil society groups was formed shortly after March 2008 for the same reason of ensuring that NGO concerns were maintained and consolidated. A Coalition for Good Governance (CGG) was formed, which consists of 49 civil society groups, also organised into different working groups on Freedom of Information (FOI), local government elections, ombudsman and so on. Another thematic focus has been citizenship education, where the CGG worked with resident associations, conducting community workshops to raise awareness on local participatory decision-making, and conducting and distributing short videos on citizens’ roles and rights. The CGG has a rotating secretariat, where formerly Empower helmed the position, before passing it on to Friends of Kota Damansara (FOKD). Pusat Komas will soon take over this responsibility.

It is interesting to note that the CGG approach differs slightly from that of the Penang Forum. In the former’s case, representatives of working groups would sit in as members of a Selangor government joint committee to push a certain agenda. For example, CGG members were part of the Selangor taskforce formed to draft the FOI Bill that would later be debated and passed into law. (The FOI Act has already been passed in Selangor, the first such piece of legislation in the country.) The CGG similarly requests for regular meetings with the Selangor state government and its Menteri Besar to discuss pressing matters.

One key issue that both the Penang Forum and the CGG in Selangor have raised consistently throughout the last four years is that of local government elections. The Selangor government commissioned the CGG to prepare a paper on the subject, particularly the legal and administrative options available to the state. Following this, the process was to allow the state government to work with the CGG on a work plan, carving out building blocks that would allow local elections – or at least pilot elections – to take place.

In fact, the subject of local government itself is quite central to the relationship between the state government and civil society – as can be seen in the appointment in both Pakatan states of civil society representatives as councillors. Their election manifesto, for example, has as one of its promises to allocate 30% of all local councillor seats to NGO candidates.

The Penang Forum has organised itself well enough to hold an election to determine one civil society representative each to serve in the two councils, the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) and Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP). These elected names are then submitted to the state government for consideration as councillors.

In Selangor, a controversy arose in 2010 when the NGO quota of 30% was filled with some candidates who were simultaneously party members or professionals close to the Pakatan political parties. This resulted in the formation of the Coalition of NGOs and Professional Appointed Councillors (Conpac), a loose body made up of all civil society and professional councillors within the 12 local councils in Selangor. It functions as a support network and as a co-ordination mechanism.

In reality, Conpac sees itself as a “power block” against the political blocks that civil society councillors experience coming from the political parties. Unlike Penang Forum’s more systematic way of nominating civil society representatives through a formal election, Conpac sources for reputable NGO members and the final names agreed upon are based on a consensus within its steering committee, which are thereafter similarly submitted to the Selangor government for consideration. A second sub-issue is that of development and the urban planning process, where civil society councillors (and NGOs in general) in both states consistently feel the need to mitigate property and commercial development which they feel have compromised on good quality of city living.

Just how much distance should civil society maintain from politicians and government? This issue was also broached at the national level, when Bersih 2.0 (an independent civil society-led movement) allowed Pakatan politicians to be present at its press conference. Is civil society compromised when it works too closely with the very governments they are to scrutinise?

A fine balance has to be struck here, and each circumstance would require its own examination and analysis. In order for real effective reforms to take place, working with governments is necessary. However, if after numerous attempts it becomes impossible to nurture such a relationship, or if civil society views that the particular government or political party is not genuine about its reforms, then such a relationship would have to be re-evaluated.

Finally, despite cultivating close interactions with governments or political parties able to institute change, civil society groups understand that their responsibility is to continuously keep governments on their toes. Transparency International Malaysia, for example, works closely with numerous government agencies both at the state and national level to implement its Integrity Pacts (IPs), but does not hesitate to release scathing public statements that criticise the federal government for corrupt practices. The same should be carried out in Pakatan states, where civil society should be empowered to do both: working to achieve a reform target, but at the same time maintain a healthy distance that allows it to have a critical and objective view of issues.

Posted in Civil Society, Selangor | Leave a comment

Dealing with the Rising Cost of Living

Posted on February 25, 2012 by Tricia

One of the issues people are most concerned with is that of the rising cost of living – this is something the politicians will have to consider in the upcoming elections. A version of this was published in theSun on 24th February 2012.

Dealing with Rising Cost of Living 

A recent report alarmingly ranked Kuala Lumpur as the 74th most expensive city in the world, compared to 86th last year. Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) “Worldwide Cost of Living 2012” report (the full version of which was only made available to the Malaysian Insider) showed that KL’s cost of living index rose from 67 in June 2009 to 83 this month, increasing by 23 percent. KL is “83 percent as expensive as New York” (The Malaysian Insider, 17 February 2012).

Of course, Malaysians would not need a report to believe that costs of living are on the rise. Living in the city especially means expenses on food and transport take a big cut off your monthly income. It comes as no surprise that the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation, increased by 3.2 percent in 2011 compared to the previous year. The groups that had the highest price rise were food and beverages (both alcoholic and non-alcoholic), transport, restaurants and hotels, and tobacco (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 18 January 2012).

Malaysia sailed through the 1980s and 1990s to enjoy a steady growth rate of more than 7 percent on average, yet with a relatively low inflation rate. But times have changed. Whilst we did achieve a 5.1 percent growth rate in 2011, inflation is steadily rising year-on-year. In the meantime, 60 percent of Malaysian households earn less than RM6000 monthly, with 80 percent of households earning an average income of RM2500.

Political Implications

Coupled with global economic uncertainty, the economic climate in Malaysia is certainly not too bright. And everyone knows that costs of living are high on the list of electoral issues. The dilemma that the federal government has to face this year is how long it can hold off calling an election amidst troubled times. The alternative is to wait till a full five-year term, but risk an even worse-performing economy.

