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
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment