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

When we begin to doubt

Posted on July 28, 2011 by Tricia

When the RCI on Teoh Beng Hock’s death was released, I was appalled at its findings, especially certain paragraphs which others have now described as “bad fiction”. This was my piece in theSun on 27th July 2011 on my analysis of it.

When we begin to doubt

The much-awaited Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report into Teoh Beng Hock’s death, and manner of interrogation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was finally released publicly last week, but has instead led to more questions.

The report gave scathing remarks and severe admonishing of three specific MACC officers, finding they had used “continuous, aggressive, and improper questioning tactics on [Teoh] which had breached its existing standard operating procedures”. It also found that, ultimately, Teoh was driven to commit suicide and gave detailed reasons for this.

Numerous parties have responded to these RCI conclusions, amongst which a former criminal investigation chief stating that the three MACC officers can be charged for Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 of the Penal Code. Naturally, there is a lot of anger directed towards these MACC officers who seem to have shown gross misconduct, negligence, and “a total lack of consideration for human sensitivities” in the entire affair.

That the three behaved in the most oppressive and unscrupulous manner is something that most agree on.

But to come to the conclusion that these interrogation tactics “drove” someone to commit suicide is a step further, and a grave conclusion indeed. The Malaysian Bar, for example, in its statement disagreed with the RCI finding that Teoh had committed suicide, as it is “unsupported by facts and evidence”.

It does seem a leap that the RCI makes, for many reasons, only two of which are explored here.

First, and this is a crucial distinction to make: it was important to establish whether or not the deceased was conscious at the time of death. Whilst all pathologists brought in to examine the case agreed that Teoh was alive upon landing, whether he was conscious or not was deliberated upon at length. This finding would impact upon one’s conclusion as to the manner of his death.

In the RCI report, it says that “it was also agreed by them that TBH was conscious when he fell”, where “them” referred to “all the forensic pathologists who testified before us” in a previous sentence. However, this is inaccurate, as Dr. Porntip Rojanasunan, the Thai forensic pathologist, had testified at the RCI that the fractured injuries to Teoh’s leg were not necessarily indicative of his being conscious upon impact. She had also indicated there were possible pre-fall injuries. To say that all pathologists categorically agreed that Teoh was conscious when he fell is actually misleading.

Second, the RCI report refers to forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen’s comments. Quoting from the report, “TBH, according to Mullen, ‘was firmly in the lowest risk group for suicide when he was taken into MACC custody’ ”, an opinion formed based on Teoh’s personality and behaviour at the time.

The RCI then concludes on its own accord in a later paragraph that “when he was taken by Anuar on the 15th, TBH shifted psychologically from the low-risk group to the high-risk group for suicide”. Note that the expert psychiatrist himself did not come to the conclusion of this sudden change from “low-risk” to “high-risk”. The RCI members gave several reasons for this, which included: a high-pressured series of interviews, the circumstances surrounding the case, sleep deprivation, an unfamiliar environment and being held in custody which all led to “doubt, extreme emotional conflict and the immense feeling of guilt”.

Here, the question is whether or not a qualified psychiatrist would make the same assessment, that Teoh went from being in a “low-risk” group for suicide to a “high-risk” one. The RCI members came to this conclusion without any clear supporting testimony from any of the three external qualified experts in the field of psychiatry who were called upon to testify. This report has otherwise dutifully based its conclusions on authoritative testimonies, but on this key issue, the conclusion is reached with the least amount of supporting evidence and expert testimony.

Since Teoh’s death, there have been other incidents that have occupied media space, and consequently the minds of Malaysians, including the unfortunate death of customs officer Ahmad Sarbani, also found at the MACC premises.

Many institutions set up to provide recommendations to improve the systemic rot have failed to be effective. One need only recall the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), Interfaith Committee, and SUHAKAM recommendations as examples.

Whether or not the MACC will take up recommendations of the RCI following the Teoh Beng Hock tragedy, there are fundamental questions that arise from its conclusion of suicide.

As Malaysians, we have a right to expect the state’s institutions to protect us. We ought to be confident in, and not fear the very apparatus set up for the sake of its citizens. However, it is when people begin to cast doubt on these institutions that the government must be aware of a deep distrust, lest all its efforts at reform prove futile.

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

Effecting Real Change: Political or Non-Partisan?

Posted on July 14, 2011 by Tricia

One of the most hotly contested issues surrounding Bersih 2.0, Bersih 3.0 and the movement was whether it was political or not. I think this is reflective of how we individually feel – how do we help the nation best, by being non-partisan or going down the political route? A version of this was published in theSun on 13th July 2011.

Effecting Real Change: Political or Non-Partisan?

Young Malaysians want to impact society but are struggling to figure out precisely how to go about doing so. I had the privilege of meeting with a group of young Malaysian students, all recruits under an excellent internship programme called “Otak-Otak” recently.

The programme places students from local and foreign universities in various governmental, non-governmental and private sector organisations for two months, and organises events where they would be exposed to discussions on a range of issues. This particular informal session, hosted by the Centre for Public Policy Studies (and sponsored by Citibank), for example, allowed an interactive conversation on youth involvement, civil society, political trends and national development.

Whilst the dialogue traversed topics on the education system, the economy, brain drain, Bersih 2.0, the role of the media and the country’s future direction, one key trend emerged.

It was obvious that all of them follow political developments closely, and are acutely aware of the twists and turns taken by Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat (and, well, Perkasa), mainly through the online medium. This, after all, is the “clicktivism” generation whose “Likes” on Facebook or “Follows” on Twitter define their positions taken on politics and government.

However, it was revealing that when asked whether or not they would see themselves working in a full-time position over the next five to ten years within the civil service, non-governmental organisation, think tank, media or active civil society, with the objective of contributing to national development, only four out of the 42 responded positively. The rest either felt it would be futile to fight the system, or preferred to work in a more productive environment such as within the private sector.

The Trend of Non-Partisanship

There was also a strong indication that they would rather work within a non-partisan and independent organisation, preferring not to be affiliated with any one side. This is a trend that is strangely enough creeping upon many Malaysians, even those who were once vocally opposing government policies.

Perhaps this is to do with disillusionment of both sides – Barisan or Pakatan – where they perceive neither has delivered upon concrete policies, or lived up to what was originally promised. Whether or not the disillusionment is justified is a different matter altogether, since there is much one can say about equal access to media, resources and machinery, all of which affect communication strategy and delivery.

The success of Bersih 2.0, for example, in garnering support from a large cross-section of society, is equally telling of current sentiments, where it is becoming increasingly popular to call oneself part of ‘civil society’, this ever-evolving and often undefinable entity.

One can indeed understand the reluctance of people to be directly involved in political parties or government; we have witnessed the childish descent into gutter politics, outright lies, ridiculous statements, and would not wish ourselves a part of this crude ugliness.

One can also understand that because of this, there is an increased interest in starting initiatives outside the formal political process. And there are multiple such “third party” movements these days, including the likes of Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia, LoyarBurok, Bersih 2.0, and a host of traditional non-governmental associations. These platforms are not directly political per se, but they certainly have political content that push the boundaries and urge critical social action for political change.

Maximum Impact 

These students, alongside almost every concerned Malaysian citizen today, are cracking their heads at this national crossroads of sorts. Knowing the landscape of politics that we have today, the question remains: What should I do to ensure my involvement leads to maximum impact for the country’s future?

In an ideal world, civil society ought to occupy as legitimate a position as political parties in pushing for change. This, we believe, is the fifth pillar (after the Executive, Judiciary, Legislative, and the media) in instituting governance and policy reform, where non-partisan civil society organisations are given a valid voice. The pressures placed by a loud enough community ought to nudge along those in power, making them sit up and listen.

And although this is an ideal I would still hold strongly to, the reality is that the channels of decision-making still remain largely within the hands of political parties through representation at Parliament, and ultimately the Cabinet. This raises the question of how social movements ought to be conducted within such an environment: can civil society push through a movement and gain significant traction, without needing support from any political party? (Read: How people criticise Bersih 2.0 as being ‘hijacked’ by the Opposition.)

Ultimately, until and unless civil society – or any non-partisan body – is recognised as an equal partner within formal committees, taskforces and the like for the purposes of policy reform, there will still be a tendency for political parties to be relied upon to advance a particular cause.

We ended the session by saying that it is important to do anything, in whatever capacity, affiliation and position, excellently. It is true that Malaysians of all walks of life, whether in the corporate, public or non-governmental sector, have a significant role to play in contributing to the country’s future.

But for maximum impact through a massive shakeup of government policy and corrupt practices? Apart from traditionally going the political route, Bersih 2.0 has shown that an alternative does exist. But only time will tell if this will result in real electoral reform.

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

Local democracy alive and kicking in Pakatan states

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Tricia

Although civil society is disappointed that Pakatan states didn’t implement local elections in its first term, nevertheless there were achievements to this end: local village, mosque committee elections and more – first published in the Penang Monthly’s July 2011 issue.

Local democracy alive and kicking in Pakatan states

The ambition to enhance local democracy remains strong in Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) states. So far, no help has come from the Election Commission, but the initiatives that have nevertheless been taken to elect local councillors, village heads and mosque committee members are impressive.

In a PEM column last year, I wrote extensively about local government elections and the laws and policies governing them in Malaysia. At that point, both the state governments of Penang and Selangor had written to the Election Commission to request for local government elections to be held in their states. The response was negative, and the 11-page reply stated that the National Council of Local Government would have to give its approval first, and since this had not been done, local elections were not possible. The Local Government Act 1974 and the Federal Constitution were both cited as a reason for its refusal to take on the task of conducting local elections.

These were not watertight reasons and it is clear it simply was not interested in exploring the matter further.

Almost a year later, the situation seems to be changing rapidly, with both state governments making some – albeit not as rapidly as some would like it – headway in implementing local polls in one way or other. It is important to note that local elections are not an entirely new concept – it was conducted in the past but was suspended in 1965 by the government during the Confrontation period between Malaysia and Indonesia. Civil society activists have long campaigned for the return of local elections since, as it is the most basic way in which people can involve themselves in public decision-making, especially where matters that affect them directly are concerned. This is true both in the monitoring of the use of their own public funds and in reaping the benefits of public service delivery on a daily basis.

Local council elections

The parties that later formed Pakatan were quick to take a position on the matter, placing the re-enactment of local elections as a goal in their 2008 General Election manifestoes. In fact, the previous Perak state government under Pakatan was the first to restore local elections, electing all 817 Malay village chiefs in the state. However, these were sacked after Perak was taken over by the Barisan Nasional (Barisan) government. In Penang, mock local elections were held during a “Penang Forum 3”, in which 10 nominees were elected, but not all of these were later appointed by the state government into the council. Under the Local Government Act 1974 state governments are to appoint local councillors, and the hope was that an election – whether valid or not – could become consequential if the government and its appointments followed the election results.

In Selangor, the state government has recently proposed that 30% of the 24 local councillors be open for election. These are basically seats for groups other than political parties. The pilot partial election is most likely to be conducted at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ), and as announced by state executive councillors, it is to be held by the end of 2011. An eight-person task force consisting of members of the State Economic Planning Unit (Upen) and representatives of the Coalition of Good Governance (CGG) has been set up to adopt rules and regulations for the local election.

Although these are strides in a positive direction, there have been criticisms that the Pakatan state governments are not serious about pushing all the way for full local elections to be conducted. There is of course the very real political tension that Pakatan would surely be considering, namely that of balancing the formidable Barisan-led federal government breathing down its neck, and local councillors who can potentially be critical of its administration. Theoretically, all three levels of government, local, state and federal, ought to operate independently of the other, but the reality is that for smooth implementation of policies all three must each have some level of understanding with the others.

Local village head elections

Efforts towards local elections have not been relegated solely to local councils. The Pakatan states have been putting this into practice in other unique areas as well. For example, Selangor has allocated RM60,000 to conduct local elections for three of its Chinese new villages, namely Kampung Baru Sungai Jarom in Jenjarom, Kampung Bagan in Pulau Ketam and Kampung Baru Pandamaran. The nomination days begin from July 24, and polling days are on July 31 and August 7 and 14 respectively for each of them, with each village having a week-long campaign period. Again, because the Election Commission will not be party to local polls, it will be conducted entirely by the local councils.

The success of these polls for village chiefs will be an indication of how ready the rest of the state is in electing representatives at the local level. It promises not only to educate the locals on the process of voting for their local community heads, but also to familiarise public servants working in local councils with the reasons behind such elections and with the workings of the mechanisms required. This is experience that will prove extremely valuable in the future, if and when Pakatan states decide to go full-swing on local council elections.

Mosque committee elections 

The decision to conduct local elections has not been without controversy of course. The Penang state government’s decision to allow mosque committees to be elected as opposed to being appointed has been politicised by the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) and Utusan Malaysia. In the past, the Penang Islamic Religious Council (MAIPP) appointed individuals or groups without necessarily seeking the views of residents in the mosque’s vicinity. The idea of conducting elections is to ensure such residents have a say in who represents them as mosque administrators.

The dispute lies in the argument that mosque committee members have the potential to be politically powerful and to determine the direction of the mosque. By allowing residents to vote, this in essence makes for a more transparent system of having individuals who are not political representatives or nominees, but have gotten the position based on their morals and merits.

The federal government, through Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom, has said that all Islamic affairs in the states ruled by appointed governors (Yang di-Pertua Negeri, which is the case in Penang), come under the jurisdiction of the King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong). Penang’s state exco on religious affairs has clarified that the King is the final decision-maker on mosque committees, and therefore “His Majesty’s prior approval to conduct committee elections is not an issue” since names of elected individuals would in any case be submitted for endorsement by the King. Some 4,485 people have offered to fill up 4,530 posts in 151 of the 200 mosques in Penang, where elections will be conducted, possibly at their annual general meetings.

In fact, this should not have been raised as an issue at all because Selangor had already begun conducting mosque committee elections as far back as in 2009. Selangor was the first state to hold democratic elections of mosque committees (June 2009) and surau committees (June 2010). Experience has shown that a greater number of professionals have now been elected as committee members, and that locals are more empowered now. Similar to the practice elsewhere, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) would in the past appoint political individuals and it is also speculated these were often heads of party divisions. There are 525 mosques and 1,980 suraus in Selangor.

There are bound to be numerous hiccups along the way, but the trend is an optimistic one. The perseverance displayed by the Pakatan states given the odds is rather remarkable and it is hoped that things can only improve from here on. If all politics is local, then polls at the local councils, villages, and mosques are a good sign that democracy is alive and kicking in Pakatan states.

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

Assimilation vs. Integration

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Tricia

First published in Selangor Times in July 2011, a topic that always seems to be current in Malaysia.

Assimilation vs. Integration

Last weekend, I was invited to speak at an event organised by the Ministry of Youth and Sports together with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), “Forum Generasi Muda”, a forum for youth aged between 18 and 40 years. It was a positive sign that panelists with views that were obviously not pro-government were invited to share on a range of issues including economics, culture, gender, and allowed to freely comment on Malaysia’s political situation.

The theme of the 3-day event was, of course, 1Malaysia (what else could it have been?), and how the concept should be developed further in numerous areas. Although the discussion was positive, there is a tendency for such events to end on a fluffy note, where participants and speakers call for unity in diversity, make a grand show of it and end with a warm buzz.

Former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamed’s lunch dialogue was particularly provocative in that his analysis of race and politics in Malaysia seemed fairly outdated. His reasoning went as such: that it is because Malaysia has chosen the option of integration and not assimilation that we are as fragmented as we are today.

His example was that of foreign Muslims, like the Indonesians and Arabs, who have no problems assimilating with the local Malay culture in all forms including language, religion and way of life. They then become accepted as part of the “Malay” entity, whereby original Malays themselves have no problems extending such privileges enjoyed to them.

This almost seems like an indictment on those who choose not to be assimilated, such as the Chinese and Indians, for by choosing to maintain distinct cultures, they do not therefore receive those similar privileges as granted to those who do assimilate. I wonder whether this is the sort of logic that can really be applied within a country that encourages ‘unity in diversity’. Or is this diversity that the government stands for one that is qualified?

And that only if his argument is accurate, where Malaysians of different ethnicities grow apart and isolated from the other. His assertion that “race relations are worse today than in the past” may be bolstered by the media hype of it in recent years, but my response is that there is a great deal more assimilation taking place than he would care to acknowledge.

On the same weekend, I watched a play entitled “Parah” by Alfian Saat, based loosely on Yasmin Ahmad’s movie “Talentime” and the novel “Interlok”. The latter is a compulsory text for schoolchildren and has been embroiled in controversy over the last year. The play depicted a multiethnic group of friends in Form 5 whose friendships slowly deteriorate as they uncover their sentiments on race, brought upon by derogatory references in the said novel.

Although the play’s characters were stereotypical of characteristics of each ethnicity (Chinese badminton player, Indian insecurity), one of the points Saat drives home is that there is a great deal more assimilation by the non-Malay communities that is taking place. The Indian boy cannot speak Tamil to save his life, the Chinese cannot speak Mandarin and feels extremely uncomfortable in China whilst on holiday – all feel most at ease in their home Malay language.

The key questions are therefore: One, what is the degree of assimilation? What have the trends been in the past and at present, and has this changed significantly? And two, how should a policymaker approach communities that do assimilate vs. those who do not – and whether it is fair for such discrimination to take place based on this factor alone, given the call for diversity and encouraging a multitude of various cultural heritages to co-exist in the country.

The first question would require some serious sociological research to be carried out, to quantify “assimilation”. To compare and contrast between assimilation rates over the years, data dating from the last several decades would be needed. Some of the factors contributing to assimilation would be, I imagine, the ability to speak in the national language, the sense of national ownership, and subscribing to a fixed set of common values and so on, although the latter is probably non-existent.

However, in the absence of such methodological research, and acknowledging the different cultural and religious norms already in existence today, I would hope for policies that address citizenship. The argument that a particular group has not adopted the culture of the majority race, thereby validating its lack of equal access to the nation’s resources, is flawed. Especially so in the case of Malaysia, the minority ethnic groups of which have existed for centuries, in many cases pre-dating the arrival of other nationalities that did assimilate into the Malay culture.

Far from being able to remove ‘race’ from the national psyche, this last weekend threw in my face the reality that Malaysians have not yet cleansed ourselves from this theme. It is well and good to speak on it, to greater and more deeply comprehend its impact on society, but at some point this discourse has to move on. This is the role individual citizens have to take up, in encouraging ideological debate on class, economics, poverty eradication, income levels, equity and distribution.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics | Leave a comment

Manage Water Demand instead

Posted on June 30, 2011 by Tricia

The water issue is constantly being played out in the media. I’ve written numerous articles on water, and here was the first one published in theSun on 29th June 2011.

Manage Water Demand instead 

In the Malaysian water story, two things took place this week which reminded me of the need for public utilities – particularly the water industry – to be governed efficiently without vested interests. I am not sure we have achieved this standard in Malaysia quite yet.

At a Water Demand Management workshop I attended earlier this week, organised by a local think-tank Research for Social Advancement (REFSA) and conducted by an environmental expert from Malaysian Nature Society, participants concluded that there was a need to move towards demand-driven management to sustain water supply.

This is in contrast to the supply-driven planning that is currently the case. What this just means is that in determining the amount of water required for domestic and non-domestic users, the onus lies upon the government – together with community and civil society – to encourage reduced usage of water through education, enforcement and a host of incentives.

This could be done through a number of means, for example installing water-efficient plumbing fixtures in new homes and buildings, providing water conservation kits to homes, water-efficiency labelling schemes for plumbing fixtures and washing machines, vouchers to households to install high-efficiency toilets as well as – and this would be a potentially sensitive subject – increasing water tariffs to discourage mindless usage.

Some seminar participants seemed uncomfortable with the latter proposal for several reasons. First, it is always controversial whenever prices are increased, something politicians are well aware of. However, the second and more important point raised was the lack of transparency and knowledge of how water producers are making use of its profits.

Herein lies the rub: people may be willing to spend more to receive top quality water and excellent water services from a consumer’s point of view. But especially in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur where water quality has been less than favourable, coupled with a monopoly water distributor that has in the past been accused of dubious practices, increasing water bills may be extremely difficult at present.

Of course, this comes amidst a long-drawn out battle for the water industry in Selangor, where the process of its restructuring has gone through several rounds of negotiations but with little end in sight. The objective of the restructuring, as originally conceived by the Federal Government in 2006, was to essentially return management and ownership of the water industry back to the state, reversing the wrongs of privatisation that was earlier so eagerly pursued.

Mega-Projects All Over Again 

Managing water demand basically ensures that people behave more conservatively when it comes to water consumption. If demand is reduced, there would be more than sufficient supply to meet the needs of society. Today, Selangor’s water supply is more than sufficient for the 5 million residents of the Klang Valley, although the concern is what happens in several years, in year 2016 and beyond. For example, total water demand in 2009 in Selangor was 2650mld (million litres per day), and production capacity still stands at a comfortable 4476mld although the non-revenue water (NRW) rates are very high at 32.5 percent.

The ideal situation is for the government at all levels – Federal, state and local – to work together towards demand management. No such programme seems to be in place, the burden of responsibility of which lies with the National Water Services Commission (SPAN) as the water regulator. If they were to embark seriously on this, water consumption levels would stabilise. In the workshop, examples were given of cities with rapid economic growth (Adelaide and Melbourne amongst others) whose water consumption was even lower than that of Selangor. The ratio of water use to GDP usually declines, according to the UN World Water Development Report.

Unfortunately, the government continues to look for mega-projects as a starry-eyed solution. The Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer Project, for example, would cost Malaysian tax-payers (not just in Selangor, mind you) a hefty sum of RM10 billion. Under the plan, Selangor will pay Pahang 10 sen per cubic metre of water, and this involves the construction of several infrastructure monsters: the Kelau Dam, a 44.6km-long tunnel, and a water treatment plant. These have damaging environmental impacts; the Orang Asli would need to be resettled for the dam’s construction.

The most surprising is Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Peter Chin’s announcement this week that all states in the peninsula would likely be linked with a pipe network to allow water to be transferred to “meet a sudden surge in demand or counter the effects of a prolonged drought.” So, not only Selangor would be recipient of such large water tunnels but the whole of peninsula Malaysia, subject to approval of all state governments.

One can only begin to imagine the cost of such a large mega-pipe network to connect all states in a grand scheme of ensuring water sustainability, financial burdens of which fall smack on Malaysians.

The Minister also stated that the state government has refused to work with the Federal Government on the water issue in Selangor. Funny – I had the impression that both parties wanted the same outcome but it was the elusive water concession company that was the more demanding of the lot.

It is clear that there is no single consolidated water policy for the country, at least not yet. If there were one, this writer hopes it involves managing water demand as a priority before rushing head-on to yet another large-scale construction project.

Posted in Economics, Selangor, Water | Leave a comment