Whichever the case, the government is well-aware that the increasing costs of living will inevitably affect voting outcomes. Public sentiment already flares whenever talk of subsidy removal, toll or tariff hikes surface. It is, after all, the bread and butter issues that people are ultimately concerned with.

Enter the flurry of financial schemes that have recently been announced by the federal government. There have been so many, coming one after the other like raining bullets, that one needs to pause to examine each carefully.

First, announced last year, was the New Civil Service Remuneration Scheme (SBPA), in which civil servants would now retire at the age of 60, and receive salary increments and bonus payments. This would presumably please (or placate) the 1.4 million civil servants – although it seems to have backfired after Cuepacs received numerous complaints from civil servants themselves about the unfairness of the scheme.

Then, there is the Skim Amanah Rakyat 1Malaysia (SARA 1Malaysia) scheme in which low-income Malaysians can take out a loan in order to invest in Amanah Saham 1Malaysia shares (which would supposedly pay out RM13,000 at the end of a 5-year lifespan if all dividends are re-invested).

Schemes Need Further Clarification

Finally, the 1Malaysia Housing Programme (PR1MA), where low-income Malaysians can apply for a housing loan of up to 105 percent to purchase affordable homes costing between RM150,000 and RM300,000. Although this is a positive move for first-time home buyers, it strikes one as odd that the first phase of the scheme prioritises applicants living or working in the federal administrative capital of Putrajaya.

The more controversial part of this housing scheme, which interestingly enough has had Members of Parliament on both sides of the political divide comment on, is that the scheme is being financed by Employee Provident Fund (EPF) money, as a loan to the government. The Federal Territories and Urban Well-being Minister announced that RM1.5 billion of EPF funds would be extended in loans to those who failed to secure commercial loans to purchase their houses, helping some “20,000 eligible tenants and interested buyers” (theSun, 30 January 2012).

Pakatan Rakyat MPs have cautioned that this puts EPF funds at risk, by increasing government debt through an external body. They claim that if these “guaranteed” loans default, the federal government will be directly exposed to the debt and thus trigger a debt-induced financial crisis. Khairy Jamaluddin, UMNO MP, also questions what risk management processes the government would institute before giving out the loans.

Yes, a large part of Malaysians are feeling the pinch of inflation. And yes, it is generally positive that the government is taking this seriously. All the schemes introduced so far, for example, have as their common objectives to assist the low-income group in managing the impact of the rising cost of living.

But these programmes must be extremely carefully crafted and designed, with the lowest risk possible. Let’s not forget that government funds equals the rakyat’s funds. In the rush to implement popular schemes that could boost electoral ratings, such important public policy must ensure not only short-term, but long-term benefits for the country as a whole.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

What the Debate says about the Chinese

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Tricia

Political debates are common these days, well.. with the exception of the Prime Minister Najib who has yet to agree to one with Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. In any case, this was the “Chinese debate” – which said a lot, or very little, about the Chinese. First published in Selangor Times in February 2012.

What the Debate says about the Chinese

The much hyped-up debate between Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek last weekend took place with as much drama as there was in the days leading up to it. Organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI), the debate themed as “Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System?” pitted the leaders of political parties DAP and MCA against each other, both considered the de-facto ‘Chinese’ parties within their respective coalitions, i.e. Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional.

There is some value in conducting political debates, and we have seen brilliant examples taking place during the American presidential campaigns, amongst others. Such debates are useful for voters to hear for themselves positions taken by election candidates on key subjects. It is also an opportunity for the public to come into close contact with political leaders, and raise pertinent questions from the floor. This interaction allows for some real face time between politicians and the electorate.

Having said that, this particular “Chinese” debate did not come anywhere close to having achieved such a standard, for several reasons – not to mention the crowd’s over-enthusiastic antics. First, a quality debate requires an extremely experienced moderator, not just a chairperson who introduces the speaker and calls for questions at the end (in the Malaysian-style forum we are so accustomed to today). The moderator ought to plan out his questions according to the most important issues of the day.

Much thought needs to go into crafting the questions succinctly and sharply enough to challenge the speaker, summarising his points and moving quickly on to his opponent. Topics covered in this case could have taken on a much broader scope: education, the economy, healthcare, social policy, crime and security, urban development, and numerous others. This perhaps may have had to do with the limiting subject provided, which brings me to my second point.

The fact that the entire conference was predicated upon the ‘future of the Chinese’, and that the debate was framed in racial terms, is an indictment on Malaysians. Or rather, on the inability to see the world in lenses other than that coloured by race. This is not a new problem – but that it is being perpetuated (and greatly encouraged by public response, no less) sends a signal that nothing much has really changed.

Reports of the debate stated that each side blamed the other for not being able to ‘stand up’ to their respective Malay-Muslim partner political parties. For example, MCA challenged DAP saying it would not be able to stop PAS from implementing its Islamic state agenda. The DAP leader also scorned at MCA for not being able to stand up to the corrupt ways of UMNO. To be fair, the Penang Chief Minister did articulate a host of policy successes of his state, to prove that Pakatan Rakyat’s policies would be viable.

Although there was therefore an attempt to speak on policy terms, it was the theme of the debate, couched in ethnic language, that defined the boundaries of what the speakers were then expected to touch on. One might argue that it is a fair concern of the Chinese community, that their various “rights” are under threat under the looming possibility of “Malay supremacy”, such as Chinese schools, Chinese culture, and so on.

But, let’s be clear. The future of Malaysia cannot continue to be built upon a foundation that is, put simply, divisive. Is this not the same reason for which the likes of another race-based organisation (read: Perkasa) is criticised? Can we not imagine a similar conference on the “Future of Malays: Preserving our Race” being organised? If the Chinese community considers the latter a racist movement, should it not look at itself squarely in the face when it, too, is thoroughly excited about a debate that is centred purely on its own future (and not on any other)?

