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 10th 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 20m3 used 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

Information in restricted public space

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Tricia

Despite being in government in 4 states, Pakatan Rakyat has had to battle it out in the online space because of restricted media coverage in mainstream papers. Published in The Penang Monthly in August 2010, this article (and others to follow) are included in my book The States of Reform, written specifically on the Selangor and Penang state governments.

Information in restricted public space

Perhaps the most decisive battle between Malaysia’s two coalitions is being fought in the information arena, and not in by-elections or in parliament. As in most countries, ownership of the mass media affects the level of press freedom greatly. But when draconian laws are also in place strangling information flow, as in Malaysia, then we have a serious problem. However, necessity is the mother of invention.

One of the fundamental pillars of any modern democracy is a free mass media. It is through transparent and responsible reporting by independent journalists that the public is provided with unbiased information and can form opinions based on it. In a healthy political environment, ideas flow freely and a variety of alternatives are available for public consumption.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in Malaysia. Freedom House’s 2010 Freedom of the Press world ranking exercise places Malaysia at 142nd out of 196 countries surveyed, which puts us in the world’s bottom 30% of countries in the area of press freedom. Neighbours like Indonesia, the Philippines, East Timor and Thailand are ahead of us.

The inherent problem is that media ownership is concentrated to a few who are closely linked with the ruling coalition government. The current media conglomerates are namely:

i.            Media Prima, which is aligned to the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), is a major shareholder in the New Straits Times Press, which publishes The New Straits Times, New Sunday Times, Berita Harian, Berita Minggu and Harian Metro; and owns TV3, NTV7, 8TV and Channel 9, as well  as radio stations Fly.FM and Wafm;

ii.            Huaren Holdings, which is the investment arm of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), owns The Star, Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press;

iii.            Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd group, which is also linked to UMNO, owns Utusan Malaysia, Mingguan Malaysia, Kosmo! and a range of Malay-language magazines; and

iv.            Other Chinese-based newspapers such as Sin Chew Daily, Guang Ming Daily and Oriental Daily, owned by business tycoons.

Given the concentration of media power in the hands of the politically well-connected, opposition parties have always had a hard time getting fair coverage. Newspapers critical of government policies or personalities have been invariably threatened, resulting rather quickly in editorial self-censorship. Earlier this year, an NTV7 producer resigned in protest over his company’s decision to stop his talk show from commenting on the upcoming by-election at Hulu Selangor, following pressure said to have emanated directly from the ruling coalition. A TV2 documentary on the controversial Bakun Dam and the forced relocation of Sarawak’s natives was forced off the air, just before the Sibu parliamentary by-election took place. It is clear that open debate has little room to flourish in Malaysia. The sort of Prime Ministerial debates recently carried out in Britain are obviously not the sort of thing our federal government is confident about handling.

The Centre for Independent Journalism found that in the lead-up to the 2008 elections, reporting in The Star (63%) and Utusan Malaysia (82%) strongly favoured the Barisan Nasional.

The second major problem is the legal framework within which the mass media operates. The Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) states that the Minister of Home Affairs has the authority to grant, renew and revoke printing licences and publishing permits. This is, and has been used as, an easy tool of control. Most recently, for example, the Home Ministry suspended the publishing permit of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)’s newspaper, Suara Keadilan, for allegedly going against the PPPA in an article claiming that the Federal Land and Development Agency (FELDA) was bankrupt. The Ministry is not happy with the explanation that Suara Keadilan had provided so far, and is demanding a “satisfactory explanation”. What is satisfactory is at the arbitrary behest of the ruling government.

Other laws that have restricted the press from acting freely and independently are the Official Secrets Act 1972, the Internal Security Act 1960 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, all of which have essentially suppressed the freedom of expression in Malaysia. Whilst it is important that information affecting national security needs to be controlled, many of these restrictions should be lifted. Given the comprehensive web of constraints, the Internet – when it appeared – was a welcome haven for alternative news. This was especially prominent during the general election in March 2008. Online mass media sources currently include the pioneering Malaysiakini, Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider, Merdeka Review, The Nut Graph and newcomer Free Malaysia Today, all of which act as alternatives to mainstream media.

