Of Brain Drain, Ethnicity and Class

Posted on May 4, 2011 by Tricia

There are 1 million Malaysians living abroad, based on the World Bank report published in 2011. This was my piece in May 2011 in theSun, my first column there which I’ve maintained since, writing every fortnight, published every other Friday!

Of Brain Drain, Ethnicity and Class

The Chinese predicament in Malaysia is frankly one of survival. This ought not to have been the case, but it is evident in the various actions and reactions observed over the last several decades. But is this really the way in which Malaysians should continue analysing socio-political and socio-economic trends in the country? Is the ethnic community lens the only reference through which we are able to make sense of the world? Or is it not possible, despite the need to have head knowledge of statistical means within each grouping, to abandon such segmentation in favour of class and income disparities?

The recently concluded Sarawak state elections saw a massive swing of Chinese voters away from the Barisan Nasional member party, the Sarawak United Progressive Party (SUPP), traditionally favoured amongst the ethnic Chinese. Months of hard work paid off for the Pakatan Rakyat’s Democratic Action Party (DAP), who won 12 out of its 15 contested seats. Some of the main issues championed by the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat included corruption of the incumbent Sarawakian leaders, embezzelement of funds, native customary land rights, the incident of Malay Bibles being confiscated due to controversy over use of the word “Allah” therein amongst others.

The immediate reaction of a Malay daily’s editorial to the election results, in which the opposition made in-roads from seven to 16 out of the total of 71 state assembly seats, was to accuse the opposition alliance of intentionally playing the race card, in this case Chinese. It also stated unreservedly that this irresponsibly threatened the social cohesion enjoyed and preserved by the existing national government. Although many were in great uproar over this, others secretly questioned whether this really did reflect a movement towards a two-party system that pits one mono-ethnic group against the other. A serious question to which nobody seems brave enough to confront at this point.

The Draining Brains from Malaysia

As if on clockwork, the World Bank then released a revelationary report on Malaysia’s brain drain, an issue that before this has been skirted around by the government. As many as 1 million Malaysians are living abroad, close to 60 percent of whom are in Singapore, and almost 90 percent of whom are of Chinese ethnic origin. Two out of ten Malaysians with a tertiary degree migrated in 2000 to Singapore and OECD countries, more than twice the world average. To put things into perspective, an estimated 1 million Malaysians live abroad, with a third representing brain drain. 66% of those interviewed cited career prospects as the primary reason for leaving, which is natural and expected, since the global migration phenomenon does dictate movement from developing to developed nations.

Source of Charts: Malaysian Economic Monitor April 2011, Brain Drain, The World Bank

But the second highest reason cited was that of social injustice. The debate has gone on far too long; that citizens born in a country do not receive equal policy treatment. Economic, education, and corporate policies initiated in the 1970s to alleviate Bumiputera policy have outlived their due course, and instead of their original intentions have permeated into the very raison d’etre of many, creating a cultural revolution in the mind of ethnic supremacy. This sort of psychological dependency is the most difficult to treat.

Ethnic Representation in Government

The Prime Minister’s reactions to all of the above were first, that the brain drain has not unduly affected foreign direct investment into Malaysia, and that in any case, the country depends on 70 percent domestic investment (as if to say FDIs are no longer an important variable in the economic equation). He also called on Pakatan’s member PAS (Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party) to withdraw from the opposition coalition, since the coalition was not able to truly “live up to Islamic ideals”. This seemed like a move to perpetuate the very fears of the people in dividing people according to race and creed – a philosophical principle quite unlike what he espouses in the heady 1Malaysia chant.

Finally, the most disturbing statement, in which he reminded the Chinese to make their political choice clear: to vote for the government (read: support the Chinese party within the Barisan Nasional government, Malaysian Chinese Association, MCA) or give up Chinese representation in government altogether, and along with it any major decision-making powers. MCA itself affirmed it would not seek Cabinet positions were it rejected by the Malaysian Chinese.

This series of events sees the Chinese reacting in very different ways and one must not pretend to comprehend all of them intuitively. But whichever sub-cultural category one falls into, the gut reaction is similar. As citizens of the country, each person of ethnic origin deserves similar treatment. Despite the truth of the saying “every man for himself”, the nation must strive towards ensuring that any person of any race should reasonably defend any Malaysian – simply because it is the right thing to do. Just because there is a Chinese Cabinet member in place, does it mean I can necessarily rely on him to make conscionable decisions that will readily steer the future for my children? No. We should rather seek individuals of conscience, truth, freedom and justice – of any background, to make wise choices for the country.

Representation of All Malaysians

Having said this, the past is a poor record of colour-blindness. The Chinese have scurried to make one out of two choices: to either play the game, get a share of the cake even if it means sacrificing ideals in order to survive; or recklessly oppose any sort of corrupt practice (of the loosest definition). Simply: work in the system with other well-oiled individuals; or stay out completely and be happy with the scraps that come your way.

But there is an alternative. And that is to slowly but painfully wean ourselves off the addiction to race, which is, after all, a cultural and geographical development in itself. There may be cultural norms that should continue, but as far as national policies and benefits are concerned, let the principles of need and merit flourish. Political and policy analysts must begin their pieces with a primary focus on the socio-economic and income imbalances within communities, as these class variables would be better determinants of present and future trends as opposed to ethnicity alone.

The reaction to the brain drain report should not have been defensive but optimistic. “We are aware of the situation and are putting systems in place that we hope will attract our valued talent back home. We acknowledge and affirm the great things they will contribute to the country, and welcome them home with open arms. Things will be different, starting now!”, is what I would have wanted to hear. Maybe then, our flock in neighbouring Singapore could cross borders again, this time to return home.

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

The dead have rights, too

Posted on April 20, 2011 by Tricia

My very first column in Selangor Times after I left the Selangor MB’s office, which would spur me on to write the script of my documentary, The Rights of The Dead. This was published in April 2011.

The dead have rights, too

Malaysia is in desperate need of a reliable and trustworthy institute conducting autopsies especially in relation to deaths in custody. Last week, the body of customs officer Ahmad Sarbani was found on the grounds of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Federal Territory office. The incident was tragic, but it seemed absolutely ridiculous as this is the second time in three years that a body was found under similar circumstances: Interrogation by the MACC, then death from (apparent) fall from height.

You couldn’t make this stuff up even if you wanted to. This brings to mind Shakespeare’s “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark”. Political intrigue, possible cover-ups, and a series of mysterious deaths in the state of Malaysia, perhaps?

Deaths in Custody

It is reported that since 2000, at least 147 people died in police custody. Although it is difficult to extract data on the actual number of deaths a year (as official statistics provide varying figures for varying periods of time), it is noted that there were 150 deaths from 1990 till 2004 (10.7 per year), which has increased to 85 deaths between 2003 and 2007 (21.25 per year). (Hector, Aliran, November 2010).

Some of the ones we may recall are: January 2008, a police constable was charged with causing hurt to extract a confession from A Kugan, 22, who died in police custody. In July of the same year, P Gunasegaram, 31, was found dead in the Sentul police station. In 2010, sawmill worker P Bapu, 28, was found dead in the Jempol police station.

The statistics cited above may not even include deaths “outside” the lock-up, for instance, at detention centres due to illnesses or negligence. And they definitely do not include freak incidents such as of Teoh Beng Hock (July 2010), and Ahmad Sarbani (April 2011) who both fell from a height at MACC offices (Selangor and Federal Territories, respectively).

One thing that ties all these deaths together, though, is that the immediate reaction from the authorities was to claim at first instance these were suicide cases. It is almost like a predictive tool that whenever a death in custody (or now, under interrogation) occurs, authorities will allude to suicide, the family calls for a second independent autopsy, and the government forms an enquiry into the matter. This has become practically SOP by now: Standard Operating Procedure.

Autopsies in Malaysia

What this really highlights is the growing distrust of Malaysians towards an official line taken on the causes of death. In Malaysia, all autopsies are conducted entirely by forensic pathologists representing the government.

There is a list of criteria required to qualify one as a “Forensic Pathologist” under the National Specialist Register (NSR) that must eventually be approved by the Forensic Pathologist Specialty Committee. For instance, medical degrees have to be recognised by the Malaysian Medical Council, and postgraduate degrees in Forensic Pathology recognised by the Malaysian government. There are other detailed requirements that can be found on the NSR website but as a general rule, all medical practitioners who practise in the country have to be registered with the Malaysian Medical Council, and those working in government hospitals and healthcare facilities must be gazetted by the Ministry of Health.

Even in the cases where a second autopsy took place, this needed to be conducted by a pathologist approved by the government. For example, Teoh’s second autopsy was carried out by Dr. Shahidan Md Noor from the Sungai Buloh Hospital, representing the government of Malaysia, although the government was gracious enough to allow foreign pathologists present as observers.

What Shall We Do?

Malaysians were taken by surprise at the flamboyant Dr. Porntip Rojanasunan who represented the Selangor government in the Teoh case. She is Director General of the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) at the Thai Ministry of Justice. Very public about her stand-offs with the Thai Police, she is still given the independence to carry out the work at the CIFS despite these occasional disagreements. This is perhaps because her team is considered a pioneer in many new methods including setting up a DNA database for local authorities in the south of Thailand, actually assisting the police in their work on identifying terrorists.

Human rights activists have long called for the Malaysian government to act immediately to (in Dr. Porntip’s words) work for the “rights of the dead”. These include urging the government to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and form an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. The Malaysian Bar has most recently called on the government to introduce a Coroner’s Act and establish a Coroner’s Court, and “to conduct a comprehensive review of the manner in which inquiries into deaths are undertaken”.

One more thing to add to this list. Autopsies conducted by the government and their conclusions which follow after are increasingly seen to be biased. Is it time to think of independent autopsies from an institute that Malaysians can grow to trust? After all, you and I have every right to demand a system of justice we have absolute faith in, a system of justice to protect us in the time we most need it.

Posted in Personal, Reflections, Selangor, The Cause | 1 Comment

The many sides of good city living

Posted on April 8, 2011 by Tricia

Whoever wins the election will have to deal with the increasing problems of urbanisation, public transport, expensive housing and the cost of living. First published in Penang Monthly in April 2011.

The many sides of good city living

Not only are cities becoming the centre of developmental attention, their growing importance is challenging how we look at global societies. The national economy depends on the health of its cities. And that health is multifaceted.

One out of two people in the world already lives in a city today. In 40 years, seven out of 10 will be doing that. Rapid urbanisation around the world has put to past the notion that cities would become sprawling (like many American towns); instead experts now recognise that people are moving towards cities to both live and work, at a rapid rate.

What’s fascinating is that cities will soon become more important than nation-states, where the competition for global talent will be better expressed, for example, a case of Vancouver vs. Seattle, as opposed to Canada vs. the US; or Bangkok vs. Kuala Lumpur, and not Thailand vs. Malaysia.

The challenge for city leaders around the world is to therefore develop four crucial components for sustainability, namely cities must be inclusive, competitive, liveable and cultural.

A Global City 2011 conference I attended recently in Abu Dhabi was themed “City Identity and Values”. What was noteworthy from it was the insight among policy makers and economists that sustainability must not be evaluated purely from economic or environmental perspectives. Other equally important pillars are financial (whether or not city plans have reasonable funding in the long run without overburdening tax-payers), social (how society integrates internal and external migrants of varying backgrounds, and consequences on socio-economic status) and cultural (where cities need to strongly emphasise the development of arts and culture, which actually contributes to economic growth through the building of communities).

City planning

At the conference, Abu Dhabi itself was proud to showcase its massive plans for the next decade. It has a dynamic team within its urban planning council – young, multinational and multicultural, reflective of the very city it wishes to build. In its own words, the immense amount of time expended on the planning process is well worth it – something Malaysian urban centres ought to be subject to, especially as it goes through its current wave of economic transformation.

The large mega-projects slated under the Economic Transformation Programme are based mainly within the Klang Valley, or what is termed Greater Kuala Lumpur these days, which include the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project, the development of a new township of more than 2,000 acres of land currently owned by the Rubber Research Institute, and the “River of Life” Klang River cleaning and development project.

However, while the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council has a very clear idea of what its city’s identity and values are (inclusive, diverse, Islamic but open, vibrant, cultural), this is missing in Kuala Lumpur, where much of the city-planning and development are outsourced to the private sector whose vision may not necessarily coincide with the more social-oriented concerns local leaders ought to strive towards. In planning for our cities, where are we in articulating the sort of identities and values that we desire to be in place? How differently do we want, for example, to position the cities of Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, George Town, Johor Bahru, and so on? Have there been sufficient breadth and depth dedicated to charting out a roadmap and blueprint for all aspects of these cities of the future?

In Malaysia

Between 1970 and 2006, the proportion of population living in big cities doubled due to rapid urbanisation mainly contributed to by internal migration. Internal migration in Malaysia is gender, age and area selective, “dominated by males mainly in the age group of 15 to 34 years” (Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations, 2008), though female migration is expected to increase in the future. In 1980, urbanisation was at a 34.2% rate, reaching 61.8% in 2000 and 65% in 2008. This is expected to increase to 85% by 2050. The government did put together a National Urbanisation Policy in 2006, and of course there exists a whole host of other well-meaning plans such as the National Physical Plan 2005 and Five-Year Malaysia Plans, State Structural Plans and so on.

However, each city is unique unto itself. Whilst it is important for those plans to provide the over-arching national vision, the cities must have visionary policymakers and thinkers able to give each its respective identity, brand and positioning – pretty much like selling a product to a targeted audience.

The two Pakatan Rakyat-led city-states in Penang and Selangor, for example, are very different and must therefore be handled differently. Between 1991 and 2000, Penang’s population grew at an annual 2.37%, and more rapidly at 3.05% up to 2010. It is estimated that by 2020, Penang’s population will have grown to 2.36 million due to internal migration, concentrated most densely on Penang Island, with 60% converged at George Town. Selangor’s population has grown on an average of 2.4%, totalling almost five million now and is estimated to hit 7.3 million by 2020. Selangor’s population is most dense in the districts of Petaling, Hulu Langat and Klang.

Penang has had the unique edge of having its city George Town declared a Unesco World Heritage Site, which in turn has been a catalyst for city transformation through a multitude of stakeholders. It has successfully painted itself as a cosmopolitan city of heritage, culinary delights, culture and history. Urban rejuvenation efforts over the last three years have paid off here, with The Edge magazine’s Options section featuring Penang in glowing terms in January 2011.

Selangor, whose original capital of Kuala Lumpur was carved out for mainly political and electoral reasons in 1974, is the most urbanised state in the country. Residents of the Klang Valley tend to think of the “city” as Kuala Lumpur, whilst they return to their suburban homes in the rest of Selangor. This in some way has struck a poser for Selangor to develop its own unique city, being already in such close proximity to its down-the-highway neighbour, Kuala Lumpur. The capital city of Selangor, Shah Alam, has not experienced over the last few decades the kind of development that a capital ought to have. By definition, Petaling Jaya is the other official city, and although the others are still labelled towns, by sheer population size Klang, Subang Jaya and Kajang ought to also be considered cities. All these areas, though within Selangor, are themselves greatly varying in character, size, demography, ethnic makeup and culture.

Petaling Jaya with its PJ Elevated City and other rejuvenation projects in store within the older sections; along with Ampang Jaya and selected development sites related to the Klang River rehabilitation project will be two areas to look out for. However, the more important task of crafting an image, identity, brand and culture for these individual cities will be required.

In the area of urban revitalisation and rejuvenation, some bi-partisanship has been experienced despite political enmity between the federal and Pakatan Rakyat state governments. In Penang, Khazanah Nasional and its special purpose vehicle Think City Sdn Bhd, have worked with the Penang state government through funding and coordination in developing George Town.

In Selangor, the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley plan will benefit Selangor in certain respects (funding of redeveloping sewerage pipes, rehabilitation of river areas and so on). However, being Pakatan Rakyat-led state governments means they must play the role of watchdogs in ensuring that these projects are conducted with full transparency, public accountability and good governance. It remains to be seen how effective this role can be played in actual project implementation.

Diversity in cities

One of the key themes at the Abu Dhabi conference was the diversity in cities. The most successful and attractive cities of today also happen to be the most diverse. Studies have shown that cities which feature the most ethnically diverse communities are also the cities that attract the most talent, resulting in the greatest innovations and fastest economic growth. In the US, research proved that the city with these elements was San Francisco where more than a third of its residents were born outside the US. This city also houses Silicon Valley, the ultimate city of talent, innovation and modern technology driving the tools such as Google, which are daily necessities for many.

There are 214 million international migrants worldwide, 128 million of whom are living in developed countries. However, the number of international migrants in developing countries has risen more rapidly recently, by eight million in 2005–2010 compared to four million in 2000–2005. But interestingly, 740 million people are internal migrants, people moving within their countries from one city to another. Countries are therefore forced to formulate policies that deal with the situation of an increasingly heterogeneous society since they ultimately impact upon social structures.

Malaysia, for example, is home to at least three million migrants, both documented and undocumented. As of 2006, we had 32,000 expatriates and 1,728 migrants under a unique programme called “Malaysia My Second Home” for foreigners to stay in the country with a multiple entry visa. The bulk of our migrants therefore lies in the 1.9 million unskilled and semi-skilled workers from 23 countries, with Indonesia and Nepal as the top sending countries. Malaysia also has about 50,000 to 60,000 foreign students.

Although all countries compete for the most talented, the truth is, without the unskilled and semi-skilled migrant labour in Malaysia, we would not be able to generate the six per cent growth per annum our government is projecting to hit over the next 10 years. They contribute to the traditional construction, manufacturing sectors of the economy. And increasingly, in order to maximise economic value, the country hopes that the services sector will contribute at least 60%–70% of the economy. Foreign labour will be contributing to this vibrant services sector. It is a daunting thought that cities of the world are clamouring to be the best, most attractive and competitive, as this means time is short for Malaysian cities. However, as we rush ahead, we must be cognisant that sustainability and diversity are key.

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

Taking bigger than baby steps to transform the economy

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Tricia

Transforming the economy is no easy feat. This is something both sides of the divide have used in their speeches and policy statements. In any case, my article in March 2011 was about how the federal government’s Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) would sit vis-a-vis the Pakatan states’ plans, particularly in Selangor and Penang.

Taking bigger than baby steps to transform the economy

Centralised planning may have certain advantages, but serious engaging of sub-national players is vital to the efficacy of nationally initiated projects, especially when these players govern the most industrialised states in the country. The continued political divide sees the Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) states grouping their resources to construct viable economic programmes to attract foreign investments.

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng recently demanded that the Prime Minister Department’s Performance and Management & Delivery Unit (Pemandu) gives a formal presentation on its Economic Transformation Programme’s (ETP) Entry Point Projects (EPPs) as he claimed Penang has been largely excluded from the country’s primary document intended to transform Malaysia into a high-income economy. The national ambition is to raise the country’s per capita income to RM48,000 by 2020 from the 2009 level of RM23,700.

He also stated that the federal government had not announced any allocation to Penang under the 10^th Malaysia Plan in terms of budget and projects. Pemandu immediately responded by issuing a statement detailing the areas in which Penang would benefit from the ETP, namely under 13 EPPs within the Electronics and Electrical (E&E) National Key Economic Area (NKEA). It also listed several EPPs that would fall under 11 NKEAs that would potentially be situated in Penang, although details of these were not highlighted.

Economic Transformation Programme (ETP)

What seems clear though is that while Pemandu and its alphabet soup of economic plans have identified in total 12 NKEAs to boost the country’s economy, the manner in which the projects are being executed is still largely centralised, with little to no consultation with governments of states that are said to gain from them. Presentations were given by the National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) to all state governments, but this was only done once and the states’ participation has been minimal despite the 131 EPPs supposedly targeting all geographical areas in Malaysia equally.

In reality, it is difficult to examine the geographic distribution of the EPPs to determine if these are equally spread out across the 13 states in Malaysia. This is because their definitions are hardly clear, for example under the E&E NKEA, one EPP is to: “Grow Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)” and its target is to “bring in RM1.45bil in Gross National Income by 2020 to create 3,948 new jobs as a result”. This does not provide the reader with the information on how the RFID industry will grow exactly. All the EPP details in the extremely large and heavy ETP book are similarly sketchy at best; and this is not helped by the statement that 92% of these projects are expected to be funded by the private sector. The “project updates” within this NKEA on the ETP website reveals no extra information either.

Perhaps it is unfair to assume that details do not exist. Perhaps it is only that they will be divulged when the time is right, to the right audiences. For example, the Mass Rail Transit (MRT) project slated to cost RM36.6bil has its first route from Sungai Buloh to Kajang on public display between February and May 2011. In this instance, public feedback was sought and explicit instructions were given on how people could provide appropriate suggestions. Hence, in line with the example provided above, it is possible the officer-in-charge of the E&E EPP has been hard at work interacting with manufacturing companies to convince them to increase RFID research and production – and will announce this through a press statement soon after. If that is indeed the case, then we don’t mind waiting.

Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley

Selangor is the only Pakatan-led state that has the privilege of being included directly in the ETP by virtue of its location, namely in the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley NKEA. It is also of interest that the “Klang Valley” term was not originally part of the equation, but included after discontent from some quarters was expressed that a large part of “Greater Kuala Lumpur” in fact involved Selangor.

Terminology aside, the Selangor government is represented at its steering committee, although it would be more appropriate for it to have a larger role, since the NKEA covers a significant proportion of Selangor state. Recognition of the important role of Selangor as contributor to the region’s economic development could appropriately have been done via a joint chairmanship of the steering committee. Projects involving Selangor in this ETP include the MRT lines which lie directly across the state in major towns and cities; the River of Life project to clean up the Klang River although it is understood the focus will be in the Kuala Lumpur portions; and the massive urban development of existing land belonging to the Rubber Research Institute (RRI). These will be mega-projects that require civil society monitoring especially in financial transparency and public accountability.

Since no other Pakatan states are exclusively “given” an ETP of their own, suffice it to note that economic plans for these states are to be subsumed under the gamut of the other 11 NKEAs, stretched across the various EPPs. It is necessary to also highlight that all state governments, not just the Pakatan-led ones, ought to be carefully analysing the impact of the ETP on their state economies as well. It is a well-known fact that the oil-producing states of Sabah, Sarawak, Kelantan and Terengganu are also the poorest in Malaysia. All states, whether Barisan or Pakatan-led, should study how they benefit from federal initiatives.

Meaningful contributions

Pemandu’s response to Penang cited efforts by Pensonic Berhad to expand and establish its electrical home appliance manufacturing hub and international distribution network. This is a positive announcement of course, although it would make more sense for local manufacturers to deal directly with existing state-owned enterprises whose job is to encourage investments, such as Invest Penang or the Penang Development Corporation. Similarly, other state governments have their own units which are better-placed in identifying local problems and conditions, and in working out network and logistical, administrative, registration and other bureaucratic chinks. For example, Selangor State Investment Corporation (SSIC) and Kedah Investment Centre (KIC) are suitable points of contact, as well as the respective state branches of the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA).

Secondly, Penang should not have needed to wait for an official press release by Pemandu to be informed of the potential impacts the ETP would have on the state. If meaningful contributions and consultation are to take place, this should involve a long-term and full-time dedicated team of individuals working closely within each state in producing more effective outputs from all possible EPPs.

It is appreciated that much is taking place with the ETP. In fact, it is encouraging to know that some economic planning is in fact taking place, and urgently at that. However, going about it in the style typical of Malaysia – top-down approaches with speedy approvals for mega-project consultants – creates a fertile ground for authoritarian processes that can breed the same misuse of funds the public has been critical of for years. The same mistakes of cronyism and nepotism must be avoided at all costs.

Finally, for economic transformation to truly take place within the Pakatan states, new and fresh ideas must emerge from within. Whilst the proposals by Pemandu are welcome, the Pakatan states have been progressively working their common ground to present a different framework of the economy altogether. As I have written about before, the states had their second Menteri Besar/Chief Minister Summit in November 2010 which ended with the Shah Alam Resolution. The Resolution listed common positions and proposals to be adopted, one of which is for each state to introduce one or two large projects and collate them amongst all the Pakatan states to form a fund (ideally internationally structured) that would attract foreign investment. The Pakatan states’ strengths would lie in their standards of access to information, transparency, accountability, progress towards open tenders, and so on.

The difficult task of governance continued with another Menteri Besar/Chief Minister Summit that took place in February 2011, at which more rigorous discussions were planned. This month marks Pakatan’s three-year anniversary in the Penang, Selangor and Kedah state governments. As such, Pakatan is organising its Economic Convention which will outline key principles and policies at the national level. The Penang Blueprint contains outlines of its vision for the state; and it is expected that Selangor will unveil the same at its third anniversary. These policy plans and documents are added on to Pakatan’s Orange Book that forms the basis of its socio-economic philosophy launched in December 2010, which in turn is based on the Pakatan Common Policy Platform.

Now as global debate is leaning towards the need for a new world order following events in Tunisia, Egypt and the Middle East, Malaysians need an alternative approach to its economy and society. Large infrastructure projects for generating growth and development are acceptable insofar as they are accompanied by an equivalence in human resources, skills and independent institutions, a fair, needs-based and merit-based system (as opposed to race-based), transparency, accountability and genuine co-operation between the federal government and all states. We are only now treading baby steps towards economic transformation for the country as a whole.

Posted in Economics, Selangor | Leave a comment

What the Selangor State Secretary issue teaches us

Posted on February 3, 2011 by Tricia

Public administration and federal-state relations is an important subject when examining Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional power relations. This incident was one that taught us the importance of vigilance, first published in Penang Monthly in February 2011.

What the Selangor State Secretary issue teaches us

The struggle between the Barisan Nasional’s federal government and the state governments not run by its component parties tends to overshadow the fact that the goal of government at any level is to provide good public service. This is most obvious at the state level, where the virtues of federalism are most easily appreciated.

This column is entitled “States of reform” as a play on the phrase; on one hand, the articles are meant to depict the efforts of the Pakatan Rakyat state governments in their attempts to reform policy matters on a range of fronts. On the other hand, the current unfolding of circumstances since March 8, 2008 has led both sides – Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat – to spew populist slogans on the theme of transformation and reform, reflecting the fact that Malaysia is truly in a state of reform.

So far, I have focused on numerous specific policy issues such as solid waste management, the environment and water supply services, amongst others. This month I shall consider public administration but in the context of federal-state relations, both also being themes that I have written about in earlier columns. Since the beginning of 2011, there has been no way anyone interested in Malaysia could have avoided the issue of the State Secretary appointment in Selangor. It has filled all national newspapers for several weeks now.

State Secretary in Selangor

A brief background is that the former State Secretary was retiring, and there was a dispute over the appointment of his replacement. To spare you the details, suffice it to say that the Selangor government submitted a list of recommended names to the Public Service Commission (PSC), but before any real or meaningful discussion had taken place between the two parties, the PSC announced the name of the new State Secretary. The real issue therefore, was the lack of consultation with the state’s chief executive officer, the Menteri Besar, before his top civil servant was selected. It is equivalent to a company’s managing director not being told about the appointment of his new chief operating officer.

The political dimension was the individual himself, Khusrin Munawi, who had been embroiled in several controversies during his tenure at the Selangor Islamic Department. Controversial or not, it would have been common sense for his name to be consulted with the government of the day prior to the abrupt announcement.

Palace negotiations added to the intrigue, with the Sultan of Selangor having given his endorsement of Khusrin’s appointment. The matter is currently being addressed, where at the time of writing the Selangor State Assembly is to convene an early sitting on January 24, 2011 to debate the proposal to amend the Selangor Constitution. The outcome of this State Sitting will determine what happens to Khusrin’s position.

State constitutions

What exactly will the Assembly sitting achieve? It is interesting in this regard to explore the contents not just of the Selangor Constitution but that of other states as well. Prior to 1993, most state constitutions were similar in that the Sultan (where applicable) and Menteri Besar had a role to play in the appointment of ex-officio members. Ex-officio members consist of the State Secretary, State Finance Officer and State Legal Adviser.

However, in 1993, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia was amended with the aim of removing legal immunity of the royalty. Articles 32, 38, 42, 63, 72 and 181 were amended as a result. This was precipitated by a series of incidents that reflected a deteriorating relationship between the Malaysian government and the monarchies. Simultaneously, the state constitutions were amended to achieve the same result, i.e. to leave the rulers with reduced authority over the appointment of ex-officio members.

For example, Section 52(1) of the constitution of Selangor prior to 1993 included the role of the Sultan in appointing the ex-officio members “provided… (he) consider(s) the advice of the Menteri Besar”. Post-amendment, the Article merely states that the “appropriate Service Commission from any of the relevant public services” is to be the appointing body. This is similar in the states of Perak, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan. No such amendment was made in the cases of Johor, Kedah and Kelantan however, presumably because they have their own state service. Sabah and Sarawak have a different clause in their constitutions altogether, where the appointments in question are made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negeri with the advice of the Chief Minister, submitted by “the Commission” in consultation with the federal government.

The State Assembly sitting is therefore meant to debate the proposal to restore the powers of the Sultan and Menteri Besar in the appointment of ex-officio members by amending Section 52(1) of the Selangor Constitution. One other way of looking at it is that this is about restoring the rights of the state in selecting its own public servants.

Public services

In practice, the federal government’s PSC appoints ex-officio members in what were once the Federated Malay States. As mentioned in a previous column, the Federated Malay States of Selangor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang did not originally have their own state civil services. This is contrasted with the Unfederated Malay States of Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu which have their own state service until the present day. Quoting from my previous article, “In the late 1800s, the Federated Malay States’ civil services (Selangor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang) were combined with that of the Straits Settlements (Penang and Malacca) into a unified Federated Malay States Civil Service (FMS). This allowed for a centralised administration with a common recruitment procedure.”

As mentioned then, Selangor does have its own State Service Commission which by practice has appointed low to middle-level employees (both full-time and contract). Penang has a similar state-based service that was merged with the federal civil services in the 1970s.

Hence, it has been customary for the PSC to appoint the top three civil servants in the former Federated Malay States of Selangor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang, whilst former Unfederated Malay States Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu draw from their own state service. The PSC also appoints ex-officio members in the former Straits Settlement states of Penang and Malacca.

The principle of federalism

The issue is complex as it involves multiple stakeholders. The known characters in this play are: the federal government, the state government, the monarchy and the public administration bodies. Some raging debates as to the logic behind the restoration of some power to the Sultan and the Menteri Besar are bound to crop up.

Ultimately, it should be remembered that Malaysia is a federation in which state governments ought to have their separate and distinctive powers. This is a system that would allow for the preservation of the individual and regional identities of each state. Just because the states have inherited a legacy in which the federal government’s PSC has by practice appointed the top civil servants in the former Federated Malay States, this does not mean it should continue. In fact, some lawyers have argued that there is nothing legally binding about this practice, which means the present state-based service can actually be empowered to appoint ex-officio members.

Legal or not, one has to address the practical realities of daily governing. Surely it makes best sense for one’s own government to determine for itself its chiefs. The positions of State Secretary, State Finance Officer and State Legal Adviser are crucial to the smooth operations of public administration. They deal with the bulk of administrative matters such as land issues, management of accounts, revenue and expenditure, legal suits against the state, and so on. It is imperative that these “head honchos” work well with the government, especially the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister, in protecting the rights of the state. States should therefore be able to appoint their own top public servants, in living up to the principle of federalism.

All public servants are meant to be apolitical, neutral and professional in their duties, and this they are well aware of. In order for this to be carried out, their responsibility must be first and foremost to the government of the day. The federal government and Pakatan Rakyat-led state governments need to strive even harder to co-operate with each other. The goal of all parties is to serve the people through efficient services. And this is all the rakyat want to see at the end of the day.

Posted in General Politics, Public Administration, Selangor | 2 Comments

Tighter cooperation between Pakatan Rakyat-run states

Posted on January 13, 2011 by Tricia

Pakatan states came together several times at Menteri Besar Summits over the last few years to discuss how to more closely cooperate. This was published in January 2011 of the Penang Monthly.

Tighter cooperation between Pakatan Rakyat-run states

Malaysia’s political clamour as presented by the mass media tends to drown out the steady progress of what the Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) state governments are actually doing on a daily basis. Their learning curve on gaining power at state level was no doubt challengingly steep, but where policies are concerned, their achievements have been impressive.

Political events tend to overwhelm public space and are always more exciting than state administrative and policy matters, although it is the latter that actively and ultimately determine the welfare and livelihood of people.

The measure by which people generally judge the strength of political coalitions is therefore slightly inaccurate; in all likelihood using political cohesion versus division between individual political players as a gauge. This tendency is displayed in the evaluation of Pakatan as a political body. The recent Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) party elections and Democratic Action Party (DAP) Selangor state elections that both saw deep rifts emerge between key leaders, for example, remain in people’s minds as indicators that the Pakatan coalition is in complete disarray.

In my previous column, I emphasised the importance of a thorough examination of the state annual budgets as a method for analysing common policies, which I proceeded to do by comparing the Penang and Selangor 2011 budgets. My argument is simply that a perfect avenue does exist by which the public can evaluate Pakatan principles and philosophy through actual policy and programmes. Whilst the media still actively pursue doubts about how PKR and DAP can consolidate their internal party differences in various states, readers should be equally keen to investigate what is taking place at the policy level.

The political clamour drowns out the steady movement and progress of what the Pakatan state governments are actually doing on a daily basis.

Pakatan held its first national convention in December 2009 in Selangor, at which it unveiled its Common Policy Platform (CPP), outlining a framework that all three parties agreed to. The CPP covered the topics of Transparent and Genuine Democracy, Driving a High Performance, Sustainable and Equitable Economy, Social Justice and Human Development, and finally the Federal-State Relationship and Foreign Policy. This 30-page document was a comprehensive summary of what the coalition subscribes to and believes in, and was considered a success as the coalition’s first substantive policy booklet to which people could refer as a guideline for its objectives, goals and vision for the nation.

The best way to test the validity of these ideals is through the state governments that Pakatan actually govern. Hence, the gathering of the Pakatan state government chiefs on November 29, 2010 at the Second Pakatan Rakyat States Menteri Besar/Chief Minister Summit was highly significant. More than 100 state government leaders and their officers came together in Shah Alam, Selangor, with the objective of sharing valuable lessons learned in governing respective states, continuing the process of honing and fine-tuning common policies amongst the four states, and adopting new methodologies learned.

The Summit began with each of the four states’ chiefs giving opening speeches, namely Lim Guan Eng of Penang, Khalid Ibrahim of Selangor, Nik Abdul Aziz of Kelantan and Ustaz Azizan Abdul Razak of Kedah. More interesting were paper presentations that were delivered by each of the state chiefs on specific topics, which were commented upon by representatives of other state governments. For example, where Penang’s Chief Minister spoke on the topic of Administration and Politics, there was an opportunity for Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan to respond. Kelantan’s Nik Aziz, represented by Husam Musa, spoke on Social Development and Mass Communication; Selangor’s Khalid Ibrahim delivered his speech on Economics, Infrastructure and Investment, and Kedah’s Ustaz Azizan Abdul Razak on Ethnic Equality and Agriculture. Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin, the former Menteri Besar of Perak, gave a special presentation on Federalism and Federal-State Relations. Small group discussions on the topics of Local Government, the Water Industry, Investment, and Environment allowed participants a more informal opportunity to exchange the thoughts and experiences of their respective governments.

The Summit concluded with a Shah Alam Resolution themed “Continuing the People’s Aspirations”, or “Meneruskan Cita-cita Rakyat”. The Resolution is broken up into three sections: the first details the commitment of Pakatan states to continue meeting the desires and hopes of the people through responsible and transparent public administration amongst others; the second outlines Pakatan states’ plans to develop an economic alliance, focusing on investment and administrative improvements; and finally the document fl ashes out action agenda items that will be taken up by the four states. Some of the more interesting public policy and action items on the list include the adoption of the Freedom of Information Enactment, already underway in Selangor and Penang. This example will possibly be followed by Kedah and Kelantan soon. Local authority services are another common area that all states recognise as a major issue that must be dealt with urgently.

The mainstream media infrastructure being so tightly controlled by the ruling government or conglomerates close to them is another problem, and the proposed solution in the Resolution is to form a body with shared news amongst Pakatan states, which would be revolutionary but entirely possible with optimal use of the Internet. The Summit, with its interpersonal interactions, seemed an ideal session for executive council (Exco) members, state officers and elected representatives to learn from each other on a wide spectrum of topics.

Finally, the Selangor Menteri Besar proposed in his speech that Selangor would provide RM10mil as seed money to promote investment from international players in forming a “club deal”, which would serve to help all other Pakatan states. This was premised on his belief that as existing and legitimate state governments, Pakatan states should not merely be bystanders in the process of national growth and development. Where presently our highly centralised system of government makes for a top-down approach in all matters of the economy and administration – the current buzzword being the Economic Transformation Programme – state governments are in fact crucial players in the process of attracting investments into the country. Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan together accounted for more than 50% of Foreign Direct Investment coming into Malaysia for the first half of 2010, an evident display of the Pakatan states’ economic strength. They should therefore be considered key decision-makers and stakeholders in the direction and manner of Malaysia’s national development.

The Summit may have been just a one-day event, after which all officers travelled back to their respective states. This was however an important milestone in continuing the engagement between the Pakatan state governments. It is certainly good to have a common policy platform as an end-goal for Malaysia, but the real evaluation method comes through its manifestations at the state government levels. Obstacles and challenges were also shared at the Summit, with suggestions made about overcoming these.

This interaction is positive, but it is hoped that a periodic series of forums involving the officers of all four states would continue.

The four states of Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan are by no means identical in population makeup, geographic conditions or otherwise. Each has a unique quality of its own, which should be allowed to flourish through its state government’s respective policies. Nevertheless, what this Summit has demonstrated is – perhaps this is long overdue – that the states can and should think of themselves as an alliance, both economically and socially. The strength of the Pakatan states lies clearly in the commitment to transparency, accountability and the ability to generate new ideas towards sustainable, clean and green living environments. (Note that the current Barisan Nasional’s economic framework has borrowed many of the ideals originally espoused by Pakatan, at either party or state level, including the Klang River cleaning and rehabilitation project.)

The potential for cooperation and cross-germination of ideas, policies, programmes and events across the four states is great, and this must be optimised. Through a sufficient period of time, the Pakatan states must be able to demonstrate unity through their common policy practices, which Malaysians in turn will use to project an image of what a potential future Pakatan federal government may embody.

However, in the end, the saying holds true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; the best policy documents must eventually be translated into effective and efficient implementation. What people experience and feel in their daily lives ultimately will be the best report card of Pakatan state governments’ performances.

Posted in Economics, Selangor | Leave a comment

The LoyarBurok Book Review: “Perak: A State Of Crisis” – Re-invoking Our Sentiments

Posted on January 11, 2011 by Tricia

The LoyarBurok Book Review: “Perak: A State Of Crisis” – Re-invoking Our Sentiments

First published on Loyarburok.com on 9th January 2011

LoyarBaca's PASOC: If democracy is what you want, this is THE book for you - from the people who brough you the ONLY blawg, LoyarBurok

LoyarBaca’s PASOC: If democracy is what you want, this is THE book for you – from the people who brought you the ONLY blawg, LoyarBurok

PASOC is now available at most MPH, Borders and Times bookstores through LoyarBaca’s distributors, GerakBudaya. Get yours at those bookstores or here. The book is into its first reprint (second impression) after having all 1000 copies distributed in 5 days after its mega 1212 launch.

Malaysians have short memories. It was not too long ago that the Perak crisis took place, inducing great disbelief and anger amongst many. But time heals all things, and there’s nothing that good public relations cannot gloss over. Indeed, what happened in Perak almost two years ago may have just faded slowly in our minds – the stark reality of how powers can be so easily misused in the wrong hands – without having been reminded once again through this most valuable and timely book by LoyarBurok‘s publishing arm, LoyarBaca.

Reading “Perak: A State of Crisis” in one sitting is reliving the past – those few months in 2009 during which the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak was so disgracefully usurped from its position to be replaced by the “new” Barisan Nasional government. The book, a compilation of 20 articles, many of which were written for the LoyarBurok blawg (www.LoyarBurok.com) itself throughout the unfolding of the crisis, walks you through the scenes as if you were there, conjuring up images of what happened at the State Assembly and its compound, the Perak Palace, the famous tree and the courtroom. The well-documented timeline is also helpful to traverse through the incidents as they took place.

Contributors to the book are a combination of lawyers, a former judge and academic experts in the law, hence their approach of the incident through legal lenses. However, far from making use of legal jargon the rest of us are so unaccustomed to, they explain the issues surrounding the Perak crisis and the reasons they have so taken those positions based on the Perak Constitution and judicial precedent in a style easily understood by laypersons, methodical and step-by-step as their profession so requires.

In short, the incident that precipitated this constitutional crisis was the resignation of three State Assemblypersons from their respective parties [one from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and two from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), both parties within the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition government] to become Independent Legislators, changing the balance of numbers in the State Assembly with PR and BN having 28 seats each in the 59-seat Assembly. This then set upon a series of events that eventually toppled the democratically elected PR state government with the Sultan of Perak deeming Nizar Jamaluddin to have lost the confidence of the State Assembly thereby appointing Zambry Abdul Kadir as the new Menteri Besar. More than six court cases ensued.

