Competition for better political and policy outcomes

Posted on April 28, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 26 April 2018 under the title “Competition for better outcomes”, here.

GRAB, the Malaysian home-grown riding app, recently bought over Uber in several Southeast Asian countries. Some of us avid users have already noticed a marked increase in riding costs, primarily because the app no longer features favourable promo codes and discounts.

Singapore’s Competition and Consumer Commission even plans to investigate if the take-over infringes competition laws as if so, Grab would be considered as monopolising the market, resulting in poor outcomes for both riders and drivers.

The modern capitalist world we live in is based on the principle that competition is healthy and provides positive outcomes for consumers. We shop for products, compare prices and quality, and congratulate ourselves when we emerge with the best possible item for our needs.

For that reason, we have laws penalising monopolies as they would dictate prices, thereby ending competitive practices that would have otherwise been to our benefit.

The same principle should apply to politics.

When parties compete with one another, they are forced to be on their toes to continually serve and satisfy the needs of their constituent voters.

The theory is that they would try to outwit the other through a slew of better policies, ideas, and services. Voters then judge based on these outcomes and decide who gets to stay in government for an additional term.

But just like in economics, politics requires a set of regulations to keep all the players in check on an equal and level playing field. This is ultimately the crucial key ingredient in maintaining fairness.

For goods and services, we have our own Competition Commission that regulates the market based on the Competition Act 2010. For elections, we have the Election Commission that regulates electoral practices based on the Elections Act 1958 and the Election Offences Act 1954.

The redelineation exercise managed by the Election Commission that resulted in severely malapportioned seats (in Selangor alone, the ratio between the largest and smallest constituencies is four to one) means that some constituencies would require a very small number of voters to secure a seat in Parliament, whereas in some others an extremely large number of voters is required.

This does not hold true to the principle of equal representation. This exercise has largely favoured the ruling incumbent Barisan Nasional, and will invariably be a main factor in determining outcomes at the general election.

Despite the unequal playing field that the opposition parties are dealing with, the opposition has managed to win over some states in the past.

Ten years ago in 2008, at the 12th general election, several states fell to the opposition – including states like Selangor, Penang, Kedah, and Perak, which was unprecedented.

Many had initially expressed concern that due to the lack of experience in governing, the opposition coalition would not be prepared to lead.

After all, they had only the previous experience of rallying on the streets.

Two terms later, despite some issues that each state government had to deal with over the last decade, many of which were not satisfactorily dealt with, it is clear that political parties other than the Barisan are able to rule when given the opportunity.

Whether or not they are governing well is a matter for the voters to decide – there are scores of “report cards”, administrative and financial outcomes that voters can use to decide on performance.

The point is that systems of government ought to be such that a takeover of government at any level – be it state or federal – is possible.

No one party must ever dominate government institutions such that a transition is not possible when the electorate demands so.

Countries around the world have experienced their own form of prolonged single-party dominant states, where it would not have been imaginable for their incumbent parties to be toppled. But it happened.

It happened in Mexico, when the dominant party Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) fell to the opposition National Action Party (PAN) after 71 years in power.

It happened in Taiwan when the Nationalist Party (KMT) fell to the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) after four decades (or eight decades if one includes KMT’s rule on the mainland before 1949).

In both cases, the opposition parties happened to secure victories at the subnational level first, before moving on to winning nationally.

In Mexico, PAN won over three states in 1994, before going on to defeat PRI’s two-thirds majority in Parliament and winning the 2000 presidential election.

In Taiwan, the opposition candidate from the DPP won the Taipei mayoral election in 1994 before going on to win the 2000 presidential election.

And there are times when the new government in power fails to impress voters, so that they are eventually voted out again.

In Japan, the incumbent Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) fell to the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in 2009, but the latter was voted out very quickly after a very short term of three years in government.

Of note is that the DPJ leader, Ichiro Ozawa, was originally part of the dominant LDP party to begin with before he chose to join the opposition.

Two-party and multi-party systems around the world have seen the change of parties taking place smoothly without experiencing tremendous upheaval.

What Malaysia needs is a political system that ensures such change can be allowed to happen should the voters will it – and then allow for a series of continuous changes, again if people choose as such.

Political transition can be done smoothly and efficiently; this just requires political maturity, which perhaps some might argue in their interests that our country is not yet ready for. This is archaic thinking.

Yes, laws that silence and suppress exist to be employed, but these are signs of weakness exercised only by those who fear change.

If we endorse competitive practices for good in the economic sense of the word, then it logically follows we should do the same for political practices.

Parties are much like companies that offer their goods and services to us as consumers. The transition between buying one brand to another should be smooth; after all, it is our hard-earned cash.

Similarly, the transition between one party to another in government ought to be equally facilitated, just like what happened in states like Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Perak in 2008, barring some strange events.

The ultimate goal is for political competition to ideally result in better policy and delivery outcomes for citizens of the country – better schools, universities, hospitals, economic policies, and local council services for all.

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

In the contest for power, Malaysia’s resurgent states stake a claim

Posted on April 26, 2018 by Tricia

First published in New Mandala on 24 April 2018, here.

The era of dominant federal government may be over as leading states push for greater autonomy, resisting a centre compromised by scandal and policy drift.

Ahead of Malaysia’s 14th general election (GE14), Johor’s crown prince Tunku Ismail Ibrahim (popularly known as TMJ) issued a statement earlier this month essentially calling for the maintenance of the incumbent UMNO government. It was also a thinly veiled criticism of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed, who had curtailed the powers of the hereditary rulers during his 22 years in power, and who’s now leading the opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan (PH) as its prime minister-in-waiting. The royal houses rarely intervene so publicly in national political affairs, and the Johor royal family has made the headlines in recent years. Most cutting was the TMJ’s reminder to political leaders: “Do not question the sovereignty of Johor.”

Despite government being in caretaker mode, both federal and state-level parties have been offering ‘goodies’ to their voters in these final weeks before GE14’s polling day on 9th May. The federal Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) made 67,000 free RM800 (A$269) fuel cards available to taxi drivers in Peninsular Malaysia, while in Selangor state, chief minister Azmin Ali handed out cash allocations, laptops and iPads in his constituency. In Penang, responding to prime minister Najib Razak’s promise to remove road tolls for motorcyclists at the two bridges linking island and mainland Penang, chief minister Lim Guan Eng said all tolls would be abolished if PH takes federal power. In Johor, chief minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin announced that three entertainment parks worth almost RM8 billion (A$2.7 billion) would be built in the near future.

In an environment so highly focused on national-level politics, what role do the states play? Are federal-state relations relevant, and do they impact electoral outcomes in any way, and how?

MALAYSIA IS A complex creature. While it was formed as a constitutional federation and has all the trappings of a formal federalism, in reality it practises only a weak or highly centralised form of federalism. Over the years, greater power and control have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the federal government, starting with the abolishment of local council elections in 1965.