Although there have not been any website bans imposed by the government – the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) scrapped an initial plan to use filters on the Internet to “curb pornography” last year – threats against such sites and against bloggers exist, for example, against outspoken blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin who was sued for criminal defamation for an article hosted on his site. Malaysiakini continues to suffer harassment, with its people being interviewed for eight continuous hours in 2009 over its video on protests that had taken place at the Selangor state building.

With such stark controls on both the mainstream and online media, it has been interesting to observe the measures taken by Pakatan Rakyat-controlled state governments to circumvent the biased news reporting against them. After all, the only way a government is able to effectively publicise and communicate its positive policies and programmes is through popular media. How then would these governments – in Penang and Selangor, for example – broaden their access to the voting public, apart from maintaining official websites such as www.penang.gov.my and www.selangor.gov.my?

Some alternatives are indirect, such as the initiative taken by Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute (SERI) in late 2009 to revamp its circular, the Penang Economic Monthly (the magazine this column appears in). The magazine focuses on economic and cultural affairs, and is sold in and outside of Penang, acknowledging the large dispersal of Penangites living and working in the Klang Valley and beyond. This has been received well, largely because its scope is comprehensive, and it covers in a semi-academic fashion political, economic, historical and social issues that concern the state of Penang as such.

The magazine has in fact been used on a couple of occasions by the Penang opposition, meaning UMNO, in the state assembly to debate against the state government!

It is as yet not clear whether the government of Penang will publish its own state newspaper in the near future.

The Selangor state government has a more structured communication package, which includes a Selangorkini monthly newspaper that is distributed throughout the state, targeted at the Malay rural heartland. It also has an online version of the newspaper, but updated daily at www.selangorkini.com.my and www.tvselangor.com, a Web TV which has both news and live online video streaming showcasing the State Legislative Assembly and Selangor Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (SELCAT) sittings. Selangor is also expected to table a Freedom of Information (FOI) enactment in the state assembly, which adopts the right to information as a rule of thumb, and only lists restrictions affecting national and state security amongst others.

Such efforts are creative methods found in Pakatan states that reach out to the public. However, communication between government and people continues to be a problem.

Leaflets, circulars and inserts into existing party organs like the Democratic Action Party (DAP)’s The Rocket, Suara Keadilan and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)’ Harakah are used to disseminate information. However, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research polls show that the majority of Malaysians still rely on information obtained through television and mainstream newspapers to form their political opinions. Whilst Chinese-medium newspapers have been generally fair in the reporting of news from Pakatan Rakyat state governments, the same cannot be said of Utusan Malaysia.

There is certainly room for improvement and increased engagement, especially when the population is hungry for interaction with their state and local governments. Social media is an example that can be capitalised upon, such as Facebook, Twitter, personal websites and blogs, and so on. State leaders have adopted these although not optimally; Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and a horde of State Executive Councillors, Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblymen are taking their political battles – sometimes with great wit and sarcasm – onto the Internet. Technological developments will therefore offer opportunities for greater public involvement, despite restrictions. The recently launched offshoot of Malaysiakini, Komunitikini.com, for example, can offer excellent ways for local councillors to promote local events and issues.

Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes. Pakatan state governments have therefore to think up new and unique methods to overcome blockages on the information highways. There is still much room for improvement.

However, Malaysia cannot proclaim itself a First World, high-income, progressive and developed country as long as it continues to exert a stranglehold on its mass media. Worse, such legal and political pressures have lowered the quality of writing, debate and speeches to an embarrassing level.

Structural and legal reforms are imperative if Malaysia is to mature properly.

Posted in Media, Selangor | Leave a comment

I am what I believe

Posted on July 15, 2010 by Tricia

I was invited last Friday to speak at an event jointly organised by Empower and SIRD (Strategic Information and Research Development Centre) entitled “I am what I believe”. A rather intriguing topic to begin with, the objective of the forum was to bring a diverse range of youth together to discuss the role of religion in politics and the fine workings between the two. The speakers represented the fields of law (Aston Pava from the Bar Council), feminist activism (Nazreen Nizam from Sisters in Islam), social and community work (Mrithula Shiva from the URI, United Religions Initiative), and public policy (myself).

Though I did not have a text, I was asked to prepare a summary of what I wrote for the purposes of their record-keeping and report. So here we go. A rough outline of what I said last Friday evening at MBPJ, with about 30-odd young people sacrificing their night out to have some solid discussion on the religious-political sphere in Malaysia.

The Relationship between Faith and Politics

Tonight I will speak on two over-arching topics in relation to faith and politics; the first will outline my personal background and the reasons for which I subscribe to the principles I believe in today, and thereafter I will try to address the problems that are currently being faced in Malaysia.

I’d like to firstly put a caveat that I am not speaking on behalf of the state government. However, because I do wear that particular hat, I do have a certain amount of experience and exposure in the realm of policy-making from a state government’s point of view. Hence, I speak as a policy analyst, one with experience in government, and one who happens to have been brought up in the tradition of the Christian faith.

My heritage is therefore one of Christian tradition. Having grown up in an environment of relative conservative spirituality, the ‘church’ had us believe that much of what constitutes Christianity is essentially to do with one’s spiritual health – the relationship between self and God, the divine. Most of our teachings were centred upon how to improve one’s spirituality, with a particular focus on the afterlife. However, as I started becoming exposed to public issues such as corruption, injustice, cost overruns (such as the Istana we are now faced with), abuse of power, discrimination of minorities and a host of other issues, I realised that the public-private divide was a myth, for someone whose faith so fundamentally describes the personhood of someone.

Again, I am only speaking based on my own experience. The division between the public and private spheres in this instance was difficult, especially since the ethos that drove me as a person – those very principles of justice, honesty, truth, accountability – were the same things that I would project onto the public sphere. Faith and politics were hence intimately intertwined insofar as social justice was concerned. For example, the efforts to fight slavery in the past stemmed precisely from faith principles (or the interpretation of what those religious principles were to that particular group of advocates).

My premise is therefore that for those whose faiths so intensely drive their being, it is not possible to extricate one from the other. The problem arises, however, when there are varying interpretations of opinions on public morality; or when policymakers begin to take it upon themselves to consciously legislate public morality. This, again, is entirely possible, if and only if, the leader concerned is able to rationally consider what is the greater good for all. This means that policy decisions must be made for ALL from different backgrounds, and these differences must be taken into consideration.

Living in Southeast Asia and Asia, for example, it is inevitable that any of us would have had some sort of exposure to religion growing up and even at present. To say strictly that there IS a separation of the two is utopian for some but impractical for most. Given this reality, how then do we approach decision-making for the public at large?

Let’s focus on Malaysia right now. The problem in our country is that there is a tight and interrelated nexus between the issues of race, religion and politics. Race and religion so fundamentally describe identity. The nexus is therefore between identity and faith, identity and power, which are extremely strong ties. Without delving too deeply into history, the Iranian Revolution in 1979 without a doubt spurred Muslims in Malaysia towards a religious wave. Again, this is too sweeping a generalisation and I am not doing justice to historical political discourse, but what resulted from these trends were the emergence of political parties in a race towards being more Islamic than the other: UMNO and PAS. I do not doubt the genuine intentions of many, but there have certainly been strategic steps taken for political expediency purposes, on both sides. Therefore this establishes that religion in Malaysia ties too closely with politics for us to have a rational discussion on the theoretical relationship between faith and politics – or rather, the prescriptive notion of what ought to be in place.

In addressing the issue of a secular vs. an Islamic state, I believe the definition of the term secular or secularisation is interpreted differently by different quarters, and therein lies the difficulty of discourse. A secular state does not necessarily mean one that is completely non-religious. This just means that the country is not legally defined or shaped or dictated by those religious principles, for example as mentioned above the legislating of public morality. In any case, even without those legal tags that we place upon Malaysia, can we not be satisfied to say that the country is in fact Muslim in ethos nevertheless?

The more interesting question to me, therefore, is then to what extent can personal beliefs inform our policy decisions? Should they at all? In the courts, through government administration? I believe that faith can inform and influence our decisions, but only to the extent that it benefits the greater good for all. The important consideration is that of people of multiple religions being affected as a result of any public policy decision.

And yet, more and more issues besiege us daily. There are the issues of the “Allah” controversy, temple relocation, church-burning, Kartika and caning as a result of alcohol consumption, apostasy and the list continues. My personal conviction is that we ought to ask ourselves where we are at the cross-roads, where we want to go and how is it we are to get there? We must be able to work on faith principles and common values that can be applied to the public sphere. I can think offhand of initiatives such as working on poverty, the right to water, refugee issues, humanitarian aid, and so on. There is a need to recognise common ground, that of respect, dignity, trust. The Common Word Document that was sent by leading Muslims around the world to the Church community was an epitome of such respect for a common belief in one God and that of loving thy neighbour.

