Malaysia after regime change

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Tricia

Malaysia after regime change 

(First published in New Mandala, March 24th 2012).

Crony capitalism in Malaysia: Breaking the business and political nexus

The intricate nexus between the worlds of business and politics has been an age-old tradition in Malaysia. Crony capitalism, a term to describe the intertwined relationship between business, politicians and the state, where individuals in the private sector benefits by obtaining licenses, concessions, government subsidies, other forms of protection from governments and appointments to key state owned enterprises through their close relationship with politicians and bureaucrats.

The main questions to ask in the event of a regime change are: Will it really ever be possible to extricate one from the other, given the context where this is an assumed norm? Second, how would a new government go about making these drastic changes?

There has been recognition of this problem by political players from both sides of the divide.

The Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) Shadow Budget admits, for example, that “Pakatan will face resistance from cronies that desire to perpetuate patronage and rent-seeking” when it begins to attempt open tenders and a more transparent procurement policy.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak also announced that a new initiative under the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) would regulate financing for all political parties, where all funding must be channelled to an official party account. He said that “a proper receipt record” would “prevent corruption and misappropriation on a grass-roots’ level…”

The CEO of Pemandu (the Performance and Measurement Unit under the Prime Minister’s Department), Idris Jala, stated that a first tier of internal control would be developed, of a checklist of recommended actions for political parties to undertake to avoid the abuse of funding. A second tier of external control would require that “all federal and state government entities and statutory authorities cannot include any party member who is an office bearer on their tender board”, amongst others.

The academic literature on the business-politics nexus (known as rent-seeking) has been examined closely  from various angles by numerous academicians such as Peter Searle, James Jesudason, Dan Slater, Alasdair Bowei, Greg Felker, Nicholas White, Terence Gomez and Jomo KS among others. These researches suggest mixed outcomes.

Nevertheless, the research recognises that the business circle exerts strong influence over the political players as do the political players over business, often times resulting in sub-optimal use of national resource such as diverting scarce resources away from productive use (to the awarding of white elephant projects, poor quality works, constant costs over-run and when the corporation selected fails to deliver, the government is expected to bail out these companies using public funds).

Ex-post, the lack of stringent laws and regulations – and the enforcement thereof – has led to the present predicament in which political parties are ultimately subjected to the demands of powerful corporate interests. But it is, nevertheless a symbiotic relationship. This has become a norm in Malaysian politics.

The solution seems clear: ensure there is only well governed arms length relationship between business and politics. But is this really possible as the historical roots runs deep originating from Malaya’s post-colonial transition and the Barisan Nasional’s economic nationalism?

Post-colonial politics and business

As Malaya was in its final years of colonial rule under the British, political alliances were taking shape between the Malays and the Chinese. The Chinese towkay(community and business leaders) entered politics through their party MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association)’s alliance with UMNO (United Malay National Organisation) in the 1950’s.

Both parties co-operated during the Kuala Lumpurelections of February 1952 because the “Selangor branch of UMNO lacked sufficient funds to fight the election”. Consequently, the MCA bore the bulk of the election expenses for the MCA-UMNO coalition up to the federal elections of 1955. MCA funds also helped to secure the Alliance’s electoral victory in the first elections for a fully-elected assembly in August 1959.

Chinese tycoons of the day therefore financed UMNO in its earliest beginnings, and a reciprocal relationship was hence born. The Chinese community would benefit from such a relationship by being appointed in key positions from where economic policy could be made: H.S. Lee as the first Minister of Finance, and Tan Siew Sin as the Minister of Commerce and Industry, in particular.

Quite apart from these governmental positions, members of the business elite would also receive commercial favours for their loyalty to the Alliance. H.S. Lee received a banking licence to establish the Development & Commercial Bank in 1966 and Tan Siew Sin became the chairman of Sime Darby in 1977. They were adept and capable businessmen, and earned their positions based on their performance – so it is difficult to say this was a direct result of their political relationships.

However, this blurring of boundaries between politics and business would set the stage for political parties to continue to receive funding from not just Chinese tycoons, but all tycoons regardless of race. Hence, even private sector players who were not part of the political infrastructure would require close connections with government figures to develop their businesses. Robert Kuok and Dato’ Nik Kamil, the latter of whose success inspired young Malay entrepreneurs to embrace the ‘jadi ahli politik untuk buat duit’ (become politician to make money) motto are such examples.

The crony capitalism trend persisted also in Sabah and Sarawak, where similarly the Chinese big businesses were more than willing to work with Malay-Muslim political power for economic and social gain. Khoo Siak Chiew, a leading logging baron, who helmed the Sabah Chinese Association (SCA) and eventually became a minister following Sabah’s incorporation into Malaysia, is an example.

Things have not quite changed since the 1960’s. What has changed is that where in the past, contracts, tenders or appointments were made based on ability and expertise, with political connection being the added advantage, today it is mostly about political connection and ethnicity. Government makes decisions not because they are the most competitive or capable but for other reasons. As such, political acumen has been an essential skill for individuals to possess, without necessarily having equal entrepreneurial or technical expertise.

It is unsurprising that the historical post-colonial Malaya, and the way in which political parties began, formed the very foundation of the current-day UMNO’smodus operandi, and that of its coalition partners. By being members of political parties in government, one increases the chances of one’s networking pool, especially to decision-makers within government.

Economic nationalism: New Economic Policy

The New Economic Policy (NEP) was used by the national government to benefitBumiputera companies and business people, in the name of assisting the Malay community. Ironically enough, these companies would not be restricted toBumiputera ones alone;  even non – Malay entrepreneurs who were successfully able to “buy-in” to the system would also be rewarded.

Simultaneously, former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamed was on a roll to internationalise the Malaysian economy. This he carried out by embarking on mega-projects. Large government-linked companies (GLCs) would then engage in joint-ventures with the government and international firms in these mega projects (e.g. North-South Highway, HICOM, Perwaja Steel, Malaysian Shipping Corporation, Putrajaya, the Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, Cyberjaya, etc). In order for these large projects to be funded, the government relied on a significant amount of contributions from the national oil company, Petronas, as well as funding from corporate entities.

Political party financing

Given this backdrop of the post-colonial political formation and economic nationalism, the persistence of government to recognise wealth expansion of the Malay community, and desire to place Malaysia on a global growth map, it was only natural that the government and the private sector enjoyed a close relationship.

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed said that “the presence of (influential) Malays on various boards’ means… they are able to impart … know-how to new ventures launched by Malays”. However, the dominance of UMNO within the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government, combined with the nexus of business and politics, has been corrosive.

UMNO traditionally relied on membership fees and donations from private individuals, as documented in Transparency International Malaysia’s (TI-M) new book “Reforming political financing in Malaysia”, launched in May 2010. UMNO grew to rely more upon its investments and business interests through ownership of corporations and shares. As mentioned earlier, early UMNO members consisted of teachers and the civil service, but the majority is now made up of entrepreneurs and corporate figures.

Former UMNO treasurer Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah recounted how he was tasked with finding investments for UMNO and acknowledged a covert political fund existed.

Barry Wain in his book claimed this fund was worth RM88.6 million in 1984. Former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir told TI that he handed his successor RM1.4 billion worth of property, shares and cash. The Star newspaper contributes RM50 to RM60 million to MCA annually, and TI estimated MCA’s current assets to be RM2 billion.

TI’s research concluded that Pakatan’s coalition parties still depend on grass-roots support, raising funds through a combination of membership fees, fundraising dinners, donations, publications and forums. The Democratic Action Party’s elected representatives contribute a portion of their salaries and allowance to the party fund.

TI’s report stated clearly that businesspeople or wealthy individuals with vested interests are eager to give money to politicians in return for securing business favours, strengthening the argument that there exists a powerful nexus between politics and corrupt money.

Clearly, there is a need to break from this culture and norm of relying upon large business conglomerates to support political parties. It is well known that companies are obliged to sponsor events such as party elections, and state and national election campaigns. The danger of not addressing this very real problem is that no matter which political coalition comes into power, it is inevitable that the political leaders have to succumb to the demands of corporate interests.

Unless a better system exists in which political financing takes place through a more transparent and well-regulated process, this culture is bound to continue.

Can a new government change this?

The existing system (or lack thereof) of political financing has brought to fruition a culture of dependency upon the large business players. If there were to be a possible regime change, would the new government be able to circumvent such a system?

Political financing reform is key to ensuring that any government in place is not held ransom by private sector interests. The Pakatan Shadow Budget has outlined its clear position that it would break up monopolies and oligopolies in Malaysia should it come into power. Its goal is also to “free all government-linked companies (GLCs) from political interference” and that they would operate based on commercial priorities.

