Home
Book Review
Comment
Concerns
Concordance
Heritage
News
People
Page 11
 
 
 
 

Why City Elections?

By

Johan Saravanamuttu

****** A survey, which I conducted in November 1999 in the Bayan Baru  *******  parliamentary constituency, found some 72% of the 913 respondents  *******  wanting a reintroduction of locally elected councils. 

IS THE TIME RIPE for Malaysians to demand a return to a fundamental practice and basic provision of any democratic system -- elected councilors to serve citizens at the local level?  But before answering the question we should see how the demise of local democracy occurred in Malaysia.

A Slice of History

George Town had a particularly eminent history in terms of democracy at the local level. The first elections in Malaya were held there in 1951 to elect nine councilors in the four wards of Tanjong, Kelawei and Jelutong. George Town was a "city council" (the only one) by virtue of the fact that it was granted city status by the British in January 1957. With the passage of the Local Government Act, 1960, a new Constitution was granted to the City Council of George Town from April 1, 1961.  George Town was fully financially autonomous and was the richest local authority, with annual revenue almost double that of the State of Penang. Its Reserve Fund at the end of 1965 stood at some 6,037,535 Malaysian dollars.

Nahappan Commission

  In 1966, under a (Transfer of Functions) Order, the functions of the City Council were transferred to the Chief Minister to enable a Commission of Inquiry "to inquire on the acts of maladministration and malpractices and breaches of law committed by the City Council of George Town". After the commission completed its work and filed its report, the Chief Minister of Penang continued to administer George Town.  In actual fact, the government at this time was already intent on carrying out a much larger study of the operation of local authorities, and in June 1965 set up a "Royal Commission of Inquiry on Local Authorities" headed by Senator Dato' Athi Nahappan.

The Nahappan Commission held numerous sittings, hearings and received memoranda from far and wide and completed an excellent and comprehensive study of the workings of West Malaysian local authorities. It completed its work in December 1968. From then on, the central government chose to completely ignore and set aside the findings and recommendations of the Nahappan Commission. After the Nahappan Report was completed the Cabinet appointed yet another commission or committee to study the implications of the Nahappan Report. To the credit of this Committee, it went along with the spirit and most of the Nahappan recommendations. It was however, another report submitted by the Development Administration Unit (DAU) of the Prime Minister's Department which effectively set aside the Nahappan recommendations in 1971.  

  "Over-Democratization"

What did the Nahappan Report recommend that were so objectionable and why did the DAU recommend the abolition of locally elected councils?  The DAU’s main points were that elected local councils were no more consonant with new national objectives such as the New Economic Policy and that they provided for “an over-democratized over-government at the local level” (sic). Furthermore, the DAU claimed that the system led to “oligarchic elites” facilitating the domination of the “haves” over the “have-nots”.

An analysis of the decline and demise of elective local government by Canadian academic Paul Tennant shows that in reality such factors, including racial politics, had little to do with the demise of elected councils. Rather, opposition politics and the issue of inefficiency or maladministration may have led to the decline of local government.

Without doubt, opposition politics had everything to do with the demise of local democracy. Consider the fact that both George Town and Ipoh consistently elected opposition parties -- Socialist Front and People's Progressive Party --  to head and run the city councils. Also consider the fact that in the1962 local council elections held in Perak, the PPP won 57% of the votes and 112 of the150 seats under contest in the Kinta District. The Alliance won only 27 seats, while 11 seats went to the Socialist Front.

Demise of Local Democracy

In Penang, a major persona involved in demise of local democracy, ironically, was its erstwhile Socialist Front Mayor, Mr. D.S. Ramanathan. (Later, Ramanathan became an independent and then Alliance councilor).  Ramanathan, who has a road named after him in Pulau Tikus, caused a major sensation when in 1963 he alleged serious malpractices on the part of George Town councilors. Of course his accusations those days now pale into insignificance compared with the kinds of scandals that Malaysians are now use to hearing about. One charge was that there was fraud in the construction of the city’s largest market (Chowrastra, we suppose). The flap created led to a vote in the council, which although rejected Ramanathan’s complaints, nevertheless agreed to a commission of inquiry on the matter. 

However, it was only three years later in 1965 that a Royal Commission, headed by Senator Athi Nahappan was formed. The Nahappan Commission had the likes of D.S. Ramanathan, Awang Hassan, Chan Keong Hon, Tan Peng Khoon and Haji Ismail Panjang Aris serving on it.  Just as the commissioners started their work, the onset of Indonesian Confrontation led to the suspension of all local councils. The Nahappan team finally submitted its report in 1968. Its recommendations were crystal clear. It called for the restoration of elected local government but with a variety of administrative changes and a new set of rules. Among some of the more important suggestions were:

·        That every state capital should be administered by a local authority, have elective representation, which principle should also be extended to all local councils outside state capitals.

·        That there should be one single law applicable throughout the country relating to and governing local authorities, and that every sate should adopt and enforce the law within 6 months after it has been passed by Parliament.

·        That a local authority should be decentralized and should be an autonomous body corporate consisting of fully elected members with financial and administrative autonomy but subject to the control of the State government on matters of national importance and interest.

·        That party politics should be allowed to continue despite its good and bad aspects and those who wish to stress their faith in non-conformism should have the right to stand as independents, as in the past.

·        That a Local Government Tribunal should be constituted by the State Authority of every local authority.

Nahappan Report

After the Nahappan report and its very considered and reasoned recommendations for the revival of local democracy, the then Minister of Local Government, Datuk Ong Kee Hui, recommended the setting up of the Cabinet Committee to study the Nahappan Report to which we have earlier referred. And, again against the grain of that second report, proclaimed that there was consensus among the states to oppose restoration of elected local government. He then did nothing in particular for a number of years except to allow existing councilors to be replaced by members of the same party upon death or inability to continue. Then, the Local Authorities (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted in 1973 which in theory implemented some of the administrative and restructuring recommendations of the Nahappan Report.

The writing was on the wall and the coup de grace came three years later when the government enacted the Local Government Act of 1976.  The new Act only allowed for the establishment of 12 municipalities and 90 district councils within three years but most detrimentally members of these councils would be appointed and not elected and in most cases the chairman would be the DO or some other civil servant. This is the system of local government we now have.

Concluding remarks

The Barisan Alternative in its election manifesto of 1999 has called for a return to locally elected councils. Needless to say, my vote goes with an apparently overwhelming majority of Penangites in recent surveys for a return to locally elected governments. George Town being the first off the blocks in the past should perhaps lead the way. Besides fulfilling a basic human right of “no taxation without representation”, in having locally elected governments, we will also be effecting a more responsive, accountable and necessary level of democracy. Let me add, a fortiori, that it was a system of democracy that was fully practiced in the past and one to which few people had any objections, including the first Royal Commission of Inquiry set up by the government itself. #