Many have applauded this advent of a debating culture, which does bring out issues into the open. More such live televised debates would certainly keep politicians on their toes. But for now, what this debate says about the Chinese in Malaysia is that this community still views its concerns as separate and distinct from the rest. This is the unfortunate result of more than 50 years of playing the game of ethnic politics.

Shaping a debate along ‘Chinese’ terms today is reflective of a system that has not adapted to its changing environment. Where once the country may have needed such an arrangement, this only reasserts an old paradigm that is narrow, regressive and dismissive of the plurality of identities that has collectively gained political traction. Despite efforts to move toward an era where needs and demands are shared and justice dispensed regardless of race, we have shamefully little to show for it.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics | Leave a comment

The Help

Posted on February 11, 2012 by Tricia

On foreign workers, particularly domestic workers, in Malaysia. First published in theSun on 10th February 2012.

The Help

Hollywood movie “The Help” tells the story of a young white journalist in the early 1960s who writes a controversial book about black maids and the racism they are subjected to from their employers, based in pre-Civil Rights movement America. Whilst America has moved on, where more than 40 years later the President of the United States is black, Malaysia still has not come to terms with its own version of discrimination against, yes, “the help”.

Malaysians have had a fair share of accusations levelled against us by others who think so too. Indonesia enforced a two-year freeze on the despatch of domestic maids to Malaysia in June 2009 after several incidents of abuse by Malaysian employers came to light. A similar ban was imposed by the Cambodian government in October 2011 after reports of maid beatings and rapes surfaced.

Most recently, the Ministry of Human Resources announced that after a series of bilateral talks with Indonesian authorities, this longstanding moratorium would be lifted, with up to 8,000 Indonesians being brought into Malaysia by March of this year, and possibly 80,000 in total due to arrive in the coming months. Amongst the 11 protection points that Malaysia has assured are the workers’ rights to retain their own passports, have their wages transferred via an approved bank and a minimum wage of RM700 a month.

That these guarantees by the government were made only now tells us a few things. First, that these provisions are not currently provided for in our country. Would, for example, these new regulations apply across the board to maids from non-Indonesian countries such as Cambodia and Myanmar? Second, it is only when a drastic measure such as a maid freeze is imposed that the Malaysian authorities are forced to engage in high-level talks to consider policy changes that protect the welfare of hired help.

Middle-class suburban Malaysian families could very well deplore the inhumane abuse some maids are subject to, horrified at reports of, for example, hot irons being seared onto their skin, and so on. Such physical beatings are surely not what any well-thinking Malaysian would indulge in, it is thought – “Oh no, not us.”

But ask an average Malaysian household maid employer whether they would support these protection points and you would get a heated debate. Some would argue that maids when given a day off would come home with deadly diseases they would not want their children exposed to. Some might say they don’t know how to take care of their own passports (never mind that they flew hundreds of miles across the oceans independently to get here).

At the core of this issue is that of class, and how we view others – in this case, those perceived to be below us in terms of education levels, income, language abilities and social status. If we can subscribe to the principles within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises the inherent dignity and the equal, unalienable rights of all humans, then we ought also to confer the same to those we employ as helpers. To hold one’s own passport is surely a fundamental right.

To be fair, some of the fault lies with the system itself and the difficulty in regulating it. There exist more than 1,000 Indonesian maid agencies in Malaysia, which charge a certain fee to hire a maid, where costs include a whole range of administrative and logistical items. One migrant worker non-governmental organisation has claimed that this allows for hefty profits by the agents.

There is a danger therefore that maids are traded almost as if they were commodities, and by the time they arrive at the homes they are placed at, that their employers continue to treat them as such. There are exceptions of course, where maids are given due respect and treatment by the families they work with.

But for the thousands of domestic workers across Malaysia, any abuse being perpetrated is likely to go unreported. A number of solutions could be sought, such as a central agency through which all applications are processed instead of the numerous maid agencies that exist today. This body would also ensure standardisation and regulation in employers’ treatment of maids. Maids would also be given its contact information should any case of mistreatment arise. There is also the issue of their healthcare whilst physically in Malaysia.

Numerous young women leave their families and oftentimes, their own children, in search of jobs abroad. As full-time live-in maids, they are expected to perform duties according to the wishes of the families they are contracted to. As a result, there is a generation of Malaysian children who have been brought up by their foreign maids. This, whilst the women are separated from and unable to care for their own kin back home.

One might argue it was their choice to hunt out employment, and that they still get their monthly salaries. The reality is choice is limited by one’s surrounding circumstances, and every transaction especially those involving human beings, ought to be treated with care and respect. Malaysians – both private citizens and governing authorities – are equally responsible to ensure this is carried out.

One hopes that the new maid protection policies and guidelines will be adhered to, lest another freeze is announced, further affecting Malaysia’s relationship with its neighbours.

Posted in Human Rights, Outside Malaysia | Leave a comment

Malaysians! Know your governments

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Tricia

It’s important to know what the MP, ADUN, and local councillor roles and responsibilities are, or you end up getting them all confused. This is the problem when we don’t really know the structures, much less what our reps are supposed to do. This was first published in Penang Monthly in February 2012.

Malaysians! Know your governments

Standfirst: The complexity that is Malaysia not only made it necessary for the country to have a federal structure, it made its citizens rather confused about how the different levels of power overlap and how they contest with each other. Much inefficiency and other maladies can be reduced, if we only knew how our tiers of government relate to each other.