The federal government’s powers are far-reaching, and states have little say over their own state economies. Ever since the early 1970s, when then prime minister Tun Razak (Najib’s late father) initiated a policy of a kerajaan berparti or a government run on UMNO’s philosophy – at a time when the race-based affirmative action New Economic Policy (NEP) was being rolled out nationwide – states have been largely subservient to national-level ideology and direction. Up until 2008, UMNO and Barisan Nasional (BN) arguably considered states as natural extensions of the centre, operatives necessary to fulfill the national mandate of economic development – the more centralised, the more efficient.

Today, the Prime Minister’s Department budget alone is more than five times larger than the state budget of Selangor and almost nine times larger than Penang’s, according to the 2018 budget. Although policy areas such as local government and land are supposed to be under state jurisdiction, according to the federal constitution, there exist entities like the National Council for Local Government and National Land Council, both chaired by a federal minister, both with strong influence over how such matters are managed within the states. There are also numerous provisions in the federal constitution that permit the federal government to actively intervene in a state’s affairs. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) can declare an emergency with the advice of the Prime Minister for the sake of maintaining ‘national security and public order’, which is extendable to any matter within the legislative authority of a state.

In the context of Malaysia’s single-party dominance, where UMNO-BN has never lost power, it’s no surprise that, with a few exceptions, BN-controlled states are not as autonomous since their decisions are largely governed from the centre. Federal infrastructure projects would invariably receive the required state developmental order approval, for instance (states have the power to withhold this).

On the converse, whenever opposition parties have taken over state governments, they have been punished. For instance, oil-rich Kelantan and Terengganu have had their oil royalties withheld whenever opposition party Pas won power. The federal government banned log exports from Sabah that resulted in that state’s income falling drastically when it was under opposition rule in 1991. Budget cuts and delays in development project approvals have also been standard practice. Some states have resorted to depending on natural resources for their funding, since that is one of the few areas states manage. Sometimes this results in tragic outcomes: for instance, Kelantan was accused of excessive logging, which many argue resulted in the tragic floods of December 2014. Even BN-controlled states like Pahang (Najib’s home state) have also had to rely on natural resources to boost state income, through both logging and bauxite mining.

WHEN PAKATAN RAKYAT took over control of the states of Selangor, Penang, Perak, Kedah and Kelantan in the wake of 2008’s now historic 12th general elections, State Development Offices (SDOs) were physically removed from state premises, with funds directly channeled from the federal government and completely bypassing the new state governments. The federal government also set up Village Development and Safety Committees (JKKKP) that report directly to the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development. In the recent redrawing of election constituency boundaries, many individuals reportedly supporting the exercise and the new Selangor boundaries were in fact representatives of the JKKKP federal committees.

Malaysia’s richest states Selangor and Penang have had to contend with federal government interventions in multiple ways over the past decade, including federal instructions to civil servants that ran counter to the states’ agendas. Although civil servants are supposed to serve the government of the day, states’ senior civil servants (except in Johor) are appointed and promoted from the federal service and hence are put in the difficult position of serving two masters simultaneously.

For example, in 2010 when the Selangor state secretary was due to be replaced, the federal Public Service Commission announced the name of the new state secretary without the Selangor chief minister’s consultation. The chief minister called for a special state assembly sitting to amend the state constitution, which would give the chief minister and the Sultan of Selangor the power to choose senior state officials. But this proposed amendment did not get the required two-thirds majority in the state parliament, and the chief minister was forced to accept the federal government’s choice of a new state secretary against his will.

However, because these two states are highly industrialised and urbanised, they have had a different experience to previous opposition (non-BN) states, which were primarily rural in nature (Kelantan, Terengganu and Sabah). In the past, the BN federal government punished rural states by withholding funding and development, but it was no longer able to do the same in Selangor and Penang. These states have drawn from existing thriving industry, state-linked companies, and land development for their resources. Because these states also contribute disproportionately to the national economy, it was also foolhardy to threaten the economies of these states.

Over the past decade, both Selangor and Penang have sought to promote themselves as better-run states, demonstrating better budget outcomes and economic management, people-friendly services and policy delivery, and the ability to maintain investments and a strong economy. Such messages have been used by both states to position themselves as an alternative federal government model. In fact, some state policies have been imitated at federal level: Selangor’s Rumah Mampu Milik low-cost housing programme arguably inspired the federal-level PR1MA programme.

Selangor used its legislative assembly’s Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (SELCAT) to investigate corruption cases under the previous chief minister Khir Toyo of UMNO-BN. Selangor’s UMNO has not been able to recover from these negative perceptions, and lacking a strong leader, the state opposition has been weak. Previous state patronage systems have also been redirected, resulting in curtailed revenue streams that would have previously accrued back to central UMNO headquarters. Both Selangor and Penang state governments introduced Freedom of Information Enactments and implemented asset declaration systems for their Exco (state ministry) members. These two measures are unprecedented, and have not been replicated by other state governments nor the federal government.

THERE WERE MANY occasions in which overlapping jurisdictions caused confusion in opposition-held states. The Selangor government bore the brunt of dissatisfaction over several water shortage incidents in the state over the past decade. ‘Water supplies and services’ was transferred from the Federal Constitution’s state list to the concurrent list in 2005, where both federal and state government have joint control over how water is treated and distributed in states. The restructuring has been a long drawn out process because of disagreements between the federal and state governments, made more complicated because there were four separate concessionaires to negotiate with. But voters care little for the details, and demand the issue be resolved quickly.

Such federal-state political competition has allowed other states to embolden themselves. For instance, the states of Sarawak and Sabah have become increasingly vocal in their demands for greater autonomy and to restore the terms of the Malaysia Agreement of 1963. The Sarawak state assembly passed a motion to demand a 20% royalty, instead of the 5% that the state currently receives in petroleum revenue sharing agreements with the federal government, Petronas and international oil companies. Sabah opposition politicians followed suit to demand the same. Negotiating with Putrajaya has resulted in Sarawak being able to set up its own oil and gas company, Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (PETROS), which is to work with Petronas and become an active player in the oil and gas industry by 2020. BN-led Johor has also fluffed its feathers, where crown prince Tunku Ismail Ibrahim declared in 2015 that the state had a right to secede from Malaysia if the terms of the federal agreement are violated, and the term ‘Bangsa Johor’ (the Johor race) has been used repeatedly to mark out a specific state identity, separate from the rest of the nation’s.

Having an opposition coalition leading at the state level offers voters a glimpse into how it will govern at the national level. The picture isn’t always rosy, where there have been complications, in part due to the intra-coalition conflicts on religion and race. More so in Selangor than in the more ethnically homogeneous states of Penang, Kelantan and Kedah. Selangor has had to deal with sensitive issues such as alcohol, entertainment centres, the relocation of a Hindu temple, and the confiscation of Malay Bibles. In so doing, the state government has had to find a delicate balance where all parties – of various inclinations –will agree to compromise. Although the Islamist party Pas is no longer part of this coalition, its representatives were in the Selangor Exco right up to the recent dissolution of the state assembly. Selangor Pas was less vehement in its criticisms of other coalition partners like the DAP, compared to their national counterparts. Hence the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition outlasted its national coalition (which has regrouped with different partners as Pakatan Harapan), presumably because it wanted to enjoy the benefits that state power provides. Perhaps this predicts a future in which state and national coalitions need not be formed with the same parties?

There have also been allegations of continued patronage within the states of Selangor and Penang, through well-oiled deals with private developers and contracts at local councils, demonstrating that opposition-led states are unable to break out of the BN model of patronage politics. But unless political party financing is reformed, all parties will depend on such patronage systems for survival. Politicians in Malaysia are expected to provide their constituents with money – gifts for funerals, weddings, mosques, associations and so on. And being in opposition is no exception. In fact, the political culture of clientelism is so deeply rooted that the constituents expect it of their elected representatives.

Selangor and Penang would have likely remained under opposition hands at this GE14, except for the federal Election Commission’s (EC) redelineation exercise which has significantly redrawn constituency boundaries in Selangor – the state the BN desperately wants to win back. BN holding federal power and influence over the EC has resulted in drastically malapportioned seats in the state. In short, states are helpless against federal interventions into its constituency boundaries, directly affecting electoral outcomes.

In some – but not all – cases, the successes of Selangor and Penang have been used as a narrative to convince voters of the economic possibilities these states can achieve in opposition PH hands. Whether such successes can be replicated is dependent on the nature of the state, and only Johor is similar to Selangor in urban and demographic makeup. Other states the opposition hopes to win over like Kedah are more rural. There are other indications that voters in Kelantan are likely to support BN over Pas, given the latter has been unable to contribute meaningful economic development to the state – thanks primarily to issues described above where rural opposition states are cut off from federal resources.

Healthy political competition between the federal and state governments has expanded policy possibilities, as both levels observe, challenge, adapt, learn from, and imitate the other. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that states – especially those led by the opposition – are becoming increasingly conscious of their distinctive state identities. Some have expressed their desires for greater autonomy and independence, and are challenging what was previously considered a de facto centralised federal government. This new federal-state dynamic is something any ruling federal government will have to get used to.

Posted in Economics, Federalism, General Politics, Public Administration, Selangor, Transparency and Good Governance, Water | Leave a comment

Travel inconveniences and work exigencies may discourage blue-collared Malaysians from returning home to vote

Posted on April 20, 2018 by Tricia

First published on Channel NewsAsia on 17 April 2018, here.

Commentary: Travel inconveniences and work exigencies may discourage blue-collared Malaysians from returning home to vote 

Tricia Yeoh

Train and bus tickets are in shortage, suggesting that many blue-collared Malaysians may not return to vote in Malaysia’s general election, says one observer.

KUALA LUMPUR: For the first time since the first parliamentary election in Malaya in 1959, Malaysia will hold its general election on a Wednesday, right smack in the middle of the week.

After many months of speculation, the Election Commission finally announced polling day will fall on May 9.

Previous elections have been held on weekdays, but these were on either Mondays or Tuesdays, or across a few days, but most have been on a weekend.

UNNECESSARY INCONVENIENCE

As many observers have pointed out, this creates unnecessary inconvenience for voters, schools (schools are not on holiday that week) and companies. Although the Malaysian government hastily declared it a public holiday after some public backlash, this still requires employees returning home to vote to take additional days of leave to travel long distances.

Malaysian civic action responded rapidly, with multiple platforms being set up to carpool and raise funds for those unable to afford the transportation fees to return.

Airlines such as Cathay Pacific, AirAsia, and Malindo also announced a waiver for flight charges or rebooking fees for Malaysians.

Several companies have committed to sponsoring their staff’s travel expenses, while one homestay in Johor is providing free accommodation for returning voters.

NOT ENOUGH TO ENSURE HIGH VOTER TURNOUT

These are commendable acts on the part of Malaysians to promote citizens’ duties to exercise their right to vote, but will this be enough to ensure a high voter turnout?

Voter turnout in the last three general elections was relatively high, with an 86 per cent turnout in 2013 (the highest ever recorded in a Malaysian general election), 76 per cent turnout in 2008 and 73.9 per cent in 2004.

However, the last time the election was held on a weekday, voter turnout was 69 per cent, in 1999. Even so, this was a Monday, and a Wednesday polling day would conceivably have a greater impact on lowering voter turnout even further, despite efforts to provide commute.

OVERSEAS MALAYSIANS IMPACTED

Companies and Malaysians working overseas will be forced to deal with disrupted work activities on at least two to three days of that week.

Those who cannot afford to give up either their Tuesdays or Wednesdays due to previous work arrangements that cannot be rescheduled, whether they be conferences or meetings will simply have a much lower incentive to travel back to vote.

This includes professionals, managers, executives, technicians and workers living in neighbouring countries, including Singapore where there are an estimated 400,000 or more Malaysian work permit holders, and Hong Kong.

While several Singaporean companies have granted leave to their Malaysian staff to vote, Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi was reported to have said if employers from Singapore do not permit them leave, the best thing to do is not to come back to vote.

BLUE-COLLARED WORKERS IMPACTED

It is also unlikely that blue-collar factory workers in particular, including those working in menial labour would have the option of taking leave to travel home to vote.

The Election Offences Act 1954 requires every employer to give its staff a reasonable period to vote. Employers who do not allow their staff to vote on polling day may be subject to a fine or imprisonment.

However, while some companies have the luxury of closing shop for several days, construction projects are typically set on strict schedules. Factories, eateries, and other service providers also need to be operational despite Wednesday being a public holiday.

This may impact overseas blue-collared workers working in Singapore the most. A study by financial inclusion group Microfinance Gateway found that the majority of Malaysian work permit holders in Singapore work within the manufacturing and service sectors. The majority of the 400,000 Malaysians working in Singapore are in blue-collar jobs, whose salaries average around S$2,500 per month, according to Malaysian news reports.

These workers are unlikely to be connected to well-intentioned carpooling or funding initiatives active on social media platforms.

They might therefore simply choose not to have their wages reduced for the chance to vote, especially if they have to cough up their own money for the return journey or if taking additional days off would impact their jobs.

LIMITED TICKETS

Even for Malaysians planning to return home to their hometowns to vote, they may not be able to given limited tickets.

The national train service announced last week that tickets for its Electric Train Service (ETS) from Kuala Lumpur to Ipoh and other northern destinations have been sold out for both May 8 and 9.  Express bus tickets from Kuala Lumpur to the north, Kelantan and Terengganu have also sold out, and it remains to be seen if bus companies will provide additional services. Traffic on the roads that week will be an additional hurdle for voters and transport providers alike.

TIME TO EXERCISE RIGHT TO VOTE

Voting every five years is a chief opportunity for Malaysians to meaningfully exercise their right to participate in the country’s democratic processes. It is therefore unfortunate that authorities called for polling day on a mid-week. It is even more unfortunate that a political analyst has predicted that a lower voter turnout of 70 per cent would restore a two-third majority to ruling incumbents Barisan Nasional, suggesting that the choice of voting day was motivated by a political agenda.

While it is positive that Malaysians have responded quickly and organically to encourage fellow citizens to return home to vote, unless citizens are truly individually motivated by the need for change, it is unlikely that this will significantly impact the likely lower voter turnout in the upcoming general election. But against the odds, matching the previous election turnout figures would surely reflect a keen and healthy desire of voters to express their democratic rights and have a say in the future of the nation.

Posted in Elections, General Politics | Leave a comment

Government knows best

Posted on April 5, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 29 March 2018, here.

IN April 2009, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak famously pronounced that “the era where the government imposed excessive controls and adopted the attitude of ‘government knows best’ is over”. He also said that achieving a peaceful and prosperous country is when the government and the people worked together to meet this objective.

Nine years later, as the country is on the cusp of the 14th general election, a new bill has been tabled in Parliament that seems to be the very antithesis of that statement.

The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 proposes a fine of up to RM500,000 or a 10-year jail term for offenders, who would be considered anyone – Malaysian or not, inside the country or out – who knowingly creates, offers, publishes, prints, distributes, circulates or disseminates any fake news or publication containing fake news.

The term “knowingly” is what many lawyers and rights groups are questioning to be key in the interpretation of this section – “knowingly” according to whom? Second, who is to decide what constitutes “fake news”? Will there be a Truth Commission set up to verify any and every possible bit of information? Would opinions by a columnist that may seem contrary to the position taken by the authorities also be deemed as untruths and therefore liable under the new law?

These developments do not only stand the risk of infringing upon citizens’ freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, but it has much deeper and long-term implications on society.

While true that fake news is unwelcome, and it can be difficult to sift through the news to determine what is verified or not, it is not the duty of the state to determine when a piece of information is fake or not. This assumes that the individual no longer has the conscience nor responsibility to judge for oneself.

A government that decides on its citizens’ behalf what is true and false is a government that interferes unduly with their personal choice, namely a nanny state, reminiscent of George Orwell’s Big Brother state in his book 1984. This leads to the consequent question of what is the role of government, essentially?

An IDEAS paper published in 2010 – but still very relevant today – answers this, stating that the only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. This means the government has no business interfering in people’s lives and telling them what to do (by encouraging or discouraging certain activities) or what to think and believe (through censorship and stifling of opinions) – because, simply, “these actions constitute a violation of individual rights, which is in direct contrast to the government’s proper purpose: the protection of rights”.

The problem with governments that excessively intervene in the private and personal lives of individuals is that citizens eventually find it impossible to pursue their values and further their lives in the ways they so desire. The opportunities that we humans want to freely, happily and successfully pursue – whether in the form of writing, creative arts, politics, academia or otherwise – would become that much more difficult when faced with the large, looming shadow of the state telling us what is and is not permissible.

Malaysians have become used to living under a big government. This piece of legislation is yet another in a series of existing laws that already hamper our ability to speak and write critically, including the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Sedition Act whose clauses are particularly open for wide interpretation.

Our national schools have introduced “higher order thinking skills” into the curriculum, supposedly to increase thinking skills among children to nurture and equip Malaysia’s next generation of innovators to think critically. This seems rather farcical, where on the one hand we are hoping to develop critical thinking skills in primary schoolchildren, but when they grow up, we aim to stifle critical thinking among adults.

History has shown us the disastrous effects of a government that first possesses, and then later uses and abuses its excessive power over its citizens. I believe this is what Najib Abdul Razak aimed to avoid when he said that the era of government knows best is over. Unfortunately, things seem to have changed somewhat over the last decade. Government now knows best.

Posted in General Politics, Liberalism, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Malaysian opposition presents younger array of leaders, amid unhealthy political culture

Posted on March 10, 2018 by Tricia

First published on Channel NewsAsia on 3 March 2018, here.

Commentary: Malaysian opposition presents younger array of leaders, amid unhealthy political culture

Tricia Yeoh

Where political culture traditionally favours seniority and age, the opposition has demonstrated efforts to groom and expose younger politicians, says one expert from the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian parliament will automatically dissolve on Jun 24, and elections must be held by August 2018 at the very latest.

But speculation is rife that elections will be held in early May, before fasting month begins on May 16.

As the hype towards the 14th general election grows, the primary question on voters’ minds is who will take over as the next Prime Minister and form the next array of the country’s future leaders?

The opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan in December 2017 made its startling announcement that the Prime Minister-in-waiting is none other than Dr Mahathir Mohamed.

This has sparked huge debate among analysts and critics, chief among which is the criticism that Mahathir was in fact the leader who created many structural flaws that have allowed current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to remain in power despite corruption allegations .

DEARTH OF NEW LEADERSHIP?

Another more sobering critique is that this reflects the dearth of new leadership among a coalition that claims it represents the future.

In the event of a national opposition win, Dr Mahathir’s appointment as Prime Minister is expected to only be transitory until Anwar Ibrahim – likely to be released from prison in June 2018 but who will be unable to contest in the upcoming elections – is given a royal pardon, in the hopes this leads to his eventual appointment as the subsequent Prime Minister.

The resulting narrative is that the same two faces that occupied the number one and two top positions in the Barisan government in 1998 may yet again lead the nation.

This has not helped the public perception that younger opposition politicians do not have opportunities to advance the political ranks of leadership as rapidly as they should.

Those who take this view may have expected opposition leaders such as Azmin Ali, Selangor Chief Minister, to have been named a potential Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister candidate. Azmin has led the state of Selangor relatively successfully since September 2014.

The situation looks more dismal if one examines the incumbent Barisan Nasional parties. The political leadership in UMNO is in the hands of Prime Minister Najib Razak, but the question surely should be: Who is next in line after Najib?

Other prominent UMNO leaders like Deputy President Zahid Hamidi and Najib’s cousin Hishammuddin Hussein have been active in politics for the last four to five decades. Other reform-minded leaders like International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa Mohamed and Higher Education Minister Idris Jusoh are turning 68 and 63 respectively this year, and the former has been rumoured to retire from federal politics soon.

The only other younger prominent personalities within UMNO are Khairy Jamaluddin, son-in-law to former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, and present Youth and Sports Minister, as well as possibly Sabah-born Rahman Dahlan, a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Apart from these figures, one is hard-pressed to identify national leaders with the necessary calibre and experience to form a strong team for Malaysia as it heads towards 2020, the target year for the country to achieve developed nation status.