Pakatan’s list of monopolies to be either restructured or completely dismantled includes the business of Malaysia’s most powerful tycoons. Would the move to dismantle them succeed, first on the count of the resistance from the tycoons, and second on the count of their very convenient use as financial sponsors?

In the case of regime change, Malaysians must be cognisant that this deeply-embedded web between business and politics will not be easy to disentangle.

Even within the first 100 days, should the Pakatan government make initial efforts at change, it may not result in immediate improved outcomes.

For instance, a task-force would have to spend copious amounts of time examining the hundreds of lucrative contracts between government and private companies, separating the legitimate from the dubious ones.

Next, by virtue of the fact they have a contractual agreement; it will be extremely difficult to break these contracts immediately. Doing so would either mean penalties have to be paid, or multiple court cases would ensue between the corporations and government. This is the experience that the Pakatan state governments of Penang and Selangor faced when they came into power.

Second, selected existing civil servants who have already built their careers on these relationships would very much operate according to the existing mindset. Whether or not the same cronies are involved, the method of dealing with contracts and public procurement will be dealt with in much the same manner by them.

For there to be a distinctive change in the way politics is run, and to push for a more transparent and corrupt-free democracy, steps must be taken to deal with the current political-government-business nexus.

For the business world to be kept at arms length and independent from the political players, new laws and regulations that emphasise transparency and good governance must be considered. Although close relationships between the two will always exist, these regulations will help mitigate the negative effects resulting from this. The inclusion of the public’s intense scrutiny through transparency measures will allow the public to participate in the process of examining the political parties that claim to represent them.

Malaysians must be aware of the current systemic flaws. In doing so, they would recognise that change takes time to set in. It is absolutely crucial that a new government must seek to strictly regulate and enforce political financing, even if it is to its own political detriment. This would be necessary for the long-term strengthening of democratic institutions. The voting public must push for these changes to take place.

In the final analysis, dependency of politics on the private sector must be removed if we are to encourage a new way of being and doing government.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

Election Fever

Posted on March 24, 2012 by Tricia

It seems ironic now that I wrote about “Election Fever” a year ago! This is because the government seems to have had cold feet for all this time, not willing to call for an election it probably expects to do badly in. In any case, this was first published in theSun on the 23rd of March 2012.

Election Fever

Talk of the 13th General Election is underway, and not without reason. Political pundits have given their respective reasons: this is possibly the only window of opportunity Prime Minister Najib has, with a relative lack of controversy (note: relative), and one ought to act quickly before something new surfaces.

The National Feedlot Corporation issue is somewhat resolved with the “sacrifice” made by government in not renewing Minister of Women, Family and Community Development Shahrizat Jalil’s position; the new civil service remuneration scheme that courted resistance by the civil servants has now been withdrawn; the RM500 cash aid for household income of below RM3000 is being distributed.

What are the conditions going into an elections this year? On the official front, things seem to look rosy. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2012 ranked Malaysia at 21st position, gaining five ranks and registering improvements across the board. The report praised Malaysia’s improvements in its efficient and sound financial sector, and its highly efficient goods market, although stating the need for improving on our budget deficit, educational and technological performance.

The World Bank’s Doing Business 2012 Index also saw Malaysia rise from 23rd to 18th position, the most significant positive change coming from the ease of starting a business and the enforcement of contracts. Foreign direct investment increased by 12.3 percent in 2011 (RM32.9 billion) from 2010, and the GDP grew by 5.1 percent in 2011.

Although this seems to reflect a healthy economic picture of Malaysia, these figures must be given a reality check. Although investment grew year-on-year, this is only relative to that achieved in 2010, where Malaysia along with the rest of the world was still recovering from the global economic slowdown of 2009. Recall also that pre-2009 investment figures were still higher, with RM33.4 billion achieved in 2007 and RM46.1 billion in 2008.

Secondly, the 2011 growth rate is still lower than the target of 6 percent annual growth rate by the government’s Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), all the way till 2020. And finally, the Central Bank has just revised our growth forecast downwards, to between four and five percent in 2012.

More important indicators perhaps for political parties to be cognisant of are those that are reflective of the issues that people on the ground truly care about: the ringgit and sen concerns. The subsidy cuts initially planned for by government have had to be halted because of inflation rates that are at a 27-month high of 3.5 percent (June 2011). Rising commodity prices have increased the cost of living significantly. And with 40 percent of Malaysian households earning less than RM1,500 a month, these are the real figures that paint the picture of the country’s economy.