With 2012 being a possible election year, Malaysians will hear endless speculation about possible poll dates and outcomes. In making a decision on who to vote for, it is important for Malaysians to understand the different tiers of government and the roles and responsibilities of elected representatives at each layer.

Presently, they vote only for two out of the three tiers, namely their Members of Parliament (MPs) and state assemblypersons. Local councillors are appointed by the state government, although there has been an ongoing campaign to reintroduce local council elections, an issue which has been taken up by the Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan)-led states of Selangor and Penang.

Most recently, the Penang state government announced it would go ahead with local elections by issuing a gazette notification exempting local authorities in the state from Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1976. This would pave the way for local elections, although some opposition may come from federal authorities.

With such a mechanism in place, it is possible – depending on when the actual 13th General Elections take place – that Penang residents will actually have the opportunity of voting in their local councillors. Selangor has also made the commitment to conduct a pilot local election within its Petaling Jaya constituency, and the government is currently working with a local civil society coalition on its administrative details and schedule. Both states have taken positive steps toward empowering local participation.

But back to the issue of what jurisdiction each level of government has: an issue Malaysians tend to be quite ignorant of. Because of the confusion over which official is responsible for precisely which area, all problems with, for example, holes in roads, clogged drains and so on, tend to be brought to all three representatives: MPs, state assemblymen and local councillors. This defeats the purpose of having three tiers of government.

MPs are members of the federal legislative body, given the noble task of making and shaping laws for the country. Their role is to examine thoroughly laws and regulations that affect the nation, by representing the views and needs of their respective constituencies. Parliamentary Select Committees (PSC) are formed to discuss and debate in more detail policies and accompanying matters, for example the recent PSC on electoral reform that was formed under social pressure following the Bersih 2.0 rally in July 2011.

State assemblypersons play a similar role as that of MPs, but within the legislative body of their state governments. They, too, form and shape laws pertaining to their states. However, state legislation does not cover as much ground and jurisdiction as that at the federal level. This is due to increasing centralisation of power over the years. What states govern are issues pertaining to land, religion, natural resources, their own state budgets, local councils, and state and local roads, amongst other matters.

Finally, local councillors, although often viewed as the least prestigious of the three levels, are at times the most relevant in servicing the needs and demands of locals. This is because they preside over everyday affairs that affect the lives of people – rubbish collection, caring for roads, drains, lighting, regulations related to building and planning, and other neighbourhood concerns.

Penang has 13 MPs and 40 state assemblypersons. There are instances in which the MPs and state assemblypersons are not from the same political coalition, and at times these cause coordination difficulties. It is up to the professionalism and bi-partisanship of each of these representatives if things are to work out well for their constituents. The same is true in Selangor, which has 22 MPs and 56 state assemblypersons. Penang has two local councils, whereas Selangor has 12 local or municipal councils. A full council is made up of 24 councillors; so on average Penang would have 48 councillors whilst Selangor would have 288 councillors.

There are two major issues that state governments face when handling the varying roles of each level of representation. First is when there are opposing coalition parties handling the same geographical area. How exactly do state governments deal with the opposing sides, especially since there are two different development bodies? (I have written about this previously, concerning the case of the federal government having its own State Development Unit setup under the Prime Minister’s Department receiving separate funding, and operating in isolation from the administration or knowledge of the Pakatan-led state governments.)

The second major issue is that because of the three tiers of government, the states have to decide which level is to be responsible for newly emerging problems.

In addressing the first issue, both states have their respective systems of handling geographical servicing. In Penang, in areas in which the state assemblypersons are not from the Pakatan government coalition, either the local councillors or the members of the local village committees would be responsible for servicing local residents. The councillors and village committee members would decide amongst themselves which individual is responsible for which area. In Selangor, selected state assemblypersons are given additional allocated duties to also service constituencies of the areas where there are no Pakatan elected representatives. There are therefore “adopted areas” for the “ADUN Angkat” in a certain area. Local councillors and village committee members in Selangor, like in Penang, are also responsible for these areas.

The second issue is slightly trickier, in that the constituents themselves are less educated as to which complaint ought to be forwarded to which representative. Any problem is therefore channelled to all possible levels, in the belief that this will increase the chances of it being immediately solved.

The Selangor government allocates an annual amount of RM100,000 to its Selangor MPs from the Pakatan coalition. This is meant to assist their own constituents in a number of matters including welfare, events and other legitimate matters. This is not a practice of the Penang state government. The role of MPs within state matters is sometimes a sensitive matter, since theoretically at least, MPs have their roles outlined at the Parliament level, and strictly speaking do not have a purview over state matters.

Nevertheless, given that constituents do seek their attention in solving state affairs, it is fair for the MPs to be concerned and be given a certain role to play within state government affairs on selected occasions. Those with the right mix of expertise and experience can surely lend their skills in contributing to the state government’s development.

The overlap between state assemblypersons and local councillors is a lot more obscure, since both levels handle matters quite similar in nature. Again in theory, the former has to deal with the policy side, whereas the latter is concerned with its implementation and execution at the council. Again here there are conflicting points of view, where councils tend to guard their jurisdictions carefully, and sometimes have found either the state assemblypersons or state government executive councillors to be interfering in their affairs. The other perspective is that in order to facilitate more efficient planning and execution, such relationships between state and local government should be fostered.

This is a classic case of how separation of powers in theory may not necessarily work in reality. In the final analysis, although the best case scenario is where all three levels of government are kept quite distinct in terms of responsibilities and jurisdiction (this would also allow for greater freedom to carry out tasks without undue interference), the reality is Malaysians still expect every “Yang Berhormat”to entertain their demands. In such a situation, the best solution is a healthy working relationship between local councillors and state assemblypersons, as well as between state assemblypersons and the MPs for the area.