Other Barisan component parties do not boast an array of new leaders either, not least due to their poor performance in the last election. MCA’s senior representatives on the Cabinet, Liow Tiong Lai and Wee Ka Siong are hardly new faces, whilst MIC only has a sole representative 64-year-old Subramaniam Sathasivam.

NEWER YOUNGER FACES

The opposition’s resort to old-timers filling the top two posts has fueled the observation that other significant personalities in the coalition are similarly long-time politicians including Parti Bersatu’s Muhyiddin Yassin (former Deputy Prime Minister), Mukhriz Mahathir (Dr Mahathir’s son and former Kedah Chief Minister) and DAP’s Lim Guan Eng (current Penang Chief Minister).

But the opposition promises a wider array of younger leaders.

The Pakatan coalition offers a significantly larger number of younger leaders compared to the incumbent Barisan Nasional parties. Keadilan’s Nurul Izzah Anwar and Rafizi Ramli, and DAP’s Liew Chin Tong, Tony Pua and Ong Kian Ming are just a few.

One of the advantages the opposition has is that it leads two prominent state governments. Selangor and Penang are two of the richest, most urbanised and industralised states in the country.

Younger personalities have been able to take advantage of this by being placed in leadership positions there, and gain the necessary experience and credibility – especially crucial in the opposition’s claims of being reform-minded, where experiments can be first carried out at a smaller scale.

Although Barisan parties have their youth wings, young Pakatan leaders are given opportunities to shine. 39-year old Hannah Yeoh is the youngest and the first female state legislative assembly speaker in the country, while 36-year old Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is a member of the state executive council, both appointed by the Selangor state government.

Even younger is 32-year old Dr Afif Bahardin in the Penang state executive council.

In comparison, Barisan, leading 10 other states in the country, has not equally placed their young politicians in leadership positions, nor projected them forward as public personas to the same degree.

COMPETITION OF NEW POLICY IDEAS

Some of the younger opposition leaders named have demonstrated their mettle on public policy issues. Many have been prolific writers, thinkers and proactive opinion shapers.

Through the presentation of op-eds, papers and books, public engagement, and visible interactions with local, independent think tanks and civil society groups, they have shown more thought leadership on critical issues compared to their Barisan counterparts. With former IDEAS CEO Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Bersih champions Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah rumoured to be joining Pakatan Harapan in the coming weeks, this will be even more evident.

The trouble on the Barisan’s side stems from political inertia – when a coalition is in power for an indefinite period with no significant challenge, there tends to be a lack of competition of ideas on public policy.

There is minimal policy debate within the ranks of UMNO. Because it has held power for so long, most policy thinking and analysis are contained within the executive arm of government, whether from ministers themselves or in discussions among civil servants, political appointees and aides, or external consultants.

The resulting perception is that policymaking remains the domain of elites, even as most Malaysians are gravely concerned about day-to-day issues like the cost of living.

Unless politicians are appointed into the executive, and only senior politicians have such opportunities, younger Barisan politicians find their policy exposure and ability to demonstrate their worth to the ranks of their parties unfortunately limited.

Consequently, can we really blame the Malaysian public for wondering if they are fit to lead?

HIERARCHY AND AGE

There are also other factors at play in Malaysia, a traditionally hierarchical society, where positions are given based on tenure and age. The unsaid rule is one needs to therefore bide his time before being rewarded with a substantive post.

The party structure, especially in a party as conservative as UMNO, is not inherently geared towards meritocracy. And if it is not careful, Bersatu – Dr Mahathir’s party now part of the opposition coalition that consists of many former UMNO members – may end up inheriting the same archaic political culture.

To groom the next generation of leaders in public policymaking and politics, older politicians must be willing to train and provide leadership positions to younger members.

This must be done early; such that younger leaders will have both the time and space to develop the necessary required skills.

The examples set by the Selangor and Penang state governments are good, but are not enough. New faces should be brought in at the local council levels, groomed upward at the state and national levels, and given more prominent leadership positions if they have proven their worth.

Policy debate must be rigorously encouraged at the party and coalition levels; yet not enough of this is being done by either side.

Finally, older leaders must be willing to step aside for new blood when the time is right. This is arguably the hardest thing to do, if political parties are pre-occupied with winning just this one election.

Tricia Yeoh is chief operating officer of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

A new civil society-political relationship?

Posted on March 6, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 1 March 2018 here.

OVER the last few weeks, speculation has been rife that several prominent civil society leaders will be making the leap into active politics.

This was first prompted by Wan Saiful Wan Jan’s announcement that he is leaving the independent think tank IDEAS, which has led to rumours that he will join a political party in order to contest in the upcoming general election. Other bigwigs rumoured to jump into the fray include Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah, both of Bersih 2.0 renown.

This is not a new phenomenon, in which members of civil society feel compelled to join frontline politics.

In 2008, many prominent individuals similarly left civil society to contest, and subsequently win, as elected representatives. These included the likes of Elizabeth Wong (now Selangor state executive council member) and Sivarasa Rasiah (now Subang member of Parliament), both of whom were regular faces in the human rights and activism scene.

It is not an altogether unsurprising phenomenon either, since those who are actively involved in advocating fundamental rights and improving political democracy in the country would also be the same individuals who feel that they may be able to do more given a strong political platform.

Of course, it is debatable as to which platform offers one the bigger, better opportunity to do more good and ignite change – within neutral civil society or partisan political ground. The answer is that individuals within both these spheres play an equally important role.

The position occupied by civil society is crucial in keeping politicians in check, whether in power or in opposition. Non-partisan organisations are able to constructively criticise where criticism is due, observe, monitor and report on areas they believe politicians are failing in, especially in relation to their constituents’ interests.

Good governance, transparency, and integrity are some of the commonly held principles that civil society tends to hold their representatives accountable to.

This is an important space to maintain, such that the independence and credibility of the civil society organisation in question is not compromised.

In fact, these were some of the debates that took place within civil society in the years following the 2008 event, in which individuals who joined the then opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat would have naturally had a close relationship with existing human rights and civil society organisations. To what extent can this distance be maintained?

Or in fact, should there be such a distance at all, since if civil society’s primary role is to advocate a certain cause, and by ensuring individuals within the political corridors of power are kept well-informed, this allows for the greatest possible change?

For example, within the first term of the Pakatan government in Selangor, it was possible for the Coalition of Good Governance – a coalition of civil society organisations – to advocate for a Freedom of Information Enactment to be legislated within the Selangor state government, made relatively easier by the presence of Elizabeth Wong. This was the first such state enactment to have been passed, eventually followed by the Penang state government, and is still considered a landmark piece of legislation today.

However, there were also failures where efforts to push for local council elections were in vain as the opposition coalition dealt with internal differences as to whether that was the right way forward. As with many things, the answer probably depends.

In this case, the proximity of civil society and politics depends on the nature of the relationship being cultivated and the actors involved.

