Same rules of the game

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Tricia

In October 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement was rife, infecting many other cities in the US and England. We had a similar movement, although ours started even before theirs began, interestingly enough. A version of this was published in theSun on 7th October 2011.

Occupy – The Same Rules of the Game

“We are the 99%” is the slogan used by the thousands of protestors who have stormed New York City in the “Occupy Wall Street” campaign, which culminated in the march and mass arrests on Brooklyn Bridge last weekend. Their message is simple: a protest against the well-oiled financial and economic system that is led by the 1% of the population, made up of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans; the same system that despite having wreaked havoc on the country’s (and therefore, the world’s) economy, still continues running unabashedly on the same rules of the game as it did previously.

Watch the scenes on Al-Jazeera (or Youtube, depending on your generation) and you’d think the protestors are starving, with nothing to lose, like in the Arab Spring revolution. We often think Americans have it all, abundant manna from heaven, but a Washington Post columnist decries this fallacy, saying that three years after the crash, “youth employment is at its lowest level since the end of World War II” (Downie, J., 26th September 2011).

The Malaysian Prime Minister will be tabling the 2012 Budget in Parliament on this very day. At the time of writing, he has hinted that its contents will address the rising cost of living of low-income earners, like “extending financial aid, subsidies, incentives, skills training, healthcare services and housing”. (Funny, were we not told by Pemandu just last year that subsidies would have to be withdrawn, failing which Malaysia would be bankrupt by 2019?)

My humble prediction of the Budget’s contents is that it will be precisely that: a combination of motherhood statements like “increasing foreign investment”, “stimulating economic growth”, and welfare aid policies like “1Housing Scheme”, “1Skills Programme” and “1Subsidy”, and so on. A number of quotes from the ETP, GTP, EPP and the 10th Malaysia Plan, to be sure.

All well and good, except that nowhere in the Prime Minister’s speech or the accompanying budget documents will there be an incisive analysis of the failures of an economic system that will break (and has been breaking) Malaysia.

And what exactly is this? 

It is the culture that embraces, breeds, and practically worships the means of getting rich quick, and finding deceptively roundabout ways of doing so. It is considered the intelligent thing to do, in climbing the ladder of crony capitalism. Forget the free market; this is pulling every string you’ve got to get ahead of the crowd.

In fact, this is a culture deeply embedded within the privatisation scheme introduced by then Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir in the 1980s, many of which turned awry. Recall the multiple bailouts and losses the Malaysian government (and hence, taxpayers) had to consequently bear throughout the 1990s: Bank Bumiputera Finance, Star LRT, Putra LRT, EPF are some examples. The principle of privatisation is to maximise competitiveness and productive efficiency, but the Malaysian version seems to have emerged with the opposite results.

The Najib administration has declared its wishes to minimise government’s role in the economy, transferring this to the private sector. One wonders if real competition and private-led initiatives will be permitted to flourish.

Especially since recent privatisation schemes with similar modus operandi have continued. The water services industry in Selangor is an example of failed privatised public utilities, one particular concession company of which being continually in the red, sustained only by Federal government loans.

Another example is the current and ongoing Federal government move to centralise the privatisation of solid waste management in Peninsular Malaysia. Under this scheme, three private companies will be given 22-year concessions to undertake solid waste management (Alam Flora in the central zone, E-Idaman in the north and Southern Waste Management in the south). The Selangor, Penang and Perak state governments have opted out, having their local councils take over instead.

There are several issues here that Malaysians should be concerned about. First, although the Federal government will pay the additional fees to the concession companies, this is only for the first five to seven years. The Minister of Housing and Local Government stated that “after the KPI is fulfilled and people feel satisfied with the services, we will start charging”. These funds dispensed by government are effectively taxpayers’ money anyway. Second, the companies will receive RM500m to RM600m annual payment from the government on top of the assessment fees. Finally and most importantly, how were these companies selected?

In Malaysia, 60 percent of households still earn less than RM3,500 a month in 2009 (10th Malaysia Plan), whilst six percent earns more than RM10,000 a month (there is frustratingly no data available for higher income categories).

The privatisation model seems to be a repetition of schemes that in the past have failed to deliver public benefits effectively. Further, it enriches a rentier, crony class disproportionately to corporate performance. Unending “corporate welfare” provided by government could instead be channelled more effectively for public good.

Given the trend, one hopes the Budget 2012 will tackle structural reform. Failing which, Malaysians may begin to ask themselves whether they belong to the 1% of society – or the 99%.

Posted in Economics, Human Rights, Outside Malaysia | Leave a comment

Of schooling and the budget

Posted on October 5, 2011 by Tricia

Education is something almost all Malaysians worry about, for good reason – it affects their children’s future, after all! This was published in Selangor Times in October 2011, on what the 2012 Budget would say about education policy.

Of Schooling and the Budget

In my conversation with Malaysian parents, the topic almost always steers back to the issue of the country’s education system. They are most often in a dilemma about which schools they should place their children in, and which system to opt for.

Most parents who have been through the national education system in their youth, and benefited from its multiracial atmosphere, want their children to experience the same thing, yet fear the consequences of the combined effects of poor syllabus content, low quality teachers, and an atmosphere that just does not encourage critical thinking, growth and development of the child.

As a result, parents of different ethnicities have gravitated towards national-type Chinese schools, national-type Tamil schools, and other types like Government-assisted religious schools, mission schools, private schools, international schools and the new kid on the block: home-schooling.

The government is surely aware of the urgency of the matter, that if we do not correct the education system that produces unemployable graduates with a poor command of English, this will be the major source of economic slowdown – no matter the sophisticated infrastructure that Malaysia already possesses.

And what has the budget got to show for improving the quality of education in Malaysia?

The government will spend RM50.2 billion in education in 2012, out of which RM1.9 billion will be contributed to national schools, national-type Chinese schools, national-type Tamil schools, mission schools and Government-assisted religious schools, RM1 billion for construction, improvement and maintenance of schools.