In the long run, it will be necessary to educate the electorate on the roles and responsibilities of the separate levels of government; failing which, MPs will continue having to tend to minor matters, such as the fixing of lamp posts and drains, which take away valuable time needed for the scrutiny of national macro issues and debates on legislation. Voters who are knowledgeable of these affairs will be able to choose wisely when they decide on their MP, state assemblyperson and hopefully sometime soon – their local councillor.

Posted in General Politics, Public Administration | 2 Comments

Movement of Moderates: Global or Malaysian?

Posted on January 28, 2012 by Tricia

Our government tends to take a hypocritical approach to being moderate, taking one stance outside the country, and another one inside it. A version of this was published in theSun on the 27th of January 2012.

M

ovement of Moderates: Global or Malaysian?

Prime Minister Najib Razak has for the past two years spoken on the theme of moderation at international platforms. This culminated in an International Conference on the Global Movement of Moderates just last week, at which he launched a Global Movement of Moderates (GMM), as well as an accompanying GMM Foundation.

In his speech, Najib said that the real divide is not between “Muslims and non-Muslims” but between “moderates and extremists”. It is true that extremism, including threats of violence, terrorism and the inciting of hatred of any sort must be opposed.

But surely, for this to work, great efforts must first be reflected on home ground. A culture of promoting religious and racial moderation as opposed to extremism ought to be the flourishing norm within Malaysia itself, first and foremost. After all, charity begins at home.

Organising a conference and an online communication strategy (albeit its rather colourless blog) are probably the easiest things to do. The real challenge is putting these esoteric principles into practice. And the question is how effective such a movement would be in reality, given current circumstances and the track record of official government positions taken to date?

First, such a theme is not novel. Under the previous Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, an institute was also set up in 2008 to counter religious extremist views and to propagate the middle, or civilisational way, of Islam: International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies. The IAIS continues to run seminars and dialogues, but has taken on a relatively low profile, compared to what it could achieve if given greater attention and support.

Now, a new Institute of Wasatiyyah is being formed under the Prime Minister’s Office, to pursue “respect for democracy, the rule of law, education, human dignity and social justice”. It is hoped that such a body would successfully explore the failed intentions of the previously-planned for Inter-Religious Council, also supposedly placed under the Prime Minister’s purview.

Second, the government has not necessarily always shown itself to be genuine in defending a moderate position within Malaysia itself. Najib also stated in his speech that “oppression and tyranny can only win out if good men and women stand idly by unwilling to turn rhetoric into action and opinions into deeds.”

But when newspapers linked closely to the main governing political party in the country are allowed to spew statement after statement alluding to hatred, the silence from any official body is resounding. When death threats are consistently sent to selected politicians, or leaders of civil society movements, the lackadaisical response by state authorities is disappointing, to say the least.

The rise in such violent threats have not only alarmed peace-loving Malaysians, but what is worse is the way in which they are casually passed off as an expected norm – as if this is the trend of things to come, and nothing can be done to stop it.

Third, Najib’s speech (and hence the entire movement itself) seems to be fixated with the question of religious extremism, bordering on the same theory Samuel Huntington expounded upon in his book “The Clash of Civilisations”, that the primary axis of global conflict is along cultural and religious lines.

Whilst Malaysia does suffer severely from these divisions, not least owing to the weak leadership and political representation crafted along those very lines, the ‘extremes’ in the country are slowly taking on a new label. Oppression can also creep in stealthily under the guise of some highly held principle.

As such, it is political or ideological hard-nosed positions that are driving even the most rational of Malaysians to polar opposites of extreme ends. Most recently, three home-made explosives were set off near the court complex as the verdict of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s case was being announced. Six people were hurt as a result.

The country has certainly experienced its share of crude name-calling, at times becoming slanderous in nature. But this was an act of public violence rarely seen in Malaysia, perpetrators of which have not yet been identified. Whoever the culprit, it does reflect a growing sense of unease amongst Malaysians, a truly unfortunate result of heightened ‘politicking’ in recent months.

Before we embark on the very ambitious mission of moving global players toward moderation, perhaps it is wisest to focus on what is really taking place at home. Malaysia’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious makeup is both its bane and its boon. For it to be considered a blessing, all players must unequivocally condemn threats of any kind, including those toward defenders of human rights and minority groups. A moderate society does not mean a society that accepts only what is considered to be noble and right by some; it means being willing to rationally consider the perspectives taken by others.

Malaysia must exemplify all of these things first if it were to be taken seriously by our international friends when pushing for a moderate movement. Finally, it is hoped that these new bodies will conduct consultations with stakeholders from as wide a cross-section of society as possible (including minority groups), and take on the very serious and necessary role of nipping all talk and behaviour of extremism in its bud.

Tricia Yeoh wishes everyone a Happy Chinese New Year and hopes the year of the Water Dragon will calm our excitedly political nerves down a notch.

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

The state of non-Muslims in Penang and Selangor

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Tricia

Religion will be an ever-present issue in our country. Here we look at non-Muslim policies of the Selangor and Penang governments, first published in the Penang Monthly in January 2012.

The state of non-Muslims in Penang and Selangor

The criterion for successful nation building today where Malaysia is concerned lies in how governments manage to settle interfaith issues. As with all controversial matters in a democracy, it is the legal protection of the rights of minority groups – be these ethnic, religious or something else – that shows how mature the country is.

The season for cheer last December was slightly dampened by several events in the months leading up to Christmas. Christmas carollers were thrown into confusion over local police requiring them to apply for permits beforehand, something they never had to do previously. Various leaders then gave contradictory statements, saying simultaneously that permits were not needed but encouraged, and then, that they were not needed at all.