It would be considerably negative if the relationship resulted in cronyism for the sake of lucrative exchange of contracts, or if civil society chooses to remain silent on the dubious wrongful actions of politicians in positions of power.

However, it would be positive if the objective of the relationship is to ensure that public policy reform is achieved. If both parties are actively working towards better governance, then this close relationship can be encouraged.

However, one important caveat to note is that once individuals join politics, it is often that their interests change rapidly.

First, they are obliged to follow a certain political position, which may at times be contrary to the individual’s own. One now needs to act and speak on behalf of the party collective as opposed to the individual per se.

Second, the motivations are also fundamentally different. Where in civil society, the motives can still be arguably said to remain uninfluenced by power, in politics one is invariably incentivised by power – after all, to gain power is the very domain of being in politics. If not, one is in no position to institute change. And if that is so, then those contesting to win are influenced by the extent to which their voters will support them, which requires providing populist promises most of the time.

Therein lies the dilemma for those in politics; to compromise one’s own values or not, if at all. There are those fortunate few who do not need to compromise on their belief systems, but this is rare and would apply where one’s position, both in the party and electorally, is absolutely secure.

On a final note, it is positive that individuals with the breadth and depth of experience in civil society are choosing to play an even more active role in public life through politics since they would be well-positioned to understand the grave problems our country is going through.

They would also be more sympathetic and open to receiving proposals from civil society in improving socioeconomic and government policy, which is promising for long-term reform should they obtain and maintain prominence.

However, it is also equally imperative that civil society itself regroups – as it had to do after the 12th general election in 2008 – and reconsiders its own leadership gaps. Civil society will always play that sometimes annoying, but irreplaceable role of public watchdog.

In order to maintain the success that existing organisations like IDEAS and Bersih, among others, have played in the last decade as pressure groups, it is hoped that new leadership emerges and carries on the torch for the next phase in what will likely be a new civil society-political relationship.

Posted in Civil Society, Elections, General Politics, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Independent Institutions Needed Now

Posted on February 22, 2018 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 15 February 2018, here.

AS the nation gears itself up for the 14th general election, it is inevitable that political parties will try to woo their electorate with promises. And try they should, to display policies they believe in and would implement if given the mandate to rule.

Civil society groups have also launched initiatives to pressure politicians to commit to what they consider to be priorities for the country’s future. Of the latter, two coalitions – Governance, Integrity, Accountability and Transparency (GIAT, a group of independent organisations) and Gabungan Kiri (a group of left-leaning individuals) – have emerged with proposals they feel important. What is common among their proposals is a strong emphasis on good governance, transparency and independent institutions.

The call for institutions that are independent from the executive is not new. Activists and opposition politicians have long derided the highly-centralised system of government in Malaysia, stating that the executive is given too much power. An ideal balance would see the other arms of government, namely the judiciary and legislative, as equally robust and able to carry out their duties independently without the fear of political interference. Whether the interference takes place is another matter altogether; that the possibility remains open is sufficient for concern.

The danger of an all-powerful executive is made evident when the rules governing the country are no longer non-partisan but lean more favourably towards one side over another. The court sentencing of PKR Member of Parliament Rafizi Ramli to 30 months’ jail for revealing banking details related to the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd has raised eyebrows. The case involved some RM250 million in public funds spent on the cattle-rearing project in Gemas that no longer has any cattle or staff, and Rafizi had exposed the company’s purchase of luxury condominium units in 2011.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers needs immediate addressing, where there should be a clear separation between the role of the public prosecutor and that of the attorney-general. Currently, the two roles are fused into one person, which is a conflict of interest since one person’s role is to prosecute any wrongdoing and act on behalf of public interest, while the other is to be principal legal adviser to the government. The conflict of interest is bound to arise if and when there are cases in which public and government interests clash.

The legislative arm of government is equally crucial in keeping the government accountable. Parliament is where our elected representatives essentially are supposed to make the laws that govern us, and raise questions on our behalf. Unless they are part of the ruling government today, however, members of Parliament unfortunately have fewer opportunities to do this than we imagine. Because bills are tabled at the last minute, MPs do not have enough time to study draft bills and comprehensively critique them. Ideally each ministry should have a cross-partisan parliamentary select committee that has access to ministry accounts for regular scrutinising, which would greatly increase the chances of spotting mismanagement of funds early on, as opposed to letting corrupt scandals balloon out of proportion at which point the money is no longer recoverable.

Of course, within the executive itself, certain agencies must also be given the independence to carry out their tasks. In fact, the integrity of their institutions very much depends on their independence; the lack thereof would make a mockery of their ability to execute their duties effectively. Two key institutions are the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Election Commission, the latter being particularly relevant this election year.

The MACC is of special concern, given their heavy responsibilities of investigating corruption and recommending prosecutions. Considering numerous corruption cases that have plagued our country in recent years, it is more imperative than ever that they are given the right to investigate cases freely. Some ways of addressing this include having the MACC be answerable to Parliament instead of the prime minister, allowing them to hire and fire their staff (right now they draw from the common civil service pool), and having a commission that has some independent representatives drawn from civil society or professional bodies.

Recently, it was reported that MACC withdrew 47 of its certified integrity officers from ministries and agencies, replaced by in-house integrity officers trained by the National Integrity and Good Governance Department. It is positive that there is a greater focus on the mainstreaming and institutionalisation of integrity and good governance, which is a much broader scope than looking at just corruption alone, since many incidents may not strictly fall into the “corrupt” category but are considered problematic under a good governance agenda. However, to more holistically address these issues, officers working on both anti-corruption and integrity cases should be collaborating instead.

Our failure at protecting the integrity and independence of these crucial institutions will come at a heavy cost. As the younger generations of Malaysians observe there is no respect for the rule of law at the highest levels of power, they too are unlikely to adhere to the rules. This presents a more serious problem: what values are we passing on to our children? Why teach them honesty, integrity and uprightness when these values do not pay off in the long run? If we believe fundamentally in preserving a society that upholds good morals for the sake of the individual and the collective, we must be serious about reforming the institutions of government and nation that are supposed to protect us all. And so should the political parties that aim to get our votes.

Posted in Civil Society, Elections, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Sustaining public healthcare

Posted on January 25, 2018 by Tricia

A version of this article first appeared in theSun here, on 18 January 2018.

IT is said that you get what you pay for. The more expensive the product or service, conventional wisdom assumes that the quality of the product or service is proportionately better. From what we now know about pricing strategies of companies, it is highly arguable whether the premium you pay corresponds proportionately to the quality and capability you get, compared to cheaper products or services. RM1,000 smartphones are not three times less effective than RM3,000 rivals. Nevertheless, the steadfast belief in this so-called rule of thumb prevails.

This is apparent when it comes to healthcare.

For those who can afford it, private healthcare is seen as superior to public healthcare. The perception is that by paying many times more for private healthcare over the equivalent cost in public healthcare, you get higher standards, smaller crowds, shorter waiting times, special attention, and most importantly, less risk. Supposedly.

My personal experience of going through women’s healthcare in both private and public hospitals is contrary to this belief. Yes, private hospitals do have the sheen and shine of being more exclusive. Their nurses and staff are assumed to be friendlier, and more hospitable. However, the encounters I have had thus far of the public healthcare system – in both the Klinik Kesihatan Desa Damansara which provides practically free services and University Malaya Medical Centre’s Women and Children Health Complex – have been nothing but positive.

The quality of medical expertise within this area of healthcare in government hospitals is comparable to what one would find within private hospitals. Doctors and specialists in government hospitals are often just as good as their private counterparts. In fact, it is commonly believed that complications are usually escalated to government hospitals, which are better-equipped to handle these high-risk cases.

So, if government hospitals have equally good medical professionals and equipment, what accounts for the difference? What patients are paying for under private healthcare – and the discrepancy in prices between these two opposing healthcare systems can be astoundingly large – seems to be the perception of more sophisticated bells and whistles: administrative niceties and creature comforts. They would be supposedly paying for the choice of private and more comfortable rooms, more attentive nurses and shorter waiting times.

Yet, it must be said that the occasional anecdotes about nurses and staff in public healthcare who might have been curt and direct have been generalised to the point of tarring all nurses with the same brush. And waiting times might also seem slightly longer, but there are just as many accounts of lengthy and frustrating waiting times at private hospitals.

One needs to add a caveat to these observations, of course, that these are only my personal experiences in one area of public healthcare. Second, the quality of public healthcare may vary significantly across the country. A public hospital in Petaling Jaya or Kuala Lumpur might not be comparable to that in smaller towns.

Which brings me to the more important question of sustainability of the public healthcare system. The current system seems to be working well in terms of providing quality healthcare, but there are early signs that anyone who cares about public policy would be concerned with.

I am no expert in healthcare policy in the country, but a 2016 report by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, which is carrying out a study for the Ministry of Health, states that Malaysia’s health system is at a crossroads, and concludes that “the health system faces new challenges in the face of a rapidly evolving context – characterised by demographic and epidemiological transitions, a shifting socio-cultural environment, technological changes, and rising income levels, which have contributed to a nutritional transition, increasing health risks, and new user expectations.” It also states that the lack of coordination between primary and secondary healthcare results in the overcrowding of government hospitals.

In other words, because of our country’s population growth and rising costs of living, public healthcare will need to be well-funded to adapt to these rapid changes. The report is useful in recommending several proposals, chief of which includes aligning the financing, payment methods and regulation of this sector.

In terms of funding, the Malaysian government already contributes some 9.5% of its annual budget to healthcare, where RM26.58 billion is being allocated this year. This comes up to about 4.75% of the country’s GDP, close to the WHO recommended proportion of 5%, but lower than the OECD average of 9.7%. But if the increase in healthcare spending continues at its current rates – increasing an average of 12-13% per year from 1997 to 2009 – this may not be sustainable in the long run.

People tend to think that private hospitals are better than public hospitals, but this perception does not match the reality, which is that Malaysians are extremely fortunate to have comparably good quality healthcare at affordable prices. However, the government subsidies and funding that will rise exponentially year on year is not sustainable.

Having the choice to go to private hospitals is fair, for those who can afford it. But we should not neglect public hospitals and a solution to keeping their funding sustainable is extremely important. There were previous attempts at introducing a public insurance system called 1Care for 1Malaysia in the past, but this was eventually shelved. It is unclear whether there will be any new proposals for a public insurance system, but one thing is certain – learning from the outcomes of Obamacare in the United States, whatever new policy the Ministry of Health introduces will have to be clearly and transparently communicated with all stakeholders.

This is especially important now, as the costs of living are escalating, and a large proportion of Malaysians continues to depend on the public healthcare system. As all policymakers know, a healthy population is a key prerequisite for a strong economy and peaceful nation.

So, if you care for the people, do not neglect public hospitals and public clinics. Keep them well-funded, well-staffed and well-equipped. There are a good many problems in Malaysia, but public healthcare is not one of them. Not yet.

Posted in Healthcare, Public Administration, Reflections | Leave a comment

Policy and Persuasion

Posted on December 24, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 21 December 2017.

OVER the last few months, I had the privilege of teaching a class of final year undergraduate students at Nottingham University the 101 of public policy.

This seemed to be a perfect match, seeing as how I have been working in public policy in various capacities within government, think tanks and civil societies over the last decade or so.

Quite unlike some of the other more academic modules the students would have been exposed to, this would be one of the rare occasions in which they would examine the practical and real-life applications of their university knowledge, whether in the fields of economics, international relations or environmental science.

It is interesting that the university offers this subject at all – many students graduate from university (myself included) being equipped only with the knowledge provided by academic sources, with perhaps some research and experimentation thrown in.

Even essays and assignments are written towards an academic end; no harm in and of academia itself, since after all, this is the path I am pursuing myself.

But to transform this knowledge into the nuts and bolts of how things actually work in the real world was my task over the last semester.

That is, to make sense of the often complicated and highly complex way in which policies are adopted, implemented and evaluated within any political system of government.

In fact, the understanding of “how things work in public policy” is not common knowledge.

It does require firsthand experience of having worked in some capacity with or within government.

Probably worse is that there is poor comprehension of what “public policy” even means.

In my lecture preparation, I found there was very little Malaysian material on public policy to refer to.

Because so much of what is available out there is based on a largely Western context, it was important for me to ground examples and case studies within the Malaysian context instead.

For the purposes of my lessons, I referred to public policy as a course of government or public action or inaction in response to public problems.

In short, the issue needs to be public in nature, and one in which members of a community would have an interest, for it to qualify. Second, it should be a problem for which something can be done, and where a solution is possible.

Public policy is wide and all-encompassing, inclusive of formally approved policy goals and means, regulations and practices of agencies, and can take the form of laws, regulations, circulars and directives, long-term plans and very simply, policies.

In Malaysia, public policy would be derived from sources such as the Federal Constitution 1957, laws like the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the Medical Act 1971, the Companies Regulations 2017, Ministry of Finance circulars on public procurement, long-term plans like Transformasi Negara 2050 (TN50) and even longer term policies like the National Vision Policy.

There are multiple actors in the public policy process.

Imagine any policy that is being proposed within Parliament – particularly a controversial one – and one could picture these interest groups playing their respective roles.

These stakeholders would be a mix of policymakers, politicians (since the process of policymaking is in fact very political), policy analysts, activists, academia, media, global interests as well as the general public.

But how is government policy approved?

