What does it mean for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur to acquire the status of a state? This is not unimaginable given that Kuala Lumpur’s annual budget and its population are bigger than most other states in Malaysia. REFSA Senior Fellow Lam Choong Wah delves into the historical background of local governance and finds some interesting nuggets in the all-but-forgotten Athi Nahappan Report.
Years ago, when I was a rookie journalist covering an assignment, a local leader gave me a hot tip which still rings true today. He told me that any party that manages local government matters well, would have the upper hand to wrest control of Putrajaya.
This was because, he explained, local government is the immediate authority and the first “point of contact” that the voters have to deal with to settle their daily matters. Everyday grouses involving roads, street lamps, assessment rates, waste disposal, land matters and local utilities fall under the jurisdiction of local authorities rather than the federal government.
There’s no sophisticated political science to back this argument, but there is evidence to suggest the theory’s plausibility. Take for instance Ma Ying Jeou, Narendra Modi and Joko Widodo, who each rose to the helm of government in Taiwan, India and Indonesia respectively. All of them had experience administrating local governance, and it served them well.
Particularly, Joko Widodo (better known as Jokowi) had fully utilised his capacity as Governor of Jakarta and Mayor of Surakarta to transform the cities into centers for art and culture and tourist attractions. These successes in turn served as a stepping stone for him to seize the presidential office. We, in Malaysia, can draw lessons from these examples too.
Background of The Third Vote and how it was abolished
Half a century ago, the British colonial government introduced local government elections during the height of the emergency period (1948-1960) against the communist threat in Peninsular Malaya.
The official reason given was that local government elections would serve as a first step to prepare Malayans to self-govern and eventually achieve independence. This was also part of the colonial government’s public relations effort to show its sincerity in giving space for locals to be involved in governance.
It helped the colonial authority win the hearts and minds of moderates and tipped the scales in their favor in the struggle against nationalist and communist movements.
To facilitate local government elections, two laws were passed, namely the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance (1950) and subsequently the Local Council Ordinance (1952).
Prior to this, there were three categories of local authorities :- Municipalities (such as George Town, Malacca and Kuala Lumpur); Town Boards; and Rural Boards.
After 1950, Town Boards were converted to Town Councils which were directly elected by voters. Municipalities were retained and Rural Boards were converted into Rural District Councils. Local Councils were created to administer areas not covered by the previous three authorities.
The core idea was to incorporate the electoral system into local authorities. (Refer to table 2)
This was backed by Bedale’s recommendations. On 20 August 1952, Mr. H. Bedale, Town Clerk of the Hornsey Borough of England was commissioned by the colonial authority for a period of six months to advise the Government of the Federation of Malaya on the establishment, organisation and supervision of local authorities.
One of his recommendations was to conduct a periodical review to convert more Town Boards into Town Councils, this suggestion was well-received. As of 1958, there were 32 Town Councils and 302 Local Councils established.
In 1968, local government elections achieved a significant milestone where all Chairpersons and councillors of Municipalities were elected executives, while all Chairpersons of Local Councils and 83.5% councillors were elected. On average, the elected chairmen and councillors accounted for 78.8% of overall members.
However, the outbreak of Konfrontasi between Malaysia and Indonesia resulted in the federal government declaring a state of emergency and suspending local government elections. The suspension which came in force on 1 March 1965 has never been reversed since then.
Case study: George Town, Penang
Apart from the Konfrontasi factor, party politics was the other factor that led to the suspension of local democracy.
The present day struggle between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional had its precursor in the early 1960s. Thanks to local government elections, although the Alliance Party (