At around the same time, a New York Times article highlighted the uneasiness among Christians who feel that “they are being used as political pawns to win support among Muslim voters”, and that there are “accusations that they are trying to … [convert] Muslims, which is illegal.” (Gooch, December 12, 2011)

These recent stories are merely reminders of the complexities involved in managing the plural and particularly multi-religious society we have in Malaysia. Incidents have happened time and again throughout our country’s history which showed the tensions existing between different faith groups, and which are often swept under the carpet for fear that dealing with such problems will invite a backlash. There are approximately 61% Muslims, 20% Buddhists, nine per cent Christians, 6.3% Hindus and 1.3% adherents of other Chinese religions in Malaysia.

The reality is, however, that these are issues all stakeholders in society must face squarely in order to improve relations and create a more conducive environment for all to live in. For instance, prior to the 2008 General Election, one issue that caused tremendous dissatisfaction with the Barisan Nasional government was the demolition of ancient Hindu temples. On hindsight, one of the problems was simply the failure to conduct a registration exercise, which would have led to a more amicable resolution.

It is a delicate balancing act, and a government’s job is unenviable under such circumstances. The federal government, for example, formed a national interfaith committee, formally known as the “Cabinet’s Special Committee to Promote Interreligious Understanding and Harmony”, but has since not gained significant ground in handling tough subjects such as the alleged “Christianisation” of Muslims. The deafening silence speaks loudly of the difficulties leaders are facing.

Ugly though the situation may seem, this is an area in which the Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) coalition can play a more significant role. The advantage of Pakatan lies in its willingness to engage with one another in an open fashion.

Pakatan-led states have led by example in recent years. One of the first things the new government did when taking over Selangor was to revamp the Selangor Non-Muslim Council. The council is jointly headed by three state executive council members – Xavier Jeyakumar, Teresa Kok and Ronnie Liu – and four other assemblymen, with members including seven representatives of the main non-Muslim religious bodies and various representatives from district offices, the Selangor Islamic Department (Jais), Public Works Department (JKR) and the Land Office (PTG).

The council conducted consultations with representatives of the major religious groups, which resulted in amendments being made to the council’s guidelines. These guidelines then ensured that there was now in place a transparent and clear method of dealing with non-Muslim places of worship. This was non-existent previously. The Selangor state factsheet on this issue states that “the Selangor government believes in the constitutional right of all Malaysians to profess and practise their respective religions freely” and that it is “committed to ensuring that adherents of all faiths receive the proper care and attention, and that their concerns are dealt with in a compassionate, reasonable and transparent manner.”

It is believed that such interfaith consultations are ongoing, whilst negotiations continue to take place with regard to allocation of land for schools and places of worship. To date, the state has approved 128ha of land for non-Muslim places of worship, coming from 90 applications altogether. (Of the total, 114ha are for Chinese temples, 7.67ha for Hindu temples, 4.74ha for churches and 0.74ha for gurdwaras, as of March 2011).

Earlier this year, the Penang state government made the positive move of setting up a state interfaith council, significant because it exists as a separate and new executive council portfolio, the first such portfolio in the country. In the Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s statement, he said that this initiative reflected the state government’s “genuine concerns on all religious matters”. The state has since given land to schools and temples as well as at least RM1mil annually to the Hindu Endowment Board.

The setting up of these interfaith bodies has not come without opposition, though. Pembela, the Muslim Organisations in Defence of Islam, called their formation a threat to Islam’s position as the official religion. And other events of the year have also tested the fragile notion of “harmony” within the states as well. The controversial church raid in Petaling Jaya in August elicited different reactions from different groups within civil society – some Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were adamant the raid was valid, whilst other groups questioned its legitimacy.

The Pakatan coalition often finds itself in a fix, having to allay fears that it is not merely a “marriage of convenience” especially between the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), where the latter would impose its ideals without due consideration from the former. Whilst it is true that they each have a different ideal “Malaysia”, it is also true that each party is committed to a process of negotiation, in the spirit of camaraderie. This openness and willingness to discuss matters is crucial, because it is only through such decent dialogue that a solution can be found, collectively. And these internal negotiations have obviously led somewhere, with the recent launch of PAS’s “Welfare State” document, signifying that its historical ideal “Islamic State” is now put on the backburner.

Whilst it is well and good that the two state governments have formed non-Muslim committees and executive council portfolios to sort out the thorny issues non-Muslims deal with, surely there is a larger, more national-level role the Pakatan coalition can play. The interfaith committee at the Cabinet level exists for formal purposes, and in reality may not achieve very much due to political constraints.

Perhaps these state-level bodies can take on a greater responsibility and confront the difficult question of how all religions (and their adherents) can work together towards a united, harmonious and fair Malaysia. This would move beyond practical administrative tasks to a deeper, more philosophical discussion. Above all, Malaysian citizens would then have a glimpse into the sort of leadership an alternative government could offer. The deep divisions within Malaysian society may well continue, but the onus now lies upon Pakatan to show that it can offer a better deal, distinctly different from the current model and structure.

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

Politics vs Policies: How do People Really Vote?

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Tricia

People don’t vote on policies, or do they? This was my piece in January 2012 in Selangor Times.

Politics vs Policies: How do people really vote?

 

How do people evaluate their leaders in government, through their satisfaction with policies, or based on emotional tags linked to the personalities of politicians? When voting, do they think of the impacts felt on a daily basis, or are they reminded of the candidates’ antics as portrayed in the media?

Perhaps there was a collective sigh of relief (or horror, depending on which side one was on) after the verdict of Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case was announced. There was certainly a tension that had been built up in the preceding weeks, with members of his party making preparations for a worst case scenario.