This work has to begin with the young, as I believe some would be too encumbered with baggage of their own beliefs and that of their heritages (including that within the Christian faith) to progress further. More people of such thought projections should be empowered to speak up and express their opinions, without the religious agenda being hijacked by a select few. More avenues must be given, such that religious views are not exclusive to those who are legally or administratively given the right to speak or define one’s personal beliefs. We must be able to break free from the insecurities, fears of identity that have burdened our own communities for far too long.

What are the right avenues to work on this agenda? Through profession (the vocation that one chooses to take up i.e. law, policy), involvement in civil society (NGOs like Perkasa are powerful but to speak up means forming and joining other NGOs to have a critical mass and show voice and power), politics (being involved in actual decision-making or supporting those in politics who share your views), the media and Internet (Web 3.0 is powerful as a source of influencing opinions far and wide). Ultimately, it’s about education and opening of the mind. Remember this. Leaders make decisions based on what they believe the people want. Enough people believing and displaying publicly that they desire traditional, classical religion to be less defined within the law, will eventually lead the way to that end. This, after all, is democracy.

Posted in Religion, The Cause | Leave a comment

Selangor Fulfills Commitment on Right to Information

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Tricia

Download the FOI Draft Enactment HERE.

The idea for a Freedom of Information Act is not a new one. Many a conference and public forum has called for such an enactment even prior to the March 8th General Election. In other countries, it varies from being known as a “Freedom of Information” to a “Right to Information” Act (the latter is true for countries in India). When Pakatan Rakyat stepped into power in Selangor, this was a prime opportunity for the state government to put into practice what it has always called for at the Federal level.

The process was not necessarily an easy or a direct one. The enactment was drafted by several parties, and went under the scrutiny of the State Legal Advisor in its final stages. The issue of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and how that would work was one issue on everyone’s minds. Administratively, which agencies would be covered? What would the mechanisms be? Who makes the decisions? All these questions are hopefully answered in the draft enactment…

Which has been finally tabled for first and second reading TODAY at the Selangor State Legislative Assembly! Let today be a historic day, with an unprecedented enactment, either at the State or Federal levels. The next step is for the newly elected Select Committee (chaired by YB Saari Sungib) to decide on how to proceed, which would include several rounds of public consultation. After collating the feedback and having various (thorough I am sure) discussions, table it for the third and final reading.

We must ensure that the implementation of this FOI enactment takes place efficiently, lest it becomes a mere justification for living up to our own self-imposed standards of transparency and public accountability. Officers with traditional and conservative views will need to be given training and exposure, to operate on the principle of information availability with only narrow exceptions.

We should also now include as a clarion call for the Federal Government to take up the initiative. In the very least, some reform must be done to address the archaic laws of the OSA, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and a slew of other Acts which have continuously served to restrict and muzzle freedom of expression and of media.

Thanks to YB Elizabeth Wong (Chair of the FOI Taskforce) and team, they’ve compiled the Media Reports below here. Enjoy:

S’gor tables ground-breaking FOI Bill (Malaysiakini)
Enakmen kebebasan maklumat (Malaysiakini)
‘Bil kebebasan maklumat ‘ceroboh’ perlembagaan’ (Malaysiakini)
Selangor merakyatkan informasi (Malaysiakini)
BN says FOI encroaching on Federal powers (TheEdge)
Amid media clampdown, S’gor tables FOI Bill (Malaysia Chronicle)
巫统议员批雪资讯自由法违宪 黄洁冰：阳光是最好的消毒剂 (Malaysiakini)
雪政府提呈资讯自由法 决策与行事摊在阳光下 (merdekareview)
指大臣有解密权无必要立法 国阵：雪州资讯自由法违宪 (merdekareview)
《资讯自由法令》让人民监督政府 拯救被腐蚀的机制 (Therocknews)
BN opposition attacks Selangor’s Information bill (TheMalaysianInsider)

Posted in Selangor, The Cause | Leave a comment