One of the interesting announcements was the removal of primary and secondary school fees, which will cost the government RM150 million in total (school children currently pay RM24.50 and RM33.50 annually for primary and secondary school fees).

And then, a slew of incentives for private and international schools (if registered with the Ministry of Education and in compliance with regulation): Income tax exemption of 70% or investment tax allowance of 100% on qualifying capital expenditure for 5 years; double deduction for overseas promotional expenses to attract more foreign students; import duty and sales tax exemptions on all educational equipment.

It is all well and good for the government to increase incentives for private and international schools – they have in recent years been given greater liberalisation to operate on home ground. And there have been an increasing number of such schools, which raises the variety of options available to parents.

On the one hand, this may seem a positive thing, which allows private and international schools the option to price down (with their incentives and such, but only if the school chooses to do so), thereby making quality education available to a wider spectrum of people. But on the other hand, let’s not kid ourselves. But ultimately, only those in the highest income categories would be able to afford private education, whereas 60% of Malaysians have a household income of less than RM3500 on average.

This also creates silos of the educated, a fundamental problem with greater liberalisation of the education sector, where you have the rich and educated layer of society versus the less well-to-do having no choice but to receive education in national schools.

Sure, a budget on its own accord would not be able to solve all of the country’s education policy problems. But it does seem as if more efforts have been channelled to boosting the popularity of private education this time round.

Education is one of the National Key Results Areas (NKRA) under the helm of Pemandu at the Prime Minister’s Department. The four sub-areas are focused on pre-school education, literacy and numeracy, high-prestige schools (a target of 20) and giving achievement-based incentives to school leaders (headmasters in particular).

These four sub-areas, combined with the lack of description within the 2012 Budget on how to actually improve the quality of syllabus and of educators itself are of great concern and worry. The country does need a severe overhaul of the national education system, right from its roots of the teachers’ training colleges. (The flip-flop policies on English in Science and Maths are an added problem, but much has been said about this).

In short, parents want to feel secure in the knowledge that when they drop their children off at school every morning, the kids are maximising their potential, absorbing knowledge and being enthusiastic about learning, being exposed to the right material and being developed as a better human being. If the current national school system fails to deliver on this, we will get a situation of increasing fragmentisation, where the poles draw slowly apart in the contexts of not just race and religion, but of socioeconomic status.

Posted in Education | Leave a comment

Key liberties not yet settled

Posted on September 24, 2011 by Tricia

Since the ISA, parts of the PPPA and other legislative reforms have taken place, do Malaysians really have cause to celebrate? My piece here argues otherwise, published first in theSun on 23rd September 2011.

Key liberties not yet settled

It was an interesting time to be in Europe (I attended an international market research network meeting last week), with the ever-present talk of the Eurozone in crisis, Greek’s potential default, the rest having to pick up its pieces especially Germany, and the general financial uncertainty in the region. Politically, most countries in Europe have voted in right-leaning parties into government. An interactive political map on The Guardian’s website (a British newspaper) shows the shift of Europe from the left to the right over the past 30 years, ending with today’s situation in which only Spain, Austria and Greece remain with left-leaning governments.

There is a whole debate one can embark upon when describing political ideology, especially so when labels such as “liberal” and “social democracy” take on varying meanings when applied to different areas. In Europe at least, right-leaning parties have taken a more hardline approach to immigration. Is it possible to draw a correlation between economic decline and the consequent dissatisfaction with foreign migrant workers, since the latter occupy valuable space and jobs?

Malaysia, on the other hand, does not entertain political ideology, where its parties on either side of the divide have rarely clearly identified themselves either on the left or right. When it does talk about ideology, it demonises socialism and communism without fully comprehending its bases of argument. One reason for the lack of ideological debate is perhaps because it has taken so long to even get the fundamentals right, like a free and fair media, or the right to freely assemble.

And so, we rejoiced over Malaysia Day when the announcement to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA) and amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) was made (amongst others). It came as a breath of fresh air, and accolades were given to the Prime Minister for delivering on his promise made in 2009.

But hold your horses for a minute. Subsequent statements have not been as promising, where for example the law minister has said detention without trial would still continue in the enactment of two new laws to counter terrorism. It will be interesting to observe what the consequence of, say, another peaceful rally taking place in town; would people still be detained to preserve the “peace and harmony” of the country?

As we watch this particular drama unfolding, Malaysians will have to be vigilant and continue expressing their views, concerns and hopes. These opinions will surely count as Parliamentarians debate the issues, and as public consultation sessions are organised. Already we see the tension mounting, with Perkasa’s leader calling on the prime minister to preserve the spirit of the ISA in the two new laws. Would there be any point in abolishing the much-feared ISA only to find it in the more obscure form under another name?

The PPPA’s amendments will now no longer require licences to be renewed annually, but licences can still come under the threat of being suspended or withdrawn. Perhaps the more important question is whether or not anything would really change in practice. Would, for example, newspaper editors stop receiving calls when they report on something particularly sensitive?

When news of this broke out, the BBC and other international media reported on this brave move in all of ten words (or so). Of course, the media has a tendency to report news in bite-sized form, which serves the demands of people who have little time to digest anything further. Hence even more crucial the scrutiny of the contents of the new laws which may not necessarily be labelled as “internal security”.

As long as the Malaysian government continues to make use of the term “democracy” to describe its aspirations, Malaysians must strive to keep it accountable to the practice of this. This marks only the beginning of the discussion, and all conscientious citizens ought to express their views and demands, as the nation continues to determine for itself what laws will eventually govern this democratic space we call Malaysia.

In the meantime, although it looks like we will be preoccupied with these fundamental civil liberties, it is hoped that there will be greater opportunities to engage in discussion of the left vs. right political ideology, as the application of this will have tremendous impact on how we steer our economy in the right direction.

Posted in Human Rights | Leave a comment

Making housing affordable in urban states

Posted on September 12, 2011 by Tricia

Affordable housing is likely to be a key election issue. First published in September 2011 in the Penang Monthly.

Making housing affordable in urban states

The government that manages best in providing affordable housing of good quality is a popular one. However, solving the problem seems harder than one would assume. But if governments at different levels can collaborate in building and maintaining low cost housing, much will be won.

Malaysians love to talk about property. Most opening conversations of late sound something like, “Property prices are so high these days! I am just waiting for the property bubble to burst before making my purchase”; and this is amongst white-collar middle-income earners contemplating housing in urban areas. The combination of rising property prices, inflation in goods and services, and non-commensurate wage increases is indeed a lethal one. What then of those who earn meagre incomes, whether those below the poverty line income or those more despairingly caught in the trap of being neither in the “hardcore poverty” or “poverty” categories, where welfare and other assistance in kind are denied?

There are various bodies that administer policies and execution of low cost or affordable housing. At the federal level, there is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government whose role is to provide general national policy on housing and local government issues, and under which sits the National Housing Department. Then at the state government level, there are the Housing and Property Boards. In Selangor, this is the Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor, whilst in Penang we have the Lembaga Perumahan Pulau Pinang, both of which are purely state bodies promoting greater access to quality and affordable housing. Simultaneously, there exist corporatised bodies which are quasi-governmental in nature, such as Syarikat Perumahan Nasional Berhad (SPNB) or the National Housing Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance Incorporated with the objective of “providing quality affordable homes for every family in Malaysia”, and which behaves as a non-profit corporation.

Under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, there are four categories of housing with varying house price structures and target groups based on monthly income. These are: Low Cost Housing with house prices of below RM42,000 and targeting those with a monthly income of below RM1,500; Low-medium Cost with house prices from RM42,001 to RM60,000 and targeting those earning between RM1,500 and RM2,500; Medium Cost with house prices from RM60,001 to RM100,000, and High Cost of any houses above RM100,000 – the latter two categories of which do not have a specific target income group. (These definitions differ according to SPNB, where low cost is from RM35,000; low-medium cost from RM50,000 and medium cost from RM80,000 and above within Peninsular Malaysia.)

Existing affordable housing efforts

The federal and various state governments have recognised that the problem is a big one and as far back as 1971 under the New Economic Policy, low cost housing was introduced as a government policy. It was reported that from 1990 to 2009, about 808,000 units of low cost affordable housing were provided to support Malaysians in need, with approximately 128,000 of these built between 2006 and 2009. It is not clear if these were provided by the federal or state government housing bodies.

Some of the challenges of affordable housing include the difficulty of matching supply and demand of housing based both on location and affordability. In 2005, supply of low cost houses was still 15% behind targeted demand. The 10th Malaysia Plan recorded that in 2009 a total of 13,529 individuals and families applied for public housing,
while a survey of states showed that “there were 97,260 squatter families who were yet to be relocated to permanent
housing.” Secondly, the quality and maintenance of low cost housing are generally poor. Finally, meeting the requirement of having an environmentally sustainable design such as green technology runs up the costs of houses.

The federal government has, at least on paper, focused on affordable housing. For example, one of its six National Key Results Areas (NKRAs) is to improve rural basic infrastructure and build housing for the poor and hardcore poor. As seen in its recent planning documents, the priority seems to be on the bottom 40% of Malaysian households. The government acknowledges the fact that the current national housing policy obliges housing developers to allocate 30% of housing project units to low cost houses. However, developers are often unhappy about this requirement when their development involves prime land and medium to high cost housing. Some developers have suggested that these 30% can be built but in other locations designated by the government. Although ideal on paper, the fear is that that will create low-income silos, perfect breeding grounds for ghettos – an obvious undesirable. This issue is addressed by Selangor in the manner mentioned below.

It is strange that the New Economic Model (NEM) proposes that state-level Housing Development Boards be established to work with developers to address the housing needs of the bottom 40% of households, since
many states already have these boards. But more important is the role they play, and whether they are empowered enough to manage interesting and unique housing schemes. Of course, at the federal government level, more can be done, including “providing those who are at risk of default or unable to afford the low monthly instalments a… lease on the low cost unit with an option to purchase at the end of the lease period.” Another interesting proposal is to offer Employees Provident Fund (EPF) loans for the housing needs of the middle 40% that are “repayable through deductions from employees’ monthly contribution.” It is unclear whether these proposals are being adopted or not.

Other glowing promises by the federal government include constructing 78,000 units of new affordable public housing, where approximately 30% to 75% of total construction costs are subsidised. Several funds were also reportedly established, such as a Housing Maintenance Fund with an initial funding of RM500mil to “assist the residents of both public and private low cost housing units” (based on a matching grant where half of the contribution comes from residents through their joint management body or management corporation), and a Tabung Perumahan 1Malaysia.

State governments’ role in providing affordable housing?

Within these efforts by the federal government, what role can state governments play? After all, all states have an executive councillor in charge of housing. In Penang, the person in charge is YB Chow Kon Yeow; in Selangor, YB Iskandar Samad. Based on statistics from 2000 (a later update was not obtainable), 47.7% of completed low-medium cost housing was in Penang (7,502 houses), followed by 18.2% in Kuala Lumpur (2,866 houses) and 10.8% in Selangor (1,696 houses).

In response to accusations by Barisan Nasional that Penang had not launched any affordable housing schemes, the Penang Chief Minister said that the state has indeed approved 11,596 affordable homes (low and medium cost) since 2008. These were a mix of state government and private-funded housing projects involving housing units worth an estimated RM42,000 (low cost) or RM72,500 (medium cost) each. Of the 11,596 units, 8,175 (2,612 low cost and 5,563 medium cost) units were built by private developers while the government and its agencies constructed 3,421 (1,194 low cost and 2,227 medium cost) units. It also stated its plans to redevelop other housing projects involving 992 low cost homes and 192 medium cost homes.

The Selangor state government in its recent announcements also seems acutely aware of the problem, and its Menteri Besar and executive councillor in charge of housing have announced affordable housing as a top priority in Selangor. A workshop and consultation session is expected to help the state review its current policy of requiring developers to allocate a proportion of its development to low and medium cost housing. YB Iskandar also proposes council flats for the very poor, and a “share” model for buyers and the government to pay for half a property each, the poor paying for incremental shares of the house until they eventually own the house in total.

With regards to the policy of imposing 20% of low cost homes, 20% of low-medium cost homes and 10% of medium cost homes ratios on developers for every residential development above 10 acres, Selangor plans to revise this model as the “allocation of affordable homes needs to be market-driven”.  In tweaking the model, Selangor hopes that low cost homes will no longer be built in unfavourable areas such as near sewage plants or far away from public transportation. Selangor will also build affordable homes for residents earning between RM2,500 and RM5,000 a month under a new project of 2,000 houses, with several locations already identified.

Providing affordable housing is an area that both federal and state governments can surely collaborate on. It is a potentially hot issue for any election, and the government that can provide affordable housing at appropriate locations will be a popular one indeed. This is especially the case within the urban states of Penang and Selangor, where property prices are soaring. Whether or not the bubble bursts, there are a significant number of poor households who will require better accommodation than what they currently possess. State enterprises must emerge with better solutions and not solely rely upon the private sector to satisfy the needs of the public – the private sector, concerned with profit, coerced as they are to provide responsibly for society, invariably cannot do a better job than the state in identifying appropriate strategic policies and then ensuring enforcement and implementation of affordable housing schemes.

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

Internet, Information and Transparency

Posted on September 10, 2011 by Tricia

On Bersih and how the Internet allows transparency of data – but not always. A version of this was first published in theSun on 9th September 2011.

Internet, Information and Transparency

It took the government this long to figure out that people were genuinely concerned about the need for electoral reform in Malaysia – thanks mainly to Bersih 2.0. The Prime Minister first announced the formation of a Parliamentary Select Committee to deal with electoral reform issues, and the Election Commission (EC) actually issued a statement in response to Bersih’s demands.

Just this week, the commission also announced that Malaysians can now download the voter registration form on its website, with accompanying instructions on what to do. Previously, assistant registrars have often faced shortages of voter registration forms, since only a specific form was accepted, and not just any photocopied version. To think that the EC could have solved this problem a long time ago by placing it online just makes one wonder why this could not have been done earlier.

Online is the way to go 

I had the privilege of judging the semi-finals of the Malaysian Public Policy Competition 2011 held at UCSI University last weekend. It is the first of its kind in Malaysia, organised jointly by the International Council of Malaysian Scholars and Associates and UCSI University, where Malaysians of both local and foreign universities competed to propose the best solution to a public policy problem.

Presentations were outstanding, where teams targeted government agencies in need of an overhaul on governance, transparency and accountability, such as the Police (on bribery), Judiciary (on the perception of biased proceedings), Road Transport Department (on the issuing of driving licences), Public Service Department (on the awarding of scholarships), amongst others. A common theme emerging from these young teams’ solutions was the need to go online.

Proposals ranged from having an open source bribery self-reporting system online, to making available live video streaming of high-profile court cases on the web (as put forth by the winning team from UiTM), to ensuring social media tools would be used to engage the public and disseminate information. Impressive and innovative indeed, ideas of which one should hope to see emerge from within the ranks of actual policymakers.

But is online information enough?

It is common for politicians to wax lyrical about the need for transparency and accountability, but we all know the devil is in the detail. Under the Government Transformation Programme, one of its initiatives under corruption is to disclose details of government procurement contracts. A quick check on the site does show tender advertisements and the final awarded tender of all ministries. It provides the final agreed price but does not give breakdowns for projects with multiple vendors (“Pakej” A, B and C are lumped together). These outcomes should be disaggregated for greater transparency.

The same thing goes for details of the annual budget. Although the estimated government expenditure document is available online, the problem lies within the document itself. Where, for example, “contingent liabilities” or the risk (current and expected) undertaken by government is general and vague without detailed descriptions. Information not only has to be publicly available, it also has to be sufficiently detailed for researchers to make sense of it.

Data must also be presented fairly well, such that it is accessible and easily understandable. A note to add that the government websites today could do with a design overhaul. Ploughing through the barrage of information can be a chore (some still have tacky and distracting Flash).

These efforts should be lauded as administrative improvements to the system. The more information is publicly available, the better. Data, reports, audio and video recordings, live reporting of real-time problems (police bribery, uncollected rubbish, pot-holes in roads, evidence of corruption) should go online. Even without a Freedom of Information Act, the principle of maximum disclosure can be adhered to, breaking the culture of shadowy secrecy.

But this does not ultimately solve the problem of the reality of shady dealings. No amount of published information online will tell you about surreptitious meetings and negotiations that take place before any tender is even advertised. Nor will it report the eventual escalation and inflation of project costs; just one example is the construction of the new Palace, which ballooned up from an original estimated cost of RM400 million to more than RM800 million (Bernama, 15 June 2010). There is no official site that would provide you with details of the original and eventual project cost, based on present navigation of the available government websites.

Information is the most powerful tool available to the public to keep their leaders in check. And using the Internet is ideal – all departments at all levels of government should actively pursue this. Granted, not everything can be captured, but something is better than nothing. Perhaps there will be a way to tabulate and quantify cronyism, patronage and bribery in the future, which would also then be available online.

Posted in Media | Leave a comment

Setting the Tone with Selangorku

Posted on September 8, 2011 by Tricia

I have a soft spot for everything Selangor of course, having worked in the Selangor State Government for 2 and a half years under its very hardworking Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. In this piece published in September 2011 in Selangor Times, I wrote about the efforts of the government in putting together a Selangor Agenda for the future of the dynamic state.

Setting the Tone with Selangorku

Selangor was one of the first governments in Malaysia to have officially celebrated Malaysia Day on 16th September in 2009, which was followed thereafter by the Federal Government in 2010 when it was declared a public holiday. This year, Selangor launched its version of an agenda in conjunction with Malaysia Day, called “Selangorku”, or “My Selangor”.

The project took about a year to complete, having been initiated when I was then Research Officer at the Selangor Menteri Besar’s office. Although I have since moved on, it was indeed a gratifying moment knowing the agenda had finally been launched.

To recap, the original objective of having an agenda at all was to set a direction for the Selangor state. After having been in the state government for more than two years (at the time the project was conceived in 2010), it was timely for Selangor to go through an evaluation process of its numerous policy reform measures, activities and programmes according to each portfolio and sector.

This was conducted via a series of townhall meetings held in each of the 12 local and municipal councils across the state, inviting stakeholders from a range of professions, in public, private, and non-governmental sectors to provide their perspectives and recommendations of what ought to be done in Selangor. The sessions were conducted like mini-group discussions around roundtables which allowed extensive discussion and facilitated by group moderators. The topics were centred upon governance (transparency and accountability), social issues (youth, crime and women issues were some that were raised) and infrastructure/public services (local council basic services such as roads, lights, drains and so on).

Apart from going to the ground, the Selangor team also met with specific groups to obtain their views on the direction of Selangor based on the government’s achievements or failures as well as share their opinions generally: institutes of higher learning, investors, the services and manufacturing sector, non-governmental organisations and selected academicians. Finally, the team held one-on-one personal interviews with each of the Exco members to ask what they felt were their most prominent policies and programmes that ought to be highlighted.

These were collated, taking into consideration the contents of other Selangor-related documents, such as the “Halatuju Selangor” document, various Selangor budgets, speeches, individual gazetted local council plans, the State Structural Plan, as well as some national documents that would invariably affect Selangor itself like the 10th Malaysia Plan and other Pemandu plans (Economic Transformation Programme, Government Transformation Programme).

Of course, the public is often not overly concerned about the details that go into any sort of policy document, hence some key points have been focused upon within brochures. These are namely the Selangor government’s commitment to holding local elections, the first of which is planned to be held in the Petaling Jaya City Council in 2012 as a pilot project. As civil society has long lobbied for the return of local council elections, this move would perhaps sit favourably amongst the urban dwellers. According to the Selangorku document, local governments must be fully responsible to the people and it is the rakyat who “should have the right to elect new leadership.” Democracy truly has to begin at the local level, and electing the best councillors who will care for neighbourhoods and residential areas is the best way to demonstrate this.

The second priority area is for the state government to develop affordable housing for families with low household income (between RM2500 and RM5000), again something a responsible state should take up. As inflation rises, many are finding it increasingly difficult to be new house-buyers and owners.

Third, the Selangorku document looks at facilitating collaboration with residents and the private sector to finance private security, with a pilot project hopefully within Subang Jaya. Although crime is one of the National Key Result Areas (NKRA) at the Federal Government level, it makes more sense for a more decentralised process of administering security to take place. State and local governments, for example, have greater access and frequent interaction with resident associations. Both governments have, however, relied on higher numbers of CCTVs to help monitor crime.

Fourth is an interesting proposal, where although the Federal Government and its National Minimum Wage Council have agreed upon a minimum wage, it has not yet been implemented. The Pakatan Rakyat which has a policy on minimum wage has taken a stand through the Selangor government to implement a minimum wage of RM1500 for all state subsidiaries effective January 1, 2012. If successfully carried out, other Pakatan states ought to emulate this step for the sake of consistency.

Finally, the agenda outlines infrastructure as another key area, to ensure good maintenance of roads, drains, and bridges which are under local council supervision. Ultimately, the basic service delivery of local councils is what will matter most to the everyday citizen.

It seems a positive step for the state government to have emerged with its own policy agenda, setting the direction it is currently and seeks to work towards. One problem the state has faced, however, is a consistent criticism of the lack of publicity and communication of its numerous work efforts. And indeed, there have been a whole lot of initiatives undertaken, but with minimal awareness amongst those living in Selangor. Output does not seem to have matched the amount of input invested into these numerous programmes, unfortunately.

The launch of the Selangorku Agenda has been one such way of tackling this problem of under-communicated policies. It is hoped that the existing team within the government (at all levels, including the Exco offices and other state assemblypersons) would be able to widely publicise this important document that, as I understand it, will set the tone for the upcoming elections through first, examples of what the state government has already done, and second, what it is currently and will execute in the future. With a roadmap in hand, the state can push forward confidently with a bold agenda – which of course must be equally matched with actual and smooth execution, which is the final and most crucial determinant of public opinion.

Posted in Economics, Selangor | Leave a comment

How Far the Economic Reform?

Posted on August 26, 2011 by Tricia

Recently there has been an interesting Teraju clip being circulated on Facebook. I mentioned Teraju in my article here, comparing it against what Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak initially wanted to do with the New Economic Model (NEM) but later reversed. First published in theSun on 26th August 2011.

How far the Economic Reform? 

In these politically turbulent times, even the government is having difficulty dealing with itself. But to make serious and effective reform, it has to stick to its vision and not be waylaid.

In the movie “Primary Colors” that is loosely based on the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, his opponent in his speech says, “This is a terrific country but sometimes it goes a little bit crazy… if we don’t watch out and calm down, it may all spin out of control… The world is getting more and more complicated, but politicians explain things to you in simple terms so you can get your oversimplified explanations on the evening news.

“Sometimes they give up and start slinging mud at each other and it’s all to keep you excited and keep you watching, like a wrestling match. It’s staged and it’s fake and doesn’t mean anything… it seems it’s the only way to keep you all riled up…”

This, to me, seems a most apt depiction of the situation we are currently faced with in Malaysia. The issues that rain down upon us are oversimplified to fit into bite-sized stories. The worst part is that it’s all about public positioning, many a time staged to keep people continually fascinated by the political intrigue that has come to define us.

Can Pemandu cut it?

But let’s face it. Whether it is Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat who helms the Federal Government, it will be a gargantuan task to tackle the deep-set problems Malaysia faces today. Either side would be forced to deal with an oversized civil service, institutions that have eroded through the years, and the constant tension between pushing for an equal society and liberalised economy vs. demands to maintain the system of patronage and cronyism under the guise of the Bumiputera policy.

Pemandu in its current form is the Prime Minister’s solution to all things rotten in the country, with a host of initiatives that form an alphabet soup of sorts. We have the GTP, ETP, NKRAs and NKEAs (Malaysians should know what they stand for by now, should they not?) that cover a wide array of policy issues, including the most pressing ones such as education, corruption and human capital development.

How successful this will be remains to be seen. Some initial hiccups evident to an external observer are: first, the possible replication of duties and responsibilities, where roles overlap between that of Pemandu and that of the civil service (ministries and government agencies). Second, as pointed out by Greg Lopez in his article “Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis” (New Mandala, Australian National University website on Southeast Asian issues), these signature policies have ironically neglected the importance of institutional reforms.

NEM and Teraju

Finally, and probably the most significant of the lot, is the growing inability to negotiate between a more open economy and the demand to maintain a controlled and quota-ridden one. The New Economic Model (NEM) uses terms such as “liberalised sectors”, “a level playing field”, “market led” and “competitive environment”, and makes bold statements like “More competition and pushing ahead with liberalisation will need to be complemented by a system that recognises and rewards merit… greater recognition of merit for gaining access to opportunities…(which) denotes the level and quality of individual as signalled by his or her performance” (NEM Part 1).

It is clear that these goals are being shelved in order to return to the same kinds of policies the NEM was critical of in the first place. A good example is, following demands by the like of Perkasa, the subsequent formation of Teraju which has as its objective to “lead, coordinate and drive the Bumiputera agenda” as part of the country’s plan towards “becoming a high-income, developed, resilient and competitive nation”.

Hence, most recently, Teraju insisted that pre-qualifying criteria were included for the RM50 billion Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project and sale conditions of prime land worth over RM2 billion by UDA Holdings, in order to ensure “growth with equity”. It seems that Teraju has also been in consultation with other stakeholders like Prasarana, which will operate the MRT.

It will be interesting to know which party is really driving major decisions such as these, which have crucial impact on us all. The MRT especially so, since it will one day serve millions of Klang Valley residents, and top-notch quality (and not whether the Bumiputera composition of the chosen contractor) is essential to ensure safety of its commuters.

In the movie, the opposing candidate says, “I want to start having a conversation about what sort of country we want this to be in the next century.” We can only hope for such a leader who can champion bi-partisanship. Because more important than partisan politics today is the need to address Malaysia’s economic issues. And so, can the government withstand its own policies from getting derailed?

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

Bridging the Gap

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Tricia

Is Malaysia getting more or less polarised? A version of this was published in theSun on 10th August 2011.

Bridging the Gap

In Thomas Friedman’s 2005 book “The World is Flat”, he predicted that with the advent of technology, the world would become a level playing field in an increasingly globalised environment. In such a wired world, there would be greater access to and a flourishing exchange of information and ideas.

Initially, this was thought to have brought upon cultural and socioeconomic uniformity in various aspects. Six years later, we know now the reality: how globalisation has not brought people together but has in fact shown up the frissures that already existed in society – and then drawn these separate poles slowly but surely apart.

Few leaders are willing to say this, as it is politically incorrect, but this is true also – and more deeply so – of Malaysia. These deep divisions exist when it comes to ethnicity, class, language, geography (imbalanced development between the different states), and as we have experienced intensely of late, religion.

Religion and Democracy 

Religion has always been considered somewhat sensitive and something people refrain from discussing openly. One can recount the cases of Moorthy, Revathi, Lina Joy, the Allah issue, church-burning, cow-head demonstration, and other recent events, with shaking heads as we observe the descent of reason.

And yet, religion ought to be the very bastion of democratic principles, should it not? At the Islamic Renaissance Front’s (IRF) recent forum on “Reappraising Liberty and Democracy”, speakers and participants contemplated how religion (Islam to be specific) is in fact foundational to democracy, the elements of which include liberty, freedom of speech, expression, religion and association.

Of course, one speaker admitted that the threat to liberty and democracy does not necessarily come from the people – faith practitioners – but from the state and institutions. This is an important insight, since we are acutely aware of how the state plays an extremely prominent role in guiding the practice of religion in this country. And how exactly has the state governed faith?

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s “Rising Restrictions on Religion” report released recently showed that restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose between 2006 and 2009 in 23 of the world’s 198 countries. Malaysia was one of the 10 countries cited as having “very high government restrictions” as of mid-2009, ranking the 7th highest amongst the top 5% countries with very high restrictions.

In fact, only two countries made it into the “Very High” category of “Countries with Substantial Increases in Government Restrictions”: Egypt and Malaysia. Some of these restrictions include references to government monitors of Muslim groups that are considered unorthodox, and these deviants being sent to religious rehabilitation centres.

Bridging the Divide 

It seems almost impossible now to bridge the gaping divide between what people perceive as polar opposites. Note that it is not just inter-religious but intra-religious divisions that exist. Within Islam, there are variations between the different schools of thought – Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, and so on. Within Christianity, there are variations between Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, and so on.

Efforts have been made through the years at bringing people together from different faith communities, largely driven by civil society. The Malaysian Interfaith Network (MIN), the Inter-faith Spiritual Fellowship (INSaF), and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) are such examples.

But there are also failures to speak of. The Inter-Faith Commission (IFC) of 2006 was a stillborn due to mistrust of the organisation’s objectives. And most recently, the Prime Minister’s Department struggled and then failed, to set up an interfaith committee.

Without proper avenues to truly learn about each other’s religions, does it really come as a surprise then that people have difficulty understanding ‘the other’? In any debate or misunderstanding, it is most important to listen, observe, be truly conscious of the other person’s motivations and fears. This is not happening today.

We need to create safe spaces for young Malaysians (and maybe the old too) to share their faith stories. Technology can be harnessed for the right reasons, in uniting people as opposed to creating further silos in our already divided polity.

When Nelson Mandela finally took over in South Africa, he established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid, in hopes of resolving conflict from the past. Malaysia has very many unresolved wounds that it will one day need great healing from. But first we have to recognise there do exist increasing divisions. Then we must be willing to set aside prejudices to start afresh in understanding each other. And then – making use of our critical, thinking minds to separate fact from fiction; reason from political jargon.

It is admittedly an extremely tough nut to crack. But perhaps, instead of policies and laws that create further divisions and drive opposing sides further apart, state apparatuses and institutions (this includes political parties) could pursue singlemindedly the objective of seeing religion as a healing balm, a bridge, a connector.

We have to start somewhere. Anywhere.

This column is dedicated to the late Dr. John Gurusamy, coordinator of the Malaysian Interfaith Network, who passed away on 6th August 2011.

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

Why Everything is Political

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Tricia

Why Everything is Political

There is a tendency for people to complain in loud groans how everything is oh-so-political these days. The fact is that, yes, everything is in fact political. Especially so in a country like Malaysia where decision-making is highly centralised and ultimately concentrated on the few that make up the Cabinet within the Federal Government.

Sure, in an ideal world, there ought to be more than one way to bring about change. We envision a situation in which the media, civil society and labour unions have equal power in lobbying for policy reform, and although efforts are being made to strengthen these institutions, the sad reality is we are far from achieving this in Malaysia.

So, although one might be disgusted by underhanded tactics employed by political parties and individuals, one must equally understand that nothing can change unless it goes through the political route given the current climate. Everything is ultimately political and we shall see why.

At a Student Leaders’ Conference I spoke at recently at Universiti Malaya, the question was posed to all panelists as to how we would define “politics”. One fellow speaker answered that politics was the process of standing up for the rights one deserves; another that politics is the process through which power is obtained, which in turn is used for administering public good.

I gave examples of how gathering a group of people together under any setting would then undergo a political process of nominating and electing a leader. There would also be the dynamics involved; identifying people who are influencers, taking positions and sides on issues of concern, debating these matters, and so on. This can be observed even within the setting of a family, classroom, students’ union, labour union, and of course at the larger scale of the nation.

Malaysians are eager to talk about public issues these days. Countless forums, conferences, talks are being organised almost weekly, clogging up halls over weekends. This is a positive sign that we are wanting to engage instead of sweeping things under the carpet, but at the end of every forum the question always remains the same: What can be done? My answer would be, again, that because of the nature of our system, one has to go through the political route. Some examples are given below.

  • Scandals: There are scores of these one can recall in an instance, flooding our online newsfeeds as if a Pandora’s Box has just been opened. Let’s just take the Port Klang Free Zone incident. After theSun exposed correspondences and the fact that letters of guarantee were issued to PKFZ to raise bonds, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) then summoned officials to answer questions on the project. A series of events followed, including a PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, and finally a series of charges and arrests took place. Although there are individuals who have certainly gone unpunished, without political pressure from the opposition, the PAC would not have sprung into action.
  • Addressing poverty: In addressing poverty issues, the Federal government a long time ago introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) which contained affirmative action policies that benefited the Bumiputera community, but have been severely abused and misused. Pakatan Rakyat in its economic proposals is proposing an alternative economic policy that is needs-based, thereby allowing all those from various races in need to benefit from it. It was only following the criticisms to the abuse of the NEP (by academics, think tanks, Opposition, civil society) that the government in fact later proposed liberalisation measures in its New Economic Model (NEM), largely similar to the Opposition’s proposals. For national wealth to trickle down effectively to appropriate poor communities, again it is those making decisions at political institutions who need to be lobbied.
  • Quality of education: Probably one of the greatest concerns of parents these days is the quality of education, thereby determining the schools that their children attend. Low salaries already make the teaching profession an undesirable career, hence the poor quality of teachers – added to this is the poor selection of textbook material, bias towards Islamic education within national syllabus and the lack of representation of non-Malays contributing to the country’s history. These are all obviously politically motivated and again, one must resort to political pressure to influence change within the Education Ministry and Teachers’ Training Colleges.

These are just samples of the numerous problems our country is faced with today. Other pressing issues include crime and security, corruption, wages, inflation, and economic growth.

The point I am making is that precisely because these are everyday issues that will invariably affect the lives of you and those around you, we should simply stop demonising politics as it were. As those sitting in the cushy middle space between the presently polarised political forces, there is a tendency for us to follow political news keenly – sometimes even leave comments on articles we are interested in – but otherwise laugh mockingly at the actual players in the game because all that is quite beneath us.

But the truth of the matter is that whichever pet peeve we have of the circumstances surrounding us, we will continue to heavily depend on the political forces that be to institute the change we desperately need. Whether this takes place through the official routes of government committees, ministries, political parties, or non-governmental associations (which in turn have close links with political parties, and which is natural as they require lobbying, and this happens all over the world).

Until the day we achieve a robust and independent media, civil society, labour union and student body, (all of which we should continue to promote), let us accept the fact that everything is political. And then we can do something about it, either by actually participating in the process or then influencing for change with the right parameters in mind.

Posted in Civil Society, Economics, General Politics, The Cause | Leave a comment

Keep solid waste local

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Tricia

Solid waste management – to keep it under the local councils, or to privatise it to a national and long-term concession holder? My piece in Penang Monthly in August 2011 argues against privatising it.

Keep solid waste local

The centralisation of solid waste management into private hands bodes ill for the country. The structure is fully reminiscent of the chaos that followed water privatisation, and chosen companies will enjoy long-term concessions and generous grants without suffering competition. The federal government has not learned from its past mistakes.

On a Malaysian online directory listing, Alam Flora Sdn Bhd’s description of itself reads: “We’ve been entrusted by the Government to manage the privatisation of the national solid waste management system for Selangor, Wilayah Persekutuan and Pahang.” This must be an outdated website, as the Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung’s recent written Parliamentary reply stated that the federal government’s plan to privatise solid waste management would not include the states of Penang, Selangor and Perak.

In this column last year, I wrote about the federal government’s plans to privatise solid waste management based on the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (“The Act”). At the time, negotiations were ongoing between the federal government, state governments and private concession companies, namely Alam Flora (to take over solid waste management in the central zone of Peninsular Malaysia), E-Idaman (northern zone) and Southern Waste Management (southern zone). Several months later, it was confirmed that the legislation will take effect on September 1, 2011.

Background

Prior to the passing of the Act, numerous problems with solid waste management had been in existence, namely the issues of waste generation (Malaysia produces 25,000 tons of waste daily and this is increasing steadily), waste collection (inconsistent and inefficient collection) and waste disposal (not enough waste is recycled and landfills no longer have space). Passed in 2007, the Act states that the federal government shall “have executive authority with respect to all matters relating to the management of solid waste and public cleansing throughout Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan”, with the intention of centralising solid waste management activities at the federal government, effectively removing this responsibility from local authorities.

What does the Act actually allow for? First, it gives significant control of solid waste management to the director-general of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management. It also states that no person is allowed to undertake, manage or operate any services related to solid waste management unless he is granted a licence under the Act. The implementation of the Act will involve the setting up of two bodies, one to regulate and another responsible for operations, namely the Department of National Solid Waste Management as the regulatory body and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Corporation in charge of operations. Privatisation will include collecting household and similar waste; cleaning the streets, drains and beaches; and clearing the trash piles.

Under the definition of the Act, “solid waste management facilities”  means any land, fixed or mobile plant and systems incorporating structures and equipment used or intended to be used for the handling, storage, separation, transport, transfer, processing, recycling, treatment and disposal of controlled solid waste, and includes transfer stations, disposal sites, sanitary landfill, incinerators and other thermal treatment plants, recycling plants and composting plants.

Pakatan states in disagreement

The Minister stated that the decision not to include several states in the new arrangement was not political in nature. He is right in this regard, since it is these state governments themselves that are not willing to join the scheme.

Both the Penang and Selangor state governments have clarified their positions clearly. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng gave three reasons for rejecting the privatisation plans; where first, the state government would not be able to ensure the highest level of service by contractors and would be held responsible for complaints. Second, the selection of contractors is done through limited (and not open) tender, and there is no guarantee of the best price, quality and management. Finally, he said that this erodes the existing powers of the state.

In Selangor, the local government committee chairman and executive councillor Ronnie Liu said the state government would prefer to administer solid waste management services through local authorities, where privatisation would encumber the system with further bureaucracy and deprive ratepayers of efficient service.

It is interesting to note that the Perak state government is also not on board the federal government privatisation scheme, although discussions are still taking place.

What is the real deal? 

Prior to the Act’s implementation, local councils administer solid waste management by contracting out these services to private concession companies. Some local councils take on the responsibilities on their own, like the Hulu Selangor local authority in Selangor. However, in the past, local council management has not been a financially viable solution, where almost 40% of local council revenues are used for solid waste management.

The federal government defends the move to privatise solid waste with several points. First, it says that people would now experience better solid waste disposal and cleaning of public areas without having to pay extra as the federal government would bear the additional cost for the increase in quality. Second, companies will be given key performance indicators (KPIs) and must perform based on these.

These are fundamentally flawed arguments, if one looks closer at the real deal.

How things will actually work is as follows. The two new bodies (the Department of Solid Waste Management and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Corporation) will likely have offices at city, town and district levels. This will involve the employment of hundreds of staff at these offices to conduct both regulatory and operational work. The estimated salaries of these hundreds of employees across the country should be calculated as part of the costs involved, and ought to be publicly disclosed.

Secondly, although people would not be paying, this is true only for the first five to seven years. The Minister himself has said that “after the KPIs are fulfilled and people feel satisfied with the services, we will start charging”. This means that starting from 2016, residents will have to pay a “solid waste management” bill directly to concession companies, in the way we pay for water supply services to Syabas currently. It is misleading to say that the federal government will cover all costs, as this is only for a temporary period. To date, no fee schedule has been made available.

Third, even if funds were coming from the federal government, these are effectively tax-payers’ money, which renders it necessary to ensure every Ringgit is being used most efficiently and for the right purposes. Under the Act, a Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Fund will be established, sums of which will be contributed by the state government and local authority, as well as moneys from the federal government. According to newspaper reports, the companies will be receiving between RM500mil and RM600mil a year from the federal government, what is essentially an interest-free grant on top of what they would receive as assessment fees from households.

Privatisation is not the way to go

On principle, this entire privatisation scheme is something Malaysians should be wary of. The quality of service provided to households would not necessarily change, since the concession companies being contracted are actually the same as at present. The only differences are that there will now be a regulatory body and an operations body that will keep track of their adherence to KPIs, and a large sum of money given to them annually.

This goes down the exact same track as that of water privatisation. The federal government has not learned from its past mistakes. These concession companies will have no incentive to perform as they are given long-term concessions and generous grants from the federal government, and with little competition. What guarantee is there that the three companies will perform any better than at current levels, despite given stringent KPIs?

Secondly, as I have argued previously, the move to centralise policy matters goes against the nature of Federalism that Malaysia is supposed to practice. State and local governments are given certain jurisdictions precisely because they are better placed to manage and oversee conditions at the residential areas. By taking these away, not much else is left, and worse – local councils, councillors and state representatives will not be able to respond to people’s grievances on solid waste.

Finally, some real issues will have to be dealt with, including negotiating for taking over solid waste management assets belonging to local councils and the eventual fee schedule paid to concessionaires by households. The decision by both Penang and Selangor – and Perak – not to participate in this privatisation is a bold one, but it also remains to be seen how innovative these states will be in managing the problem of solid waste management on their own.

Posted in Public Administration, Selangor | Leave a comment