The decision was predicted to have coloured the political fabric for the year ahead, giving pundits some indication as to when polls may be called. Predictions vary for the elections to be held anytime between June this year to March 2013, the latter being the full term of five years. Malaysians have been sitting on the edge of their seats for at least two years already in trepidation, waiting for the big game to begin.

Politics does have the tendency to transform Malaysians into wild things who channel all energies into anticipating a single event. Press conferences, finger-pointing, scandalous revelations and the like are geared toward the likelihood (or not) of a particular party winning in the elections.

What often goes swept under the carpet is the arduous task of policy-making. This ought to be the bread and butter of governments, where positions taken by federal, state and local governments, then translated into programmes and projects, are evaluated and scrutinised by citizens. Surely the socio-economic philosophy behind a certain party should influence how people feel towards them.

However, this requires a more educated society. When I went to the United States to observe the 2008 elections, for example, I was surprised at the detail that the average American voter was expected to know when voting. There, you are not merely voting for the President, Senator, Congressman or local councillor; depending on the state and municipality, you are also expected to vote for specific legislation. For example, Californians were able to vote on whether to ban same-sex marriages in the state.

In such a situation, numerous civil society groups and non-governmental organisations publish information in little booklets to educate the public, conduct seminars and campaigns for or against a certain legislation being voted upon. This of course requires an educated public and an environment conducive to promoting freedom of speech and expression.

We have not gone down that route yet, where Malaysians only vote for two public representatives: their state assemblyperson and Member of Parliament. These elected individuals are then expected to represent their constituents’ views in making policy decisions. By right, these leaders should therefore be judged according to their policies and actions, since we have given over the right to decide on what’s best for us to them.

Let’s face it. Elections is a popularity contest, and numerous factors come into play, not necessarily reflecting how wise the candidate has been in executing the best safety, health or public transport policies. The media also contributes to playing up issues: the question thereby arises of whether the supply of political gossip precedes its demand, or vice versa.

That being said, Malaysians are maturing as a voting society. Take the episode of Bersih 2.0 as an example, where people are rooting for what is essentially a policy change. In this respect, the policy of electoral reform precedes the personality of a leader. Whichever political leader who is able to demonstrate his affinity to the reform demands would be seen as favourable in the court of public opinion.

And this is surely the route to take if we want to develop an advanced democracy. Sure, Malaysia is still very much a rural polity, and sure, the national education system has not necessarily produced critically thinking individuals. But we cannot wait for that to take place. Already, heated discussions ensue on important policy issues facing the country: budget deficits, economic sustainability, national bankruptcy, urban poverty, and so on.

As we find ourselves facing an upcoming election year (whether or not the elections are actually called this year, politicians will surely act as if it will), it is important that Malaysians stay focused on what will most impact society and the country. It is often easy to be distracted by reports on sodomy, party-hopping, traitorous behaviour, and so on.

Evaluating of our leaders based on their performance, how they have handled their budgets, and positions taken on everyday affairs, say, violence against women or traffic jams, should be considered important indicators of effective leadership.

This piece argues for greater consideration of policy decisions and their implementation when observing politicians. However, the reality is that how people vote will be an amalgamation of their perceptions both emotional and rational: the fine interplay between politics and policy. Research into this area would surely offer a rich understanding of voters’ behaviour, expectations and how these values influence their final mark on the ballot.

Posted in Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

Game-Changers at the Year’s Start

Posted on January 14, 2012 by Tricia

At the beginning of 2012, this was the series of incidents taking place, including the sacking of Hasan Ali, the “We are all Adam Adli” and others. A version of this was published in theSun on the 13th January 2012.

Game-Changers at the Year’s Start 

Welcome back to reality and its various antics of the new year. Without so much as a breather, events of the first two weeks of 2012 have come tumbling upon us one after the other relentlessly. Three in particular are looking to be game-changers in this political chess board that is Malaysia.

First, the sacking of Selangor state executive councillor Hasan Ali from PAS after having publicly expressed views divergent to the party’s. Second, the three-month suspension of student activist Adam Adli from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) after lowering a banner of Prime Minister Najib Razak, and finally, the one with the most significant impact, the breaking news of Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal in the sodomy case, having dragged on for more than three years now.

Each of these incidents will cause ripples in their respective communities of influence; in the case of Hasan Ali, amongst PAS members themselves in particular, and the Muslim community as a whole. In the context of his recent claims about Christians attempting to convert Malay Muslims out of their faith, it would spark a debate on that ever-raging question of religion’s role (more specifically, Islam) within a multi-faith society.

He had also criticised PAS for choosing the term ‘welfare state’ as what it aspires towards, as opposed to the ‘Islamic state’, the latter having been the party’s previous position. For PAS to take this stand despite potential backlash, it sends a signal to the non-Muslim community that the party is willing to focus on less controversial values for the sake of sharing a common platform within the Pakatan Rakyat coalition. This certainly sets the tone for Pakatan in the lead-up to what will be a hotly contested election, and one in which the Malay ground will be dearly fought over.

The less well-known case of Adam Adli, although a smaller headline grabber, has already reverberated around public tertiary institution campuses, perhaps the exact symbol the student movement was waiting for. Accused of “bringing the institution into disrepute”, he and those rallying around him, the Movement for Academic Freedom (Bebas) for example, are protesting for the right to freedom of expression.

We all grieve (well, some of us, anyway) the demise of Malaysian student activism, most prevalent in the heyday of the 1960s. Campus politics came to a grinding halt after the enactment of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971. Swimming against the tide, several dedicated individuals have continued to pursue the cause.

