We can’t afford bad waste management

Posted on November 8, 2011 by Tricia

One thing politicians sometimes forget is that people just want their basic services to get done right: safe streets, clean streets. And so, I am convinced issues of water and waste will eventually be primary factors in how satisfied people are with their governments. This appeared first in the Penang Monthly issue of November 2010.

We can’t afford bad waste management

Curbing the amount of solid waste we generate and improving our ability to collect them and then dispose of them rationally are major challenges for a modern state. Malaysia’s political culture of centralised solutions may be more a hindrance than a help.

Whilst the words “green” and “sustainable” have been gaining popularity in both the public and private sectors in Malaysia, it is worrying that problems associated with solid waste have intensified. No doubt, the management of solid waste over the years has always left much to be desired. Piles of rubbish strewn across open sites, irregular waste collection and dirty garbage trucks chugging along our roads are part of our national landscape.

Whether we like it or not, they are signs that something is not right in this country of ours. Why have the issues been so difficult to resolve, and who and what are responsible for this baneful affair?

Solid waste can be discussed in three segments, namely waste generation (residential, commercial, institutional and municipal), waste collection, and finally waste disposal. Where waste generation is concerned, the problem is worldwide. Since we consume in increasing amounts, the things we have to throw away have multiplied tremendously in volume. This of course puts great pressure on a society’s ability to collect and to dispose of its own throwaways.

The problem is not beyond our ability to manage. Some developed countries have learnt to deal with the problem. But in Malaysia, we are still fumbling around for acceptably efficient solutions.

Problems at three levels

According to the Housing and Local Government Ministry, Malaysia produces 25,000 tonnes of waste daily, and this is expected to rise to 30,000 tonnes by 2020. Out of this, 45% is food waste, 24% plastic, seven per cent paper and six per cent iron and glass. Selangor’s population of 3.49 million produced 3,090 tonnes per day in 2004 with Kuala Lumpur being responsible for 2,538 tonnes per day, or 5/6 of them.

Penang’s population of 1.34 million in 2002 produced 1,189 tonnes per day, and the MPPP (Municipal Council of Penang Island) showed that the amount of solid waste disposed increased by 52% to 768 tonnes per day in 2006 from 505 tonnes per day in 2005.

In 2001, Malaysia as a whole generated 0.68kg per capita/day, compared with Vietnam at 0.61kg per capita/day, Thailand at 0.23kg per capita/day and Singapore at 1.13kg per capita/day. Curbing waste generation is definitely the first thing that needs doing.

The second issue is waste collection. This has been under the purview of local authorities. However, whilst local councils that had sufficient funds could provide those services by contracting them to private companies, poorer councils could not. Waste management is never a profit-making exercise. For the latter, collection became infrequent. Local authorities spend RM1bil annually dealing with solid waste.

In Penang, collection coverage reportedly approaches 90% of households on Penang Island and 70% of households in Seberang Perai on the mainland.

The third problem is waste disposal. Less than five per cent of all waste is currently being recycled, when 30-50% is actually recyclable. Although recycling campaigns have been carried out before, these have largely failed to result in a systematic process of extracting recyclable items from the waste flow. Open dumping and open burning of waste were common practices until the early 1990s when landfills gradually became the preferred solution. As at April 2007, there were 261 landfills in the country, about 150 of which were still operating. There are now nine operating landfills in Selangor, all located away from urban areas. Landfills come under local council jurisdiction and are managed by appointed operators.

Landfills however are not a sustainable solution, as many are at critically full levels and need safe closure, non-sanitary landfills require upgrading and some landfills have been found to have been built too close to water catchment areas and access roads. An example is the Bukit Tagar landfill in Rawang where in 2006 an open pipe valve caused leachate spillage, leading to the contamination of Sungai Selangor. A more recent phenomenon is that of scavengers (immigrants and Orang Asli, depending on the site) who are exposed to toxic wastes and dumpsite collapse. Landfill capacity is severely limited today and land availability for new sites or transfer stations is not promising.

Land filling however remains the predominant treatment for municipal waste, even in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007

The federal government at the time did take measures to address this and passed the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 to institutionalise strategies and procedures for solid waste management. The objective was to ensure better and efficient management of waste collection, recycling and disposal, all at no extra charge. The distinctive feature of the legislation is that it removes the responsibility of solid waste management from local authorities and transfers this to the federal government instead. This has been a reiterated feature under the planning authority Performance Management and Delivery Unit’s (Pemandu) recently announced Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).

Between 2007 and today, the privatisation process has been ongoing with negotiations expected to conclude by the end of this year. Eventually, the federal government’s plan is to pay three concessionaires to operate solid waste management in Peninsular Malaysia: Alam Flora (central zone), E-Idaman (northern zone) and Southern Waste (southern zone).

The current status in Penang is that the collection system is actually being operated by contractors on behalf of the two local authorities. In Selangor, all 12 local councils except for Hulu Selangor already contract out to Alam Flora, although in some councils these are sub-contracted further. It is estimated that between 30-40% of local council revenue is used for solid waste management.

Penang, however, is resisting the takeover by the federal government. The takeover requires councils to surrender their Solid Waste Management Department assets and human resources to the Solid Waste Management Body. The state is also not convinced that a third party will be more efficient, and is understood to be in consultation with the proposed concessionaire and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

The success of this privatisation process depends on several factors, namely concessionaire ability to deliver on waste collection, recycling and disposal and maintain financially viable operations. Solid waste management companies cannot be given concessions similar to that of the water services concessions in Selangor, some of which were biased in their favour despite their lack of experience. More importantly, the federal government must not try to “save” the companies if they eventually become financially unsustainable, and risk being accused of bailing out private companies. Solid waste is not as capital intensive as water services, the bulk of the cost being vehicles, collection and overcoming environmental costs such as leachate.

The Act legislates for twice-a-week waste collection for households and daily for wet markets. The existing 112 unsanitary landfills are to be closed and rehabilitated, with some to be upgraded to sanitary landfills. There will also be mandatory garbage sorting in 2012, with accompanying fines for any failure to adhere to the regulations.

Other recommendations

Mandatory waste separation is definitely one necessary solution, although ideally, waste generation should be reduced at source. This means purchasing items with minimal package. Recycling can itself be wealth-generating, for example large cardboard boxes can be disposed of at shopping centres. Scavenging at landfills could also be formalised through a material recovery facility for manual sorting. At a conference I attended in Jakarta recently, a folder handmade from waste was distributed instead of the usual conference files, product of a project called Trashpickers (website www.xsprojectgroup.com).

Other alternatives have been proposed, such as the use of integrated solid waste management systems with zero emissions, or incinerators. Some countries already use eco-friendly incinerators, such as Austria and Japan, for example.

In order for incinerators to work, their design must ensure complete combustion, and they must be well-maintained. Poor management of equipment in Malaysia however has led to doubt as to whether large-scale incinerators will work here. Another problem is that transporting waste to incinerators will require smooth traffic conditions, which currently do not exist in the Klang Valley. In Malaysia, a study was conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s which ruled out heavy-duty incinerators in the Klang Valley because of bad traffic conditions. Kuala Terengganu and Broga are two sites with incinerators presently.

Ultimately, the proposals by the federal government will only work if the new concessionaires ensure efficiency of collection, mandatory separation, and efficient transportation of rubbish and disposal of waste in an environmentally-safe way. It will be interesting to see what transpires if not all state governments accede to federal demands. From the consumers’ perspective, all should advocate the 5Rs recommended by the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia (CETDEM): rethink, reduce, repair, reuse and recycle.

Posted in Public Administration, Selangor | Leave a comment

The Vicious Cycle

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Tricia

Economics and Education – why one needs and contributes to, the other. First published in theSun on the 21st October 2011.

The vicious cycle 

For the last two weeks, all eyes have been focused on the 2012 budget (themed “National Transformation Policy: Welfare for the Rakyat, Well-Being of the Nation” that was unveiled by the Prime Minister in Parliament, politicians and economists analysing its contents and what it means to Malaysians. Interestingly, this was also the first time the Pakatan opposition coalition launched its Shadow Budget, with three key thrusts of “Opportunities and Dignity for all Malaysians, Sustainability and Empowering Malaysians”.

Other analysts have elaborated on the budget’s details, a whopping total of RM232.8 billion. But is this, along with other initiatives, enough to shake the economy out of its doldrums? A global survey of financial professionals by the ACCA showed a deterioration in Malaysian confidence, for example, although this is exacerbated by negative sentiments of the stagnating economy worldwide.

Economic woes

Some major concerns have been expressed. First, economic growth. The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) downgraded the 2011 GDP growth rate to 4.6 percent year-on-year, despite originally rosy government estimates of 6 percent. Najib’s 2012 budget speech hopes for economic growth in 2012 of between 5 and 6 percent, although other analysts have expressed their views this is unrealistic.

Second, the national debt. Independent think-tank Research for Social Advancement (REFSA) reports that the federal government has more than doubled our national debt burden from RM217 billion in 2004 to RM437 billion today. Although the 2012 budget hopes to reduce the deficit to 4.7 percent of GDP next year, this will only be achieved based on high economic growth. A budget deficit would be burdensome ultimately on tax-payers.

The responses by government officials have not been very comforting either. The economic planning minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said that Malaysia does not need a contingency plan or “Plan B” to bolster growth even if the global economy weakens, saying that we already have an in-built system that can adjust itself. One wishes he would elaborate upon this “in-built system” to enlighten the rest of us.

It was also amusing to have our Prime Minister criticise the Pakatan Rakyat shadow budget as “right-wing”. It was only last month that all guns were blazing against a member of the Pakatan coalition for being sympathetic to the socialist movement. Never mind that Barisan’s pro-corporation and right-leaning economics form the bulk of its ETP, the likes of mega projects such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), development of Sungai Besi land by 1MDB and the 100-storey Warisan Merdeka tower.

Education, Education, Education

The second alarming report coming our way this week was a World Bank study that cited race-based admission quotas and political interference in university management as reasons for the falling standards of Universiti Malaya. This was starkly contrasted with the National University of Singapore that prioritised research, kept English as a medium of instruction and a merit-based admissions policy.

It was found that the quality of the faculty and, ultimately, talent, was crucial in distinguishing a “great university” from a “good university”. These reasons seem to encapsulate everything that has gone awry with Malaysia’s education system, although in an immediate response the Ministry of Higher Education said that ranking was not a priority anyway.

What we need to realise is that Malaysia is shooting itself in the foot by failing to improve its standards of education. By failing to invest in probably the most valuable resource and asset of a country – its people – this alone will account for the country’s lacklustre economic performance.

A reliable, intelligent, critically-thinking and creative workforce would be able to contribute positively in leaps and bounds to a thriving economy. Think industries such as technology, service, banking and finance, creative arts and theatre, research and development, and so on.

Our economy would be more fiscally healthy if its debts were better accounted for, and so unnecessary expenditure could be curtailed: excessive spending to bail out failed companies for failed projects; employing an unnecessarily large civil service; paying lucrative amounts to external consultants for jobs that government servants are responsible for; maintaining subsidies because the low-income strata of society cannot afford staples otherwise – all these point to a system that bleeds the economy, for the simple reason that it is equally a system with poor human resource and talent management.

This is the vicious cycle that will spell disaster for us. As much as we worry over the national debt and economic growth (or lack thereof), it is even more crucial that we put our brains together to worry about the national education system as a first and foremost priority.

The 2012 budget gives tremendous incentives to private and international schools (in the “hopes” there will be “reduction of school fees”) but gives handouts to national and national-type schools which do not essentially reform the quality of the system. If we lose out again on crafting quality and consistent education policy, syllabus and educators to produce Malaysians who decide to stay and contribute to nation-building processes, we lose, period. The education and economic systems are intrinsically linked and we will need the strengthening of the former in order to propel the latter forward.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

Malaysia the Welfare State?

Posted on October 16, 2011 by Tricia

Are we a welfare state, or are we not? I’m not sure even our government knows how to classify us, since there have been conflicting remarks on the matter in the past. This was first published in the Penang Monthly in October 2011.

Malaysia the welfare state?

“Welfare policies” are always controversial issues for various reasons. Who gets what and why is the major question. In Malaysia, answering “who” leads quickly to debates on class and race and what-not, answering “what” leads to fiscal arguments and answering “why” leads to ideological quarrels. Be that as it may, Malaysia has always had interventionist governance, and the new disputes are welcomed for highlighting what nation building is about.

Ever since the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) muktamar in June, which had as its theme the “welfare state” policy concept, there has been a scramble by the ruling coalition to respond, and not so gracefully either. Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak claimed that PAS had plagiarised the idea, stating that the Barisan Nasional (BN) government had already been implementing the welfare state policy in Malaysia and was doing it better than the PAS government of Kelantan ever could.

This seems to have provided generous room for a policy and idea competition to flourish – the fight for which side is dishing out more aid for the locals. Strangely enough, back in 2009, then Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil retorted to the media that Malaysia was not a welfare state, when asked about the lack of welfare aid in a particular constituency.

That there is any reaction at all by the government this time around is an admission in itself of the growing impact PAS is making on the Malay electorate. The choice of the theme, although not entirely new, is brilliantly timed. It encapsulates all the points of a theologically acceptable “Islamic state” that many PAS members aspire towards, but without actually making use of the term itself. The “welfare state” concept is something all three Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) coalition parties have expressed public support for, although their articulation of it so far has been vague enough for centre-right leaning individuals within the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and People’s Justice Party (PKR) to formulate a response. A somewhat more detailed version of what welfare means can perhaps be referenced from the Pakatan’s Common Policy Platform (CPP) and the Orange Book (Buku Jingga).

It has never been easy describing the economic ideology generally practiced in Malaysia. As it stands, however, the economy is driven very much by government-linked companies (GLCs), quotas and other stringent requirements and foreign restrictions. Its government’s so-called “welfare state” policies include a slew of packages that are targeted at the poor through education, health and other poverty-alleviation aid. How different, then, are the proposals by Pakatan from what the BN has already been implementing over the years? And secondly, it is pertinent to examine what welfare measures Pakatan states have been implementing over the last three years.

The discussion is even more important today as Malaysia grapples with a rising budget deficit amidst the growing needs of her citizens. The Statistics Department, for example, reports that the average cost of living for an urban household in Malaysia is about RM2,500 (2010 prices), whilst the average household debt has risen to 76% of gross domestic product through mortgages, car loan repayments and credit card spending (Hariati Azizan, The Star, August 28, 2011). About 36% of Malaysian households (2.1 million) have a total income of RM2,000 a month while almost 55.6% (3.3 million) of households have a monthly income of less than RM3,000. Making ends meet is a common household headache.

“Welfare state”: Pakatan vs BN 

Abdul Hadi Awang’s speech at the PAS muktamar included references to economic social justice, where the public should not be coerced into paying high taxes, and where the prices of essential goods should not be hiked. He cited as examples the abolishing of road tolls; the removal of unnecessary taxes that burden people and the improvement of basic public services as had been implemented in Pakatan states. The speech also focused on the fight against corruption, where profits of GLCs have been “distributed…to cronies” and “losses are absorbed by the public through taxes.” Addressing corruption would bring greater economic competitiveness, was the line of argument. The PAS definition of a welfare state is essentially one that is based on the Islamic belief that one ought to administer the state holistically, with great and equal care for the environment, spiritual and moral health, as well as the economic and general wellbeing of the people.

The Pakatan CPP and Orange Book similarly outline the need to address tremendous leakages and corruption. This gives utmost priority to, for example, the removing or renegotiating of subsidies paid to lucrative independent power producers (IPPs) ahead of the removing of the subsidies given for everyday needs. There are also references to assistance items, such as the increase of teacher salaries.

On providing aid to the people, it seems like both coalitions largely subscribe to the same philosophy in theory. However, where they differ is in their definition of what an economic system would look like under a welfare state exercising principles of good governance. Where Pakatan would prefer to get rid of the culture of GLCs and of benefitting crony companies under the guise of “privatisation”, BN still maintains these relationships and in fact continues to set up more quasi-governmental institutes. In theory there may be attempts to encourage transparent and accountable behaviour, but the practice of crony selection of contractors and negotiated tenders is still rampant.

Welfare aid in Pakatan states 

It is relevant to examine the sort of welfare aid already being implemented in the Pakatan states, since this is a testament to the sort of national policy envisioned by that coalition. The Penang government increased welfare aid by giving RM100 yearly to 115,000 senior citizens, single mothers and the disabled, and RM1,000 one-off payments to their beneficiaries; allocated 150 acres for public housing in the Batu Kawan township ranging from RM72,500 to RM220,000 per unit and set up an RM2mil dialysis centre with reduced treatment rates, amongst other things.

In Selangor, its “Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor” – loosely translated as the People’s Economy of Selangor – epitomises the welfare state policy to its core, with a series of nine packages that help a spectrum of Selangor residents. These include an education fund for plantation workers’ children, RM1,500 given to all babies born in Selangor which can be redeemed at the age of two, a one-off RM2,500 given to those whose elderly family member has passed away, 20m3 of free water for every household, RM1,000 for those who enter university (who come from households earning less than a certain amount), a women’s health scheme including breast cancer screenings, a microcredit scheme, dialysis centre and additional leave for pregnant civil servants, free tuition services and a slew of others.

Kedah also has a similar one-off payment of RM500 for families where an elderly family member has passed away, whereas Kelantan has introduced loans to civil servants at no interest and a whole host of various funds such as the al-Qardhu Hasan, Kifalah scheme, people’s plantation dividends, distribution of grain, extension of maternity leave and youth empowerment programmes.

The federal government recently announced that it would provide assistance to those earning RM3,000 and below. Although the details of this scheme are not yet ironed out, this is seen as a welcome move (and yet another response by BN to Pakatan’s highlighting of a growing problem).

Instead of entertaining the futile debate about which coalition is providing more “welfare”, it is imperative that the discussion moves towards how the needs of the labour market and lower income groups can be better addressed. Even without going into strict definitions of what a “welfare state” entails, it doesn’t take an economic dictionary for us to realise that all sides should be fighting against the system of cronyism, nepotism and patronage, especially in the awards of tenders.

Because the real culprit is this: any efforts made to dish out dole to the masses will have little impact if the nation’s riches are allowed to flow out in many other (surreptitious) ways.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

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