Most authors make repeated reference to Article 16(6) of the Perak State Constitution as this is central: “If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.”

The salient points raised and addressed in the book, which were also litigated on in the courts, are as follows:

1. Who determines that the Menteri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly?

2. What are relevant matters in assessing whether the Menteri Besar still commands the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly?

3. Can the Head of State determine that the Menteri Besar has lost the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly in a way other than by a vote on the floor of the Assembly?

4. Can the Head of State refuse the request of the Menteri Besar to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, and following this, dismiss the Executive Council when the Menteri Besar refuses to tender the resignation of the Executive Council?

5. Can the Head of State appoint a new Menteri Besar if he judges that the present Menteri Besar has lost the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly and does not resign?

Lawyers Art Harun, Kevin YL Tan and former judge NH Chan are the most prolific writers, providing lengthy pieces which cover necessary ground in replying to the questions above, elaborations and conclusions of which are too long to cover in this piece. Other contributors provide their perspectives on particular areas of the crisis, with lawyer Shanmuga K for example discussing whether the Perak Speaker can appoint private lawyers and concludes that the law allows for this. The book ends with three concluding remarks, by Kevin YL Tan, constitutional law academic Shad Saleem Faruqi and jurist on constitutional law Andrew Harding.

It is interesting to note the variances of opinion between the three experts – Shad Saleem Faruqi’s especially differs from the others. He is the only writer to note that the Speaker Sivakumar publicly stated he would not allow the three Independent Assemblypersons to enter the State Assembly, hence making it impossible for them to participate in the vote to determine confidence in the Menteri Besar. He is also the only writer to say that Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution is open-ended about how confidence of the majority of the Menteri Besar is to be determined. While other writers in the book believe this is only determinable by the floor of the Assembly in session itself, Faruqi states that the clause talks of the “confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly” and not the confidence of the Assembly, and that “the action of members acting individually may count”. The consensus among all authors though is that the series of actions or inaction were politically tinged and the best way to restore order would have been through dissolution of the State Assembly and for fresh elections to be held.

One thing is clear about all that took place: the concerted effort by the various institutions to bring about the PR state government’s downfall. The judiciary, the police, the Election Commission and the civil service, all supposedly independent institutions, showed their adherence to the political powers that be. The most appalling picture of Speaker Sivakumar being physically dragged from his seat is the face of humiliation. How is it possible that the BN government cares not for its international reputation in an exercise of brute power such as this?

The book’s greatest significance is ultimately the ability to re-invoke our sentiments – both emotional and intellectual – that accompanied the Perak crisis of 2009. It is a wake-up call (again) that matters of political governance and administration affect all layers and walks of society. That it was edited by a corporate lawyer (as opposed to a human rights one), given a foreword by the Chief Executive of a policy think-tank, with information supplied by journalists encapsulates the point that politics is something everyone must be concerned with as it affects us all. It is also interesting to note the compilation includes selected comments from the articles when they were first posted online, which reflects the sort of dynamic interaction and exchange that now takes place within the legal and public policy community. It is a must-read for anyone interested in political discourse, constitutional law, human rights and public policy.

The Perak case is significant to all Malaysians, as its implications are far-reaching not just for other state governments but also at the national level, especially as discussion is underway on the relationship between the civil service-royalty-political parties in the state of Selangor presently. Finally, Andrew Harding’s conclusion in the book rings true: “The people will decide”. This holds even more weight as the next General Elections loom ahead, with talk of it to be held as early as this year.

Will the Perak voters remember? Only the polls will tell.

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

Comparing the state budgets of Penang and Selangor (2011)

Posted on December 19, 2010 by Tricia

How time flies. Back in 2010, we were just charting out the second only Selangor state budget for the year ahead in 2011. This was my comparison between the budgets of Penang and Selangor, written in December 2010 for the Penang Monthly.

Comparing the state budgets of Penang and Selangor

Penang and Selangor are the testing ground for alternative and future styles of governance in Malaysia. What will be decisive in the long run is not so much the points gained in the daily rhetorical sniping that seems to be an inescapable part of a two-coalitional politics, but how well the state governments are run. The state budgets are therefore what analysts should be studying.

Amidst the noise and clamour of Malaysia’s politics, it is easy to forget that daily responsibilities continue for governments and bureaucrats. The Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) coalition for example, has suffered several recent shocks, namely the twin by-election losses in Galas and Batu Sapi, followed by the damage control it has had to put into action following Zaid Ibrahim’s decision to quit the Deputy Presidency race. These events have occupied much media space.

Whilst Pakatan’s political resilience is an absorbing issue, it is perhaps more important to examine the ways in which Pakatan state governments are running their states respectively. This is a more appropriate reflection of Pakatan’s philosophies translated into reality. For example, both Penang and Selangor state assemblies tabled their respective 2011 budgets recently. As two states that contribute significantly to the nation’s wealth and economic development, it is in the interest of all stakeholders (including the Barisan Nasional Federal Government) to ensure these states are properly run and managed in order to continue attracting domestic and foreign investment. A crucial aspect of this lies in the financial management of the states’ resources. Some common themes can be easily identified between the two state budgets.

First, both state governments seem confident about developing more efficient financial management tactics, and eventually shoring up better state reserves in the mid to long-term. Penang tabled a 2011 budget of RM897.36mil, a 25.7% increase compared to its 2010 budget of RM713.79mil. Out of this, 38% contributes to operating expenditure (RM343.1mil) and 62% to development expenditure (RM554.26mil). Selangor tabled a 2011 budget of RM1.43bil, a 3.4% reduction from the 2010 budget of RM1.49bil. Out of this, 58% contributes to operating expenditure (RM860mil) and 42% to development expenditure (RM600mil).

Penang tabled a deficit budget of 12% for the year ahead, whilst Selangor tabled a balanced budget. Selangor’s Opposition Leader was nevertheless keen to criticise Selangor for its RM65mil budget deficit in 2009 during the recent budget debates. The reason given for a deficit in Penang was the social welfare allocations for targeted groups like senior citizens, the hardcore poor, schools and religious programmes. However, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng stated that the deficit was funded by state reserves, and that he was confident the balance in the reserved funds would increase by the end of 2010 through cost-cutting measures and an increase in revenue. Selangor’s response was similar, with Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim saying that state revenues had exceeded its original estimates, and that with better revenue collection methods, state revenues and reserves would increase the following year.

Penang’s government was especially proud of the flattering mention in Transparency International’s and the 2010 Auditor-General’s (A-G) reports of its efforts to heighten transparency in governance and increase efficiency in financial matters. The A-G report especially, commended the government for the increase in its accumulated fund of RM75mil in 2009 compared to 2008. Penang also registered a 1.4% increase in state revenue. As for Selangor, a newspaper report mistakenly quoted from the same A-G report that RM977.7mil was apparently missing from its state accounts, when only RM206mil remained to be adjusted. The full amount was in fact accumulated over a period of seven years. Furthermore, close to 90% of Selangor’s debts of RM829mil (due to loans taken from the federal government) were incurred when the previous administration decided to privatise its water services industry, a move the current government is attempting to reverse. Clearly a deep financial mess was left behind in Selangor, which impacts upon present accounts.

The 2011 budget speech nevertheless shows how an array of measures has been taken and will continue to be taken to increase state revenue further – mainly via the collection of quit rent arrears through land and district offices. Selangor has also successfully collected RM390mil in debts owed it by the Talam Corporation, and has used part of this to start its microcredit scheme for small-time entrepreneurs and the poor.

Second, both states highlighted the need for a specific roadmap and blueprint to outline their vision, what each wants to achieve and how they are to go about it. These are both mentioned in the respective leaders’ speeches. The Penang Blueprint is being prepared by the state think-tank, the Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute (SERI), and is soon to be unveiled, while the Agenda Rakyat Selangor (Selangor People’s Agenda), prepared by the state’s Economic Planning Unit and the Menteri Besar’s Office, is to be launched at the beginning of next year. Although the documents are not yet published, the budget speech gives a good indication of their contents. This is all the more necessary since there are such high expectations put on the leadership of the Pakatan. Although the methods may differ, both roadmap documents are a result of extensive consultations with various stakeholders and representatives of the business world and civil society, as well as the community at large.

In promoting the economy, both states pinpointed similar industries to concentrate on. Both Penang and Selangor for example focus on policies aimed at clean, green, sustainable and liveable environments for citizens as both recognise that any economic growth will require comfortable urban living which will in turn attract investment. Specifically, the areas most discussed are the industrial sector, tourism, infrastructure and utilities, agriculture and livestock, trade and consumer affairs, education, the environment, job creation, liveable cities, public transport, cleanliness and safety, urban renewal, rural development, and selected land reform measures. State governments have jurisdiction over natural resources, hence the need to ensure that these are carefully managed. Of course the states are very different in makeup; their population size, pressing needs and expectations, existing infrastructure and proposition points vary, but the direction towards sustainable living is found in both their agendas.

This list may seem like a hodgepodge of issues that throws in everything and anything possible – especially when state governments today have limited purview over major policies due to the increasing centralisation of powers by the federal government. However, the states’ interest on many of these issues is necessary and there are attempts at tackling some of the more difficult problems faced by the people. For example, handling crime or public transport is not necessarily the responsibility of a state government but because people consider these priority areas, both Penang and Selangor have taken the initiative to outline their end-goals. Some of these may involve working closely with the Performance and Management Unit (PEMANDU) under the Prime Minister’s Department. Despite justified criticism of the latter’s ostentatious budget, some bipartisanship will be needed.

Prevalent within both documents is also the emphasis on good governance, transparency and accountability. The theme of “competency, accountability and transparency” continues, cutting across all layers of administration. Both state governments have taken bold strides towards the Freedom of Information Enactment, started open tenders for new contracts, and championed the rule of law. Selangor has initiated the Integrity Pact for state companies such as Kumpulan Semesta Sdn. Bhd. and Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS). These were announced in the budget speeches, and are expected to be discussed in the blueprints.

Finally, both state governments strongly focus on social welfare programmes. Manifestos from Pakatan parties announced before general elections in March 2008 contained demands for better social safety nets for those in need and for marginalised groups, which the state governments have been trying to live up to. As a result, both states adopted policies aimed at assisting the elderly, Chinese and Tamil language schools, the disabled, religious schools, and mosques and religious teachers. Selangor has some additional welfare benefits for victims of domestic abuse and children of estate workers, a fund for all children born in the state, and a policy of free water for the first 20m³used per household. State governments are in an awkward position as they do not have authority in determining broad economic policy, but more will be expected of the Pakatan states in determining an economic model distinctively different from the Barisan Nasional style of mega-projects and financial handouts.

It is positive to note that both Selangor and Penang have common goals and ideals in attracting investment, and making their states liveable and sustainable. More could certainly be done in collaboration with the other Pakatan states to create an economic and investment corridor. This would then surely show that in Malaysia’s development, there are alternatives to pumping RM5bil into a 100-storey tower.

Posted in Elections, Selangor | Leave a comment

Islamic matters in Pakatan states

Posted on October 8, 2010 by Tricia

We are likely to see the race and religion cards being pulled as we approach the 13th general election campaign. One accusation often made is that Pakatan Rakyat, in particular the DAP, has not emphasised Islam enough. A tough nut to crack, here is my take back in 2010 on what the Pakatan states did on Islamic matters in both Selangor and Penang.

Islamic matters in Pakatan states

Malaysian political culture seeks to politicise everything under the sun, and nothing is as easily politicised as religion. With the rise of a two-coalitional system, the public has a chance to discuss religious values that go beyond mere political posturing.

Political competition between the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat coalitions is predicated on numerous fronts, the more sensitive of which involves religious matters.

There is certainly a long history of political parties continually trying to outperform each other in being more “Islamic” in theory and practice. This holds true especially for the United Malay National Organisation (Umno) and Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS). This article explores policy reform areas that have been prioritised by Pakatan Rakyat state governments in Penang and Selangor with regards to Islamic affairs.

The two and a half years of Pakatan Rakyat governing in these states have been peppered with incidents that reflect the complexities surrounding religion. For example, in 2008 when the Penang state government used the Arabic phrase “Amar Ma’aruf Nahi Mungkar” meaning “Enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil” in banners and posters put up across Penang, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was accused of being unqualified to state those words, being a non- Muslim. More recently, his name was alleged to have appeared within the pre- determined khutbah text used during Friday prayers in place of the Agong’s name. There was also a doctored photo of Lim slaughtering a cow for Muslim consumption.

In Selangor, a member of parliament from the Democratic Action Party (DAP), Teo Nie Ching, was criticised for having delivered a short speech within the premises of a mosque. A letter was later sent by Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS), or the Selangor Islamic Council, stating that she needed to obtain its permission before visiting any surau or mosque in Selangor.

All of the above incidents have been played up by government-friendly media, leading to the perception – or with the intention that the perception is formed – that the Pakatan Rakyat coalition
does not adhere to Islamic principles, thus “disqualifying” it from being a government genuinely representing and serving Muslims in Malaysia.

Improvements to policy

Every state has a religious council and department respectively. In Selangor, they are the MAIS and Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) or the Selangor Islamic Department. The corresponding bodies in Penang are Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang (MAIPP) and Jabatan Agama Islam
Pulau Pinang (JAIPP), or the Penang Islamic Council and Penang Islamic Department. The councils generally formulate policies which the departments thereafter implement.

The state religious councils of MAIS and MAIPP are federal agencies, whilst the state religious departments JAIS and JAIPP are theoretically state- level agencies. Councils are therefore largely autonomous from the state governments themselves, with the exception of representation on their board.

Because JAIS and JAIPP are state agencies, the state governments make decisions on aspects such as financial contributions and the nature of such assistance. Their funds therefore are channelled through the respective state governments. The difference between the two states lies perhaps in the fact that in Selangor, the religious head (ketua agama) is the Sultan of Selangor, whose edict is required for major decisions such as the selection of the JAIS director’s position, whereas Penang does not have such a personality whose approval is needed for any religious matters. The state exco in charge of Islamic affairs would generally make decisions in conjunction with the religious departments after discussion, although there have been occasions when they may seem to have conflicted with state government ethos.

Prior to Pakatan Rakyat taking over the governments in Penang and Selangor, Sekolah Agama Rakyat were neglected. These are schools that operate indepen-dently and quite separately from the state religious department-funded Sekolah Rendah Agama. This explains the percep-tion that they are counter-cultural. These Sekolah Agama Rakyat were born out of individual Muslim families who wanted to provide an alternative, holistic education option for their children which was based on Islamic values and principles.

There are 250 such schools in Selangor at both primary and secondary levels. Whilst no funds were given to them by the previous Selangor government, the Pakatan government allocates RM6mil annually to these schools. Similarly, the Penang state government also provides hardware and basic provisions to the Sekolah Agama Rakyat, something which was neglected by the previous state government.

The Selangor state government also increased the allowance for guru kafa, or kafa religious teachers, to RM1000 for normal teachers (previously RM700). Additionally, a specific education council has been initiated, Majlis Permuafakatan Institusi Pendidikan Islam Selangor (MAPIS),
which pools teachers from these Sekolah Agama Rakyat and provides additional teacher training courses, since many are either diploma or Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) holders with no formal teaching training. Books, basic amenities and elec-trical wiring systems are also provided under the new support scheme. The state government also encourages more learning programmes within mosques, through tazkirah and knowledge seminars.

Although it seems petty to make superficial comparisons on monetary contributions, it is worth mentioning that financial contributions to Islamic affairs have increased significantly under the Pakatan Rakyat governments. For example, the Penang state government contributed RM20.5mil to Islamic matters in 2009 and RM24.3mil in 2010, more than double what the previous state government allocated (RM12.5mil in 2008). Similarly, the Selangor state government contributed RM136 million in 2009 and RM149 in 2010, compared with RM130 million in 2008, close to a 20% increase. (These figures do not include what is allocated to the Sekolah Agama Rakyat, which, as mentioned above, is a significant variation under the new state governments).

Other practices

There have been other more significant policy improvements that are reflective of good governance, transparency and public accountability – the grounding principles of most religions including Islam. The Penang state government has, for example, made public its practice of open tenders in which 70% of Penang Development Corporation tenders and 67% of those from Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang (PBAPP) were won by Malay contractors. This proves that healthy and transparent competition would allow the Bumiputera community to flourish. In Selangor, the Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor programme, consisting of seven social welfare-based packages, has essen-tially reached out to all residents within Selangor regardless of race and religion. Malays, naturally making up a majority of the population, would be immediate beneficiaries of such programmes.

All this should dispel the notion that the new governments are unable to cater to Muslim needs. However, this causes us as Malaysians to be trapped in the same web of petty comparisons, a competition based on one-upmanship.

The reality is that religion will always colour politics in Malaysia. The better path to tread is one that allows the embracing of more meaningful Islamic principles such as truth, accountability and good governance instead of the debating of who should be allowed into mosques.

Genuine reform must mean a deeper and more conscientious development of policies truly reflective of the religion that shapes much of the Malaysian way of life.

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

Civil servants at an Impasse

Posted on September 8, 2010 by Tricia

As we approach the 13th General Election, it is relevant to note that should Pakatan Rakyat take over the federal government, one of the most contentious issues is that of dealing with the civil service. Let’s take a look at the past experiences of Selangor and Penang, in how these state governments dealt with the matter from 2008 onwards. An old piece but good to reflect, first published in the Penang Monthly in 2010.

Civil servants at an impasse

The tension between federal and state governments is oft en played out in the civil service. This makes it necessary for Malaysians – and especially civil servants themselves – to contemplate the ideals surrounding civil services in general. To do that seriously, some knowledge about how civil service structures differ from state to state and why they differ is required.

Since taking over several state governments, one of the areas the Pakatan Rakyat has had to contend most with is the civil service. A majority of the bureaucrats working within the state governments are federally appointed, especially higher-ranked officials from the prestigious Administrative and Diplomatic Service (Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik).

This situation has been problematic for all involved, especially when these public servants have to serve the state government of the day on the one hand and report to the federal government on the other. The confusion is worse when policy directives from the two levels of government are in clear conflict with one another.

This tense relationship came to a head in July this year when Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s dissatisfaction with State Development Officer Nik Ali Mat Yunos became a widely reported tiff in the media. Lim had publicly criticised Nik Ali on several matters, including the construction of arches at the Penang Botanical Gardens costing RM15,000 which the state government had no control over, and reportedly called him incompetent and unprofessional. Nik Ali retaliated by calling the Chief Minister rude at a press conference. He was later defended by the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Sidek Hassan.

This incident encapsulates hostilities between the Barisan Nasional federal government and Pakatan Rakyat state governments. But to what extent can the civil service be expected to separate their duty from what is expected of them politically?

This particular incident can be considered unique because the State Development Office (SDO) is a separate unit set up directly under the purview of the Implementation and Coordination Unit (ICU) that falls under the Prime Minister’s Office. When the Pakatan Rakyat took over in Penang and Selangor, the SDO were physically removed from their premises at the respective state secretariat buildings and now exist completely isolated from the state governments’ plans, policies and programmes. They do not report to the state governments.

Selangor has not been spared similar controversies. During the Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (SELCAT) public inquiry into assemblymen’s allocation of funds in 2009, federally-appointed civil servants within local authorities were visibly unhappy. They had been questioned on their approval of former politicians’ development projects, many of which involved large sums of money. They protested against SELCAT’s questioning, saying it was humiliating in nature. Their defence was they were merely acting on instructions from their then political masters.

In order to understand the nature of the relationship between the state government and its employees, it is important that we first examine the public service’s existing structure.

Malaysia’s civil service

The Malaysian Civil Service emerged from the British Public Service which began in the late 1700s after the British East India Company acquired Penang. In the late 1800s, the Federated Malay States’ separate civil services (Selangor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang) were combined with that of the Straits Settlements (Penang and Malacca) into a unified Federated Malay States Civil Service (FMS). The FMS later introduced the Malay Administrative Service and together they refined new standards for public service. The Unfederated Malay States (Johor, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu) on the other hand formed and today still maintain their own State Public Services under the authority of their respective Menteri Besar and Sultan, where most of their state civil servants are employed by the state.

Other colonial services like that of the Police, Medical, Education and Legal were brought together over the years, forming the Colonial Administrative Service that the Malaysian Civil Service (MCS) was part of, the latter of which is known today as the Administrative and Diplomatic Service mentioned above. This is seen as a prestigious level of service which fills almost all senior positions at the federal and state levels.

The Malaysian public service today has a total of 1.2 million employees covering 28 schemes of service. Public service policies are crafted by the Public Service Commission (Suruhanjaya

Perkhidmatan Awam) and thereafter executed by the Public Service Department (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam), although neither of these have jurisdiction over the public services of former members of the Unfederated Malay States. This federal-level Public Service Department is responsible for the appointment and promotion of officers higher than Grade 17, which is the entry point for those with high school certificates.

Selangor is unique among the Federated Malay States in having its own public service, albeit on a smaller scale, having the power to fill junior positions and only within state government departments. The Selangor Public Service Commission was formed in 1960 to aid the existing Federal Public Service. The Commission is governed by policies such as the Public

Officers Regulations of Selangor State Government (Appointment, Promotion and Termination of Service) from 2005 and other circulars from the State Administration. Based on their 2008 annual report, the Commission spent RM560,000, the bulk of which was on salaries for some 1,778 employees. This state-based civil service only allows appointments up to a certain level, after which posts are filled by federal officers seconded to the state government.

Penang had a similar limited state-based civil service in the past that went up only to the Assistant District Officer level. However, in the 1970s, in response to a petition from civil servants from those states itself, the civil service was merged with the federal civil services so that Penang officers could be promoted to the highest rank possible.

In both Selangor and Penang, most public servants are federally appointed and seconded to the individual state governments. Selangor employs a total of 7,984 people, while Penang employs

4,196, excluding those employed in local authorities and statutory bodies. Selangor pays its employees a total of RM271.8mil a year in emoluments, which makes up 38.31% of its annual budget, whilst Penang pays out RM115.9mil a year, making up 36.4% of its annual budget.

Independence of the civil service

In 1845, the Northcote-Trevelyan Report, which prescribed public service ethos, emphasised that a politically neutral civil service “means complete loyalty to the government of the day regardless of its political complexion” (taken from the Chief Secretary’s website). It also stipulated that the public service should provide continuous services which are impartial and appropriate for public interest.

A change in government should not precipitate instability or chaos. In both the state governments of Penang and Selangor, there have been varying reactions to the change in government in 2008. In some instances, civil servants were naturally wary. However, after more than two years of working with their state governments, many have understood the principles of Pakatan Rakyat of competency, accountability and transparency, and some have been enthusiastic in delivering upon these.

Nevertheless, there is still room for improving the working relationship between the civil servants and the state governments they serve, especially given that other instructions will continue to come from Putrajaya. One still recalls the directives from the Ministry of Education not to allow Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives into public schools, and the Minister of Agriculture instructing all its officers including those seconded to state governments not to attend any official state function.

The state’s delivery of public services depends largely on the efficiency and professionalism of its civil service. In a recent Selangor 2011 Budget Dialogue, a federally-appointed civil servant asked what they should do in situations where there were conflicts of policy between the federal and state governments. The panel replied that public servants should ultimately do what is in the best interest of the people. For the betterment of Malaysia, civil servants must conduct their work with wisdom, independence, professionalism and political neutrality.

Posted in General Politics, Selangor | 3 Comments

Tricia Yeoh

Of Brain Drain, Ethnicity and Class

The dead have rights, too

The many sides of good city living

Taking bigger than baby steps to transform the economy

What the Selangor State Secretary issue teaches us

Tighter cooperation between Pakatan Rakyat-run states

The LoyarBurok Book Review: “Perak: A State Of Crisis” – Re-invoking Our Sentiments

The LoyarBurok Book Review: “Perak: A State Of Crisis” – Re-invoking Our Sentiments

Comparing the state budgets of Penang and Selangor (2011)

Islamic matters in Pakatan states

Civil servants at an Impasse

Tricia’s LinkedIn Page

Recent Posts

Tricia’s Writing Archives

BBC World Questions Panel: Can Malaysia emerge as a mature democracy?

Malaysia’s Future: Reform, Economy & Global Challenges ft. Dr Tricia Yeoh | Episode 67 (Are We OK?)

The Future of Federal-State Relations | BERNAMA World

Kunjungan Xi Jinping ke Asia Tenggara: Implikasi ekonomi dan politik untuk Malaysia

Data and Democracy Keynote Speech by Dr Tricia Yeoh (IDEAS)

Tricia Yeoh on bottom up accountability I OTT Conference 2024 Keynote Address | Barcelona, May 2024

IDEAS 7th Liberalism Conference: Closing Address by Dr Tricia Yeoh, CEO of IDEAS

Pages

Organisations