Today, Adam has lent a voice to the movement, with 34,000 people backing a Facebook campaign, “We Are All Adam Adli”, and student activists staging a sit-in at UPSI’s campus on New Year’s Eve in which several students claim they were assaulted by the police. The rise of the young vote is still not fully understood by either side of the political divide, also a constituent group whose support will be keenly sought after, but whose likes and dislikes need deeper analysis.

Finally, the most unexpected of all, the fate of Anwar himself: a free man – for now. It surprised many, and was certainly a welcome decision for his family and supporters. Whilst some have commented on this as proof of the country’s judicial independence, the more skeptical of analysts wonder if this is really the end of the game. The alleged victim, Saiful Bukhari, for example, has stated his hopes of the prosecution team appealing the High Court’s decision. This is a possible next step, although no indication has been given yet.

This decision has cast light on the year ahead, politically at least. It reflects a government that seems to be willing to create a more level-playing field. That is, the conditions that are considered visible in the public eye, at least. It seems to speaks of a leadership that is going the extra mile to say, “Look, I am independent, I am fair. Now, let’s play.”

Having said that, an elections has much more to do with what is unseen and shrouded from public attention. It involves the mobilising of massive funds, goods and machinery, volunteers (or paid staff, which also depends on financial resources) and other ‘friendly donations’. How constituencies are delineated, and how well-cleaned-up voter rolls are, all have a huge impact on electoral outcomes.

To say that the path is clear for all parties (Anwar included) to enter the polls fairly is therefore premature. The Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reform, for example, is expected to table its report to Parliament in March, providing recommendations for the Election Commission to implement, in ensuring a free and fair elections.

Although it will probably take months to unveil the full impact of these three (and other) incidents, suffice to say these have somewhat shifted the gears forward, in what may be a reckless ride toward the 13th general election.

 

Posted in General Politics, Reflections | Leave a comment

Financial Outflows Hamper Growth

Posted on December 24, 2011 by Tricia

I wrote this in 2011, but today again we have the Global Financial Integrity report now stating Malaysia is the third highest in the world in terms of illicit financial outflows, and second only in Asia, and first in terms of per capita! This is a version of what was published in theSun on the 23rd December 2011.

Financial Outflows Hamper Growth

For my ‘A’ Level literature class, we studied Ayi Kwei Armah’s ‘The Beautyful Ones are Not Yet Born’, in which a nameless man struggles against a post-independent Ghana rife with corruption and rot. Humanity, it seems, rides with the tide of evil as a norm, and the few exceptional people feel like they have to swim against strong currents to maintain some semblance of honesty and goodness. And this problem spins further out of control once an individual problem becomes a systemic one.

It is hardly any different in Malaysia, where we can hardly keep track of the growing list of financial scandals, the roots of which are greed and the propensity to be corrupted. This year alone, we have had to deal with the mega cattle-rearing project, government departmental overspending as found by the Auditor-General’s report, and the resurfacing of the issue of certain submarines speculated to have been purchased for more than their worth.

These are individual issues requiring investigation, for sure, but more shocking are the recent figures released by the Global Financial Integrity (GFI) organisation in their ‘Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries Over the Decade Ending 2009’ report updated this month. The Washington-based GFI claimed that RM150 billion in illicit money has been siphoned out of Malaysia in 2009 alone, on top of the RM927 billion losses between 2000 and 2008.

The GFI had earlier this year reported on outflows that more than tripled in 2000 to 2008, the scale of which was “rarely seen in Asia”. With the latest country data from 2009, Malaysia now sits within the top five exporters of illicit capital. The top ten illict capital exporting countries account for 70 percent of total outflows from developing countries. Several reasons were given for this, including export under-invoicing, and unrecorded transfers using non-trade channels, amongst others. Although the figures are likely estimates at best, it is certainly cause for concern.

In January this year, the government responded with a mix of reactions, with one Minister initially flatly refusing to consider the report’s claims, and the Prime Minister and Finance Ministry later acceding that Bank Negara ought to probe these details. This investigation, however, has not yet resulted in any public statement to date.

In fact, the police responded most recently that illicit outflows are nothing new, and that they have been freezing assets of organised crime and drug rings to tackle the problem. It is true that Malaysia does have an Anti-Money Laundering Act (2001), and it has also signed and ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), Article 14 of which requires the country to prevent money laundering. In addition, the Money Business Services Act has just recently come into force in December this year, which Bank Negara states will address the outflow of funds from the country. We do have the regulatory framework, then, which is an excellent starting point.

But let’s be clear about this: the problem is not limited to crime and drug rings alone. There are governance issues that affect both the private and public sectors. The January 2011 report also stated that “large state-owned enterprises such as Petronas could … be driving illicit flows”. This is a serious claim to make, and certainly official probes need to be urgently and immediately carried out, if only to respond and clarify matters to the Malaysian public.

Why is it so crucial that the source of such illicit capital outflows is determined? Ultimately, it is not with the intention of targeting the culprit(s) involved, but to ensure that such capital can contribute to productive efficiency within the country itself. All that lost capital could have been rechannelled and better targeted for socio-economic needs at home, or invested to stimulate greater economic growth and create jobs.

The response from the Indian government, for example, was to get four top Indian research institutions to submit proposals to study the issue of ‘black money’ generation. Likewise, Malaysia could be equally proactive in getting to the bottom of these claims. If true, it is indeed worrying, as this jeopardises the effectiveness of even current government expenditure, savings or investments.

Some of the indicators that were found to drive illicit capital from developing countries include political instability, rising income inequality, corruption and discrimination in labour markets. If these contributing factors worsen in Malaysia, much will need to be done in order to reverse the trend of capital outflow. One hopes that efforts are underway within the Malaysian central bank and the respective ministries involved. Should these massive sums continue to leave the country, this will eventually have grave implications on our national growth and development.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Outside Malaysia | Leave a comment