Reflections on Covid19

In a couple of days, we would know if the Movement Control Order (MCO) would be continued or lifted by the government. The Covid19 has sent shockwaves around the world. As I write this, the number of Covid19 cases worldwide is already more than a million, with the US leading the rest. The number of deaths is also increasing at more than 70 000. Thankfully in Malaysia, the increase in the number of cases and deaths is not exponential – kudos to the government and especially the Ministry of Health for responding proactively to contain the spread of the virus – and not to mention the reassuring voice and calm demeanor of the Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that helped reduce public anxiety.

These are trying times for us. Despite the breakthroughs made by some countries in reducing the number of infected people and deaths, we have to remain vigilant and take all the necessary actions in order to break the chain of transmission. As experts have said, unless a vaccine is readily available, the threats posed by Covid19 are far from over.

So, while waiting for the cure, the standard procedures adopted by most countries are to isolate those who are infected, prevent the spread of the virus through social distancing and encourage a good personal hygiene.

The challenge is how to mobilise government resources effectively in order to contain the virus. It is even more challenging to ensure that people comply with the “stay-at-home” rule. Should government use violence to keep people indoor just like what we see in India? Philippine President Duterte has ordered the police and army to shoot people who break the lockdown rule. Countries may have different strategies to deal with their domestic problems depending on their cultures, values and levels of acceptance towards violent punishment.

There is at least one incident in our country circulating on social media showing a police officer using a stick to punish violators. Is this action acceptable? While the police should be praised for working around the clock to implement the MCO, I personally disagree with the use of force particularly against defenseless violators.

Another interesting thing to see is the way people respond to the crisis, for instance, some would deliberately defy the MCO, giving all sorts of (incredulous) excuses such as going out to buy KFC, sending lunch to wife at work, etc. We have also seen some government officials trying to use the most “creative” ways imaginable to educate people on how to make the most of their time at home, for instance, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Wellbeing Guideline to encourage women to imitate “Doraemon’s voice when talking to their husband in order to avoid an argument. The guideline has since been taken down from the Internet after much criticism.

One minister even went to great lengths by wearing a full personal protective equipment (PPE) suit during a sanitation exercise by her ministry. The minister’s intention to help might be genuine but her action was deemed as an inappropriate publicity galore.

This crisis has also brought out the best in us, for instance, people helping those in need for food, equipment (esp. for the frontliners in hospital) spontaneously or sharing positive gestures to those who have to work to get things moving.

Despite the fears shared by the prophets of doom, I am optimistic that we will get out of this sooner or later.

This is not the first time that the world is wrecked by a pandemic caused by an invisible force. From the Antonine Plague, Cholera outbreak, Spanish Flu to MERS, one emerging trend is that we manage to reduce the rate of death worldwide from infectious diseases.

Time and again, our resilience and ingenuity have helped us overcome our most challenging experiences.

With the vast amount of information available to us and our improved knowledge in medical science and technology, we are in a better position than before to find a solution to this crisis.

At the individual level, the least what we can do is to apply social distancing, adopt a good personal hygiene, and take care of our overall wellbeing.

So let’s be optimistic, share positive vibes and encouraging stories.

Lastly, share hopes not fears.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/arnold.puyok/posts/3593463130669047

Article 2(1): Reimagining the New Federation of Malaysia

First of all I would like to thank all the panellists for coming to this forum - and thank you to all of you who come from near and far to participate in this event. 

The topic of the forum today is on the issues surrounding the proposed amendment to Article 1(2) in the Federal Constitution. More specifically, we are here today to discuss the implications of the proposed amendment to the Federation of Malaysia. 

If you read the book written by Stockwell on the declassified documents on the formation of Malaysia, the word federation is mentioned several times. There are discussions and debates between the colonial leaders on government system and the nature of the association between the Borneo Territories and Malaya. 

The words  'confederation' and 'super-federation' are also mentioned. But there is a great dilemma facing the colonial leaders in allowing the Borneo Territories to be 'independent' if confederation or super-federation is chosen as a framework for governance for the new country. Obviously, their main concern is security. 

So, a federal system is seen as ideal for a number of reasons. First, incorporating the Borneo Territories into the existing Federation of Malaya would save the British time and money. Second, the existing Federation of Malaya allows for the Central Government to usurp the power of the constituent units. Moreover, international affairs and defence come under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. 

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 Article 1(2) states that 'The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya...'

Now, this particular Article can be seen in a number of perspectives. For some, Sabah and Sarawak came as separate entities to be 'federated' with the Federation of Malaya. So, they argue that instead of existing as mere states like the other states in the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak in fact formed Malaysia with the Federation of Malaya as 'equal partners' - some say as independent 'territories' or 'regions'. 

The Federal Constitution states that 'the states of the Federation shall be Johore'... all the states including Sabah and Sarawak written in one paragraph. 

Before the amendment in 1976, the Constitution stated that the Federation shall be a) the states of Malaya, b) the Borneo states and c) Singapore. So instead of putting all the states in one paragraph, sub clauses were added for the Borneo states and Singapore. Some look at this to signify the 'status' of the Borneo states and Singapore. Others argue that this is not more than differentiating the states in Malaya and those in Borneo due to their distinct geographical, cultural and historical background. 

The proposed amendment to Article 1(2) is an attempt to 'reinstate' the original description of the Federation of Malaysia. For most people, the reinstatement would allow Sabah and Sarawak to reclaim their equal partners status. 

So, this brings us to another issue of defining the concept of 'equal partnership' in the context of the Malaysia Agreement and the Federation of Malaysia. I leave it to the panellists later to construct and deconstruct the concept. 

But the main purpose of this forum is to discuss the implications of this amendment to the structure of the Federation of Malaysia. I watched the debate in parliament with great interest. But what is obvious is that our MPs are divided. While the PH MPs supported the amendment, those from the GPS showed their reservation and abstained from voting. The UMNO and PAS MPs in particular raised their concern as well. I remember one particular MP from Peninsula Malaysia saying, if Sabah and Sarawak insist on being equal partner, the same status must be accorded to the states in Peninsula Malaysia as well. This means giving them the same power and rights granted to Sabah and Sarawak in the Federal Constitution. 

To conclude, I would like to share with you an analogy that I have always used to describe Malaysia. It is like a new house. A house that is still being built, renovated, refurbished - or whatever words you want to use. The occupants have many ideas on how they want the house to be built - where to put he door, the window, the living room, etc. It is a nice house. It has a strong foundation. It has stood the test of time. Just like any other houses, this house is full of defects. But thankfully despite its many weaknesses, the foundation and the structural integrity of the house remain intact. If the house is to remain strong and stable, each of the occupants must be given a role to address the defects. 

SEEDS is here to offer our time, energy and all the things that we know to build a stronger, successful and progressive Sabah and Malaysia. 

On that note, I wish the panellists and all the participants a fruitful and intellectually stimulating forum ahead. 

Thank you.

*Delivered at the opening of the forum on "Article 2(1): Reimagining the New Federation of Malaysia" organised by SEEDS Sabah.  

Patronage Politics and GLCs Reform in Sabah

I would like to frame my talk within the concept of patronage politics that is so pervasive and continue to dominate Sabah politics.

My talk today is a work in progress on patronage politics in Sabah. So most of the things that I'll share today are not new and are based on the work of Regina Lim ("Federal-State Relations in Sabah: The Berjaya Administration, 1976-85") and David Brown ("Why Governments Fail to Capture the Economic Rent: the Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999"). 

More studies have to be done in order to understand the changing and evolving relationship between politicians and businessmen under patronage politics. 

Patronage politics is a practice where powerful people obtain and maintain political support through the award of all kinds of 'gifts' either in the form of money, position and development aid to their supporters. Politicians resort to patronage politics to keep their network of supporters intact and to build more networks.

On the surface, patronage politics seems to be a very straightforward phenomenon but what makes it fascinating and complicated is the network that describes the relationship between politicians and businessmen and the economic entities under their control. 

Historical Origin

Patronage politics is not a recent phenomenon. It has its roots during the colonial times. The British, for instance, gave timber licences to the USNO and UPKO leaders to fund their political activities. They awarded timber concessionaire to their supporters. 

Patronage politics continued even after the successive parties took over, for instance, under the Berjaya Government, timber licenses were given to Berjaya supporters according to the “ABC System” - A for leaders or followers, B for businessmen and C for community leaders, native chiefs and village headmen (Lim 2008).

The Berjaya Government also established many cooperatives through Koperasi BERJAYA Bhd or KOBERSA, which apart from providing jobs and generating incomes through small-medium business activities, were also used to induce people to join the party (Lim 2008).

After defeating the Berjaya Government, the new government under PBS vowed to cut political leaders’ ties with timber business but as it turned out many could not resist the temptation of using timber money to buy political support (Brown 2001).

Some were alleged to have stashed money obtained from timber profits somewhere in Hong Kong  and distributed timber concessions to their relatives (Brown 2001). Even though the number of timber concessions was relatively smaller compared to the size of timber concessions distributed during the USNO and Berjaya rule, PBS was equally responsible for deepening the politics of patronage using timber resources.

Under Sabah UMNO, timber concessions continued to be given to political supporters (Brown 2001). In fact, in order to ensure the downfall of PBS in 1994, two companies - Crocker Range Timur and Peluamas - were said to be instructed to buy over PBS leaders to jump to BN (Brown 2001). In return, Crocker Range Timur and Peluamas were awarded with vast timber concessions (Brown 2001).

A serious allegation came when a Chinese businessman - alleged to be  “runner” for a very influential UMNO leader was arrested in Hong Kong with Ringgit Malaysia 16 million in cash. Upon interrogation by the Hong Kong authorities, the businessman alleged that the money belonged to the UMNO leader to be used to fund political campaigns in Sabah. The UMNO leader had denied the allegation.

Prospects for Reform

Having shared with you the pervasiveness of patronage politics in Sabah, where do we go from here? And what are the prospects for reform?

Let me start by saying that this is the opportune time for us to make things right. We do not need a radical change like the American Revolution or the Russian Revolution. What we need is a structural change in our system. 

The new government at the state and federal level used the agenda for reform as their key campaign message. Even though lately there has been so much of unhappiness about the government not fulfilling its promises, I am giving the government the benefit of the doubt and I am confident that they will be bold enough to start the reform now.

I am optimistic because the young leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have spoken against patronage politics. Syed Saddiq, the young leader of Bersatu, had warned his party members against seeking contracts and positions. Some in his party didn't like what he said but his concerns were echoed by another young leader from Sabah UMNO Naim Moktar who said that "it is time to stop this political madness that aims only for monetary gain - there is no point in shouting "new Malaysia" if the essence is still the same as before".

The Warisan-led government is also taking the right step by stopping the practice of appointing politicians to head the GLCs.

We need to keep the momentum going so that this agenda for reform continue - and that more and more people will be educated about the problems in our system and the need to fix it urgently. But this has to be institutionalised. We need to introduce rules and regulations so that the system is not abused by politicians for their own gain. 

In Sabah, the practice of jumping from one party to another is legendary but we cannot blame the YBs for shifting their political allegiance. It is the system that encourages our YBs to jump from one party to another. We are told by the YBs that the reason for them to jump is because they can better serve their constituents under the ruling government. We also often hear people from the ruling government insisting that they won't give development assistance to areas controlled by the opposition.

This will not happen when we are in an inclusive political system where economic opportunities are distributed equitably according to the needs of society. This is something that the new government must address.

Many of us in Sabah believe that we can become like Singapore if we are independent or given more autonomy to run our own affairs. But unlike Sabah, Singapore promotes and practices good governance. Singapore's political institutions are inclusive. 

Our system is not defective but ineffective. Our political institutions are extractive in which our economic wealth is controlled by the select few through patronage politics. That's the reason why despite our natural wealth, our growth is low, our unemployment rate is high, and we have been consistently ranked as one of the poorest states in Malaysia.

So whatever reform we will do next, our target must be on making our institutions more inclusive and changing the system. If this is not done, even if a new government comes in, the new people will be prone to abuse the system for their political gain - and things will be much worst if the same people are elected and allowed to run the same old system. 

Thank you

*Based on talk on GLC Reform organised by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Sabah, March 25, 2019.