Funding the Elections

On a different but related note, going into an elections will mean a great amount of money being passed around. It is impossible to go into greater detail, simply because hardly anyone would have clear, transparent, published and accountable records of the funds being used to finance an election. And the stakes are certainly much higher in the upcoming elections, with talk of wresting back state governments previously lost to the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

Interestingly enough, both Najib Razak and PEMANDU CEO Idris Jala have recently waxed lyrical about the need to reform political financing. More specifically, they said that all funding would have to be channelled to an official party account and that all federal and state government bodies would not be allowed to include any party member who is an office bearer on their tender board.

It is good news indeed that some national leaders are talking about it, but how seriously can Malaysians take them, in all honesty, especially given the sort of financial scandals emerging from within the ranks of government political parties?

But it is certainly true that unless political financing is reformed in the country, there will be very little change to all talk of transformation. This is where clear rules and regulations must be set in place to regulate the relationship between the business sector and political parties. Failure to do so would mean the continued dependence of parties upon businesses’ financing means, thereby creating and maintaining the web of cronyism we are all too familiar with.

Whilst parties still need funds to run, new laws and policies should be introduced to govern political parties, accompanied by stringent enforcement and monitoring. For example, Transparency International recommends a laundry list of possibilities including parties’ public disclosure of sources of financing and expenditure. There should also be limits on the amount of money an individual can donate. Another option which may be debated is allowing state financing of parties, as practised by countries like Germany. There, public funds are distributed according to the percentage of votes won by certain political parties.

Of course, realistically, these mechanisms will not realistically be implemented anytime before the upcoming election. Having said that, the conditions going into the election are mixed: a macroeconomic outlook that is not all gleaming, and with telltale signs of a lower and middle class unhappy with the increase in costs of living.

Another potential landmine the government has to watch out for is the Lynas Corporation rare earth plant in Kuantan, not to mention numerous issues in Sabah and Sarawak (on immigration, land), the hotbed of politics that both parties will be targeting. It will be an exciting next few months, so either sit back and enjoy the show – or think about how to participate in the process of ensuring a free and fair electoral process.

Posted in Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

4 Years of PR in Selangor

Posted on March 15, 2012 by Tricia

It is now exactly 5 years ago that PR took over 5 state governments! This was written a year ago, on how the first four years of managing the states were, and the reforms that took place therein. This was first published in Selangor Times in March 2012.

4 Years of PR in Selangor

In the private sector, change management refers to a structured approach to the shifting and transitioning of organisations from a current state to a desired future state. In a rapidly changing environment, it is crucial for companies to react quickly and ensure all players within are single-mindedly focused on achieving a common goal.

This concept can be similarly applied to the running of a government. And even more importantly so when it is a new government whose change needs to be wisely managed.

Four years ago, Selangor voters chose to end the reign of the only political coalition they had ever known, thereby electing a new government in its place. The Pakatan Rakyat coalition (Pakatan), as it was later named, was made up of its three component parties: the Democratic Action Party (DAP), Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Parti Se-Islam Malaysia (PAS). Three parties with seemingly disparate views to begin with would now work hand-in-hand in making their new state government work. (Other state governments that were won by Pakatan Rakyat include Penang, Kelantan and Kedah. Perak was wrested away by the Barisan Nasional coalition (Barisan) some time after).

Despite initial challenges, namely learning to work closely with the civil service which had previous experience only with Barisan, having to face constant political arrows shot from the other side, as well as working out internal differences within and amongst the parties, Pakatan has fared well in Selangor.

Before we explore the many areas that Selangor has initiated policy and programmatic reform, it is an important reminder that the state of Selangor was and is the most hotly contested state in the country. This is because it is rich in natural and human resources, contributing almost 20 percent to the national gross domestic product (GDP). Hence, a greater, and more intense battle is bound to have taken place.

Second, the makeup of the Selangor population is the most representative of that of Malaysia. In terms of ethnic, religious and cultural proportions, Selangor mirrors national statistics. Likewise, its problems and challenges are reflected therein. In fact, national and state issues are sometimes blended together, with locals confusing one with the other.