A textbook model of understanding the public policy process is clean and methodical: First, you set the agenda by deciding which problems will be addressed by public policy; second, you formulate the policy by consulting with stakeholders, based on research and evidence; third, the policy is adopted via means of legal statute at the federal or state level; fourth, the policy is implemented through the government bureaucracy; fifth, the policy is assessed and evaluated as to its merits; and finally, a new policy issue emerges, which starts the process all over again from the beginning.

Of course, the reality of what takes place is far from constructed. There are multiple and sometimes, competing forces at play.

Policymakers are not always equipped with the full amount of information required to make informed decisions.

Economic, political and social conditions are dynamic and fluctuate violently, making it difficult especially for long-term policies – do you adapt according to changing times, or ensure stability for the country by maintaining a certain policy for good?

Governments may also tend to intervene when they see the need, depending on the ideological nature of whichever political party is in power.

In Malaysia, we have only ever known one coalition at the federal level, so interventions are more likely to be political than they are ideological.

There are instances where government might want to intervene for moral or ethical reasons, for example to break up monopolies or oligopolies that have formed.

Again, this is dependent on the country’s economic system and to what extent governments believe in the market system.

It has been interesting examining Malaysia’s public policy processes as an outsider over the last weeks, also coinciding with the reflective period of the end of the year.

The question weighing on my mind – and probably that of my students’ too – is whether any actors outside of the upper echelons of government (read: Prime Minister’s Office) have truly been successful in influencing public policy at all.

Have the efforts of the so-called independent intelligentsias been effective in changing policy? Swaying public opinion? The subject I taught was, after all, about persuasion as well. This I explore in future columns.

Posted in Public Administration, Reflections | Leave a comment

Are civil servants the biggest winners in Malaysia’s 2018 budget?

Posted on November 30, 2017 by Tricia

First published on Channel NewsAsia’s website here, on 19 November 2017.

Many say Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s 2018 budget brought cheer to Malaysian civil servants who form an important voting bloc in an election year. Tricia Yeoh discusses how much of an impact these benefits will have.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian government tabled a generous pre-election budget for 2018, as was expected.

The final budget before the highly anticipated upcoming 14th General Election, it dished out especially lucrative goodies for civil servants and pensioners, two groups it cannot afford to upset.

In this budget, civil servants were clearly given priority, in part a response to their own proposals that the government alleviate their economic burden.

Among the new initiatives that this budget announced were a one-off payment of RM1,500 (US$354), a second time-based promotion for support staff who received their last promotion 13 years ago, and the provision of full retirement benefits to those who retire early for health reasons.

Maternity benefits were also extended, with maternity leave increased to 360 days and shorter working hours for civil servants at least five months pregnant.

In-house Masters and PhD programmes will also be introduced to encourage lifelong learning.

Although past year budgets have always included special gifts for civil servants, the 2018 budget is particularly generous with its unprecedented array of benefits. This is even so when compared to the last pre-election budget of 2013, which provided for a one-month bonus but with no other significant initiatives.

Pensioners were a second group rewarded by the budget. They will receive a one-off payment of RM750, and see an increase of the lowest pension rate to RM1,000 a month which will benefit more than 50,000 pensioners who have been in the civil service for at least 25 years.

The pattern is obvious when one analyses the breakdown of budget allocations. Over the last decade, the operating expenditure has drastically increased compared to the development expenditure.

In the 2010 budget, the projected operating expenditure formed 73 per cent of total expenditure. Compare this to the 2018 budget, where it now forms almost 84 per cent of total expenditure.

This means the ratio between the projected operating and development expenditure respectively in this budget is 5 to 1, where for every RM1 spent for development purposes, RM5 is being used to fund operational costs, including manpower costs and the salaries of civil servants, pensions, subsidies and social assistance to the public.

Yet, emoluments – civil servants’ salaries – form a significant 33.8 per cent of the allocated sum for the total operating expenditure of RM234.3 billion, a proportion that has been growing in recent years. Emoluments have risen from RM42 billion in Budget 2010 to RM78.1 billion in Budget 2018.

Unfortunately, these benefits do not necessarily translate into an attractive package that brings the best and brightest of Malaysian talent into the civil service.

In fact, the concern is quite the opposite; the benefits may instead incentivise those who prefer a comfortable job to stay on over those who prefer a merit-based system that rewards talent and effort.

BLOATED CIVIL SERVICE

Analysts have also cautioned that the size of the civil service – there are some 1.6 million civil servants in Malaysia – is bloated and the increasing amount of funds required to service this number is not fiscally sustainable in the long run.

After all, an ideal budget would dedicate a substantial amount to development expenditure, where money could be used for longer term investments, in funding healthcare and education programmes for instance.

Nevertheless, the Malaysian government has always been careful in stressing it would not reduce the number of civil servants. While the benefits this time are particularly extensive, ensuring the welfare of civil servants has always been something the Barisan Nasional government has claimed credit for.

The main reason is likely this: Civil servants represent 12 per cent of registered voters, possibly the single largest voting bloc in the Malaysian electorate that would be most immediately loyal to the Barisan Nasional given the various perks they have received over the years.

It also happens to be that the vast majority of civil servants is Malay, a key target voter demography for the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional coalition. The opposition is fully aware of the situation, and both opposition-led states of Selangor and Penang also announced generous cash bonuses to state civil servants in their respective 2018 state budgets.

This growing dependency on government handouts is unfortunately not without reason.

The Congress of Union of Employees in the Public and Civil Services Malaysia (CUEPACS) reported in 2016 that between 700,000 to 800,000 civil servants fall in the bottom 40 per cent of Malaysian households, who receive a monthly income of RM3,900 and below.

In May this year, CUEPACS warned that up to 100,000 civil servants are in danger of being declared bankrupt, adding that many are resorting to taking loans from loan sharks. This is likely a combination of relatively low pay compared to salaries in the private sector, poor financial planning and the rising costs of living.

With these numbers in mind, it is no wonder that civil servants would require significant financial assistance.

Yet it also reflects a more alarming scenario of the socio-economic conditions under which Malaysian civil servants live, as well as the larger economy with costs of living that have risen so rapidly even the fully-employed are unable to survive.

TEMPORARY RELIEF

While Malaysian civil servants celebrate their winnings in this budget announcement, it will not be long before the accumulative economic burdens weigh on them again.

A one-off payment of RM1,500 will hardly last an average Malaysian household of five people very long. Maternity benefits may be welcome relief – and in fact these are forward-thinking measures that help women cope better in the workplace – but they will not adequately line families’ pockets with the extra income they require.

The government has its sights set on the election next year, and for good reason.

It will be one of the most hotly contested elections in recent history, given that former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed now leads the opposition coalition, the man many senior civil servants and pensioners would have served in the past and therefore have some allegiance to.

The Malaysian government has once again attempted to entice civil servants and pensioners with budget goodies, which have been well received. But the true impact of the government’s generosity will only be known at the ballot box.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, Public Administration | Leave a comment