Developing Democracy

At the forefront of Selangor’s approach to managing its new government was to develop an environment of greater democracy, a principle embraced by all component parties, and a clarion call during the election campaign trail. Having had a previous government that was always shrouded in secrecy, measures of transparency and accountability were priorities.

The legislative assembly formed a Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency, which conducted several high-level proceedings to investigate alleged corrupt practices of the previous government. One of the more memorable was the uncovering of how Balkis (the Wives of Selangor Elected Representatives Association) misused funds it received from the state government.

In line with the transparency approach, the Selangor state government was the first in the country (either at the state or federal level) to enact a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although this would apply only to state government-linked companies and its subsidiaries, and state bodies, this is a revolutionary move. It certainly sets an example that other states can follow, and more importantly, that the federal government should emulate. For so long the nation has faced the Official Secrets Act, and changing the culture to ensure greater data transparency will ultimately help citizens claim their rights.

The Selangor exco has also steadily released information on past deals that were shady, releasing previously classified documents with the intention of ensuring the public was getting access to unfair deals.

Selangor has also been in negotiation with the federal government to restore local council elections, an effort which unfortunately has hit a dead end following negative response from the Election Commission. Nevertheless, the state has had constant interaction with the Coalition for Good Governance (CGG, a coalition of non-governmental organisations working on various governance issues in Selangor) in order to work out a roadmap toward a potential pilot local election.

Despite this hiccup, the state proceeded to carry out local village elections in three Chinese new villages, and is also the first state to conduct mosque committee elections state-wide.

Of course managing government at state and local government levels has not necessarily been smooth-sailing given that federal government powers are so strong. The country’s centralisation of power has been one of the banes of any opposition state government. Almost all major policies are decided on in Putrajaya, leaving states to handle natural resources, roads, drains, local councils, Islam and a smattering of other affairs. Even something as localised as water services is a shared duty (in the concurrent list of the Federal Constitution), which accounts for the long-drawn water battles still gone unresolved today.

Developing democracy in Selangor has centred on legislative and administrative reforms. Giving a bigger, more significant voice to the people has been at the core of this process.

Servicing the Public

As mentioned above, the water saga in Selangor was quite a tell-tale story of previous government errors, where either the past government was unable to work out a fair deal for itself – and therefore, its people – or it intentionally did so. In either case, the water services industry was left in shambles, needing severe cleaning up by the new Pakatan government. Long story short, the private concession company Syabas was (and is) in debt, but has not been willing to sell its company because it considers the Selangor offer as too low. This was a classic case of privatisation gone wrong. The Selangor government in wanting to reverse this process by returning the rights of water back to a state-run entity has attempted to ensure cronyism is kept at bay. This is still the principle it adheres to till today.

Running a state involves all kinds of local issues, where at times the mundane tasks of daily administration may not be exciting – but this is where the proof is in the pudding. How well states run its solid waste management, housing, sanitation and environment speak volumes for their governments.

Here, Selangor has made tremendous effort in resolving housing projects previously abandoned by former developers facing financial difficulty. The state was instrumental in bringing together all stakeholders involved and the key projects in the process of being resolved lie in the vicinity of Bukit Botak and Alam Perdana.

Managing a multi-religious society is no easy task. Although numerous issues cropped up over the past four years (recall incidents of the Hindu temple relocation, church burning, sale of alcohol), at times testing the state government’s ability to handle matters, the issues were eventually managed without a break in power ranks. It is important that representatives of all faiths sit together to discuss matters in a rational manner, and this is precisely what the Pakatan coalition offers to Malaysia. That they are resolved reasonably amongst Pakatan Exco members, or between party members, is evidence that a solution can be sought without resorting to violence.

One of the significant legislative reforms was related to environment, where legislation was passed to have a moratorium on deforestation, and a requirement for public hearing prior to any deforestation.

Managing the Economy

Economic policy is managed by the federal government in almost all respects, governed by the Economic Planning Unit with other major decisions made at the highest of levels. Selangor as a state, however, is a jewel in the nation’s crown, and it has been said many times that Selangor ought to be supported. Without adequate support or co-operation, it would be as if one is cutting off one’s nose to spite the face.

Thus, because of the inability to make very many key policy changes, the state governments are at time relegated to disbursing funds where deemed appropriate. In this case, it is an evaluation of the best “bang for your buck” – is your ringgit being invested or given out to those worthy of it? Here, an increased allocation was given to those previously with relatively little: Tamil and Chinese vernacular schools, sekolah agama rakyat, increased allowanced for kafa religious teachers, and CCTV cameras for safety in the streets.

The Pakatan government’s economic philosophy is not given a particular label but the most appropriate might be a social democratic one, in which business is thoroughly encouraged to promote fair and rigorous competition. However, this does not mean the weaker and lower-income groups are abandoned – on the contrary, they are assisted through financial aid and more importantly through training and empowerment programmes like those offered by the state government.

Selangor’s “MES: Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor”, or the People’s Economy (loosely translated), a slew of 9 and growing packages to assist the underprivileged communities have creative ideas, one of which involves investing RM100 into a fund for every child born in the state, after 18 years of which he can claim a larger amount. Other assisted groups are the disabled, women (single mothers in particular), children of plantation workers, the elderly, youth, and unemployed. Possibly the most well-known economic policy is the giving out of 20m3  of water for free for each household.

In the conventions jointly attended by the four Pakatan states, the leaders have often made it clear that they intend to work closely together in formulating common policies and programmes. Even if these are not exact replicas, they can certainly learn lessons from each other. This has not been fully exploited, which the Pakatan states can do more of.

They ought to market and brand themselves as a common Pakatan belt, where for example in 2010, Selangor, Penang, Kedan and Kelantan accounted for 53% of all investment in Malaysia (domestic and foreign). The combined economies of these states are powerful, and with common governance practices and structures, this sends an impactful message to voters that they can form a credible alternative federal government, one that is able to manage finances well.

Some key financial successes in the state of Selangor (as recorded and published by the state) are its savings have reached RM1.2 billion, the highest ever for the past 28 years. The state also announced its adoption of the minimum wage of RM1,500 – also the first ever state government to have done so – applicable at the state government-linked companies. Over the past  four years, Selangor has attracted a total of 1123 projects with a total of RM36 billion, and having created job opportunities for 95,000 people.

One of the contentious points raised several times was the state’s management of sand. Without going into the details, based on the figures published by the state government, the royalties to Selangor have actually increased by almost five times. Where in 2008 royalties amounted to RM1.47 million, in 2011 they were RM7.34 million. Finally, the state also recouped a debt of RM392 million that was previously owed by the Talam Group.

Conclusion

Managing the largest and most lucrative state may seem a walk in the park. No matter what you do, investors and businessmen will surely set up shop in Selangor. Even the Kuala Lumpur International Airport is deceptively named since it is located within Selangor. On the other hand, those involved would know for sure the tough challenges that lay in their paths of managing the state government.

Selangor has had to contend with the federal government and opposition political parties’ antics and continuous arrows, baggage from the previous government, a civil service whose bulk of which reports back to Putrajaya, as well as internal conflict that unfortunately is washed as dirty linen in public.

Given this context, it is for all intents and purposes a miracle that Pakatan has achieved this amount for its time in government. Of course, complaints are ever aplenty. Some claim business is slower than before, since previously bribes could be paid to speed things along, whereas this seems impossible now. Although a faster and more efficient administration is always preferred, Malaysians have to also choose between transparency and corruption, the former of which may slow things down slightly to ensure due process is given.

Going into an election year ahead, 2012 will be a showcase of sorts, with the political funfair beginning very soon. As Selangor citizens sit back to reflect on the successes and failures of the Pakatan government, perhaps it will be a useful exercise to imagine what things would be like under a Barisan government all over again.

Finally, one crucial point to note is that under Pakatan, the process of getting things done has been a lot more people-oriented. Consider for example the many public hearings organised by the state government during controversial and heated cases such as the Subang Ria incident, the temple relocation affair, Bukit Botak, and most recently Universiti Malaya Medical Centre’s health metropolis in Petaling Jaya. Obtaining feedback from residents in the geographical area concerned is considered imperative to the state government.

Where previously one would have had minimal interaction with their councils or state government, today the state government has set a standard practice to follow. It has also compelled Tenaga Nasional and Prasarana to conduct similar public hearings for federal government projects, an example that surely benefits only the community in the short and long run.

After four years of governing Selangor, it is clear the state has had both achievements to be proud of and challenges that caused minor bumps along the way. However, it has also accomplished a whole lot, given the heightened political context and circumstances. In the areas of democracy, servicing the people and managing the economy, Selangor has succeeded in showing it is serious in bringing about government reform.

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

Reaching out to NGOs

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Tricia

Ah yes, it’s been a year now that Prime Minister Najib said he’d like to reach out to NGOs. I suppose his idea of doing that was to get the cops to chase NGO representatives down the street during the following Bersih 3.0 rally in April that year. This was first published in theSun on 9th March 2012.

Reaching out to NGOs

After almost two years of constant political punditry on when exactly the 13th General Election will be held – this constant moving target – it seems that the Prime Minister himself has upped the ante this past week. After having announced a slew of government goodies the last few months, he has moved on to a new segment to woo and win over: the “NGOs”, in his words.

It’s true; in a recent speech over the weekend, he called for a “smart partnership” between the government and non-governmental organisations, saying that they have taken a leading role in voicing out the concerns of the community, and that government should accept this reality. All well and good, but just what kind of strategic partnership is it that will follow? And how is the NGO community to respond to this sudden invitation of partnership, given past treatment that has not exactly been warm and fuzzy?

At the outset, it is probably a good move that NGOs are being considered as a significant voice, a separate and independent pillar altogether that can contribute positively to national development. However, many issues still exist that will surely make this announcement sound too good to be true. In short, can this call be taken seriously, or is it yet another way of polishing the right shoes before an important event is due to take place.

First, the sort of NGOs that the Prime Minister refers to are in all probability non-threatening groups that engage in government-approved activities. Such societies bring good to communities, by all means, and should be supported. These are the likes of humanitarian NGOs involved in charitable care, health, livelihood.

But does he refer to, and would he be willing to support, other civil society organisations, those that work hard on issues such as civil and political rights, the environment and economic justice?

On the previous weekend, for example, the “Save Malaysia Stop Lynas” campaign gathered for a rally protesting the setting up of a rare earth plant in Kuantan. Although the police acted fairly to ensure the rally was run smoothly – and this is lauded – till today, the government has not visibly engaged these activists in a serious response to the community’s concerns with complete figures, facts and solutions.

Second, and on a related point, the NGO landscape in Malaysia is not generic, as one might find whilst navigating the variety of organisations that exist. For example, you have groups with polar opposite demands, such as conservative ethnic-based societies that call for preservation of their race (and theirs alone) versus groups that consider ethnicity a farce and therefore prefer to identify themselves as citizens of the country.

The current government would not have an easy time deciding which to favour. Unless, of course, it is able to take a moral stand and make decisions based on a consistent principle that is applied across the board. Consistency is important when reaching out to NGOs – you can’t in one breath say that an organisation is illegal and then immediately after form a parliamentary select committee that pushes for reform in the exact area this organisation was lobbying after (hint: yellow).

Third, the very makeup of NGOs and civil society organisations dictates that they are fiercely independent in nature. This is in contrast to, for example, NGOs whose programmes are fully funded by the government. NGOs that eventually become financially beholden to these donors should not really be classified as “non-government”, should they? Woe betide a patronising government, and worse, one that fails to live up to expectations that are being set.

Numerous conferences, roundtable discussions and forums – both private and public – have for the past decades been organised by NGOs and other independent groups, resulting in recommendations and reports. Countless statements and resolutions have been forwarded to the government for their follow-up.

Whilst understandably, not all can be implemented, there is great value within these sessions’ output that have not really been taken seriously. Several years ago, for example, the Merdeka Statement produced by the Centre for Public Policy Studies – where I was attached to – which contained key recommendations that Malaysia would need as a country moving forward, was rubbished as racist. New statements and policy documents have emerged since from many other stakeholders, and it is hoped the government will now diligently peruse these to seek out constructive demands.

Finally, organisations must be dealt with on an intellectual level. Although the term NGO itself conjures up images of tree-hugging, rah-rah types, in reality civil society is likely represented by a whole spectrum of individuals including activists, but also professionals, academics and the like. So when government offers to work with NGOs, it must do so as equal partners and be willing to provide rational and level-headed responses. These organisations should not at the end of the day feel used for political reasons.

Of course, ultimately, everything revolves around the elections and politics will be an ever-present constant in our lives. With this in mind, one hopes that this “strategic partnership” between government and NGOs will be to the eventual benefit of our communities. More importantly perhaps, that this engagement is not merely lip service for politically expedient reasons, but instead an effort that reflects a serious and sincere approach in dealing with a maturing democracy – one that extends beyond the election circus of the day.

Posted in Civil Society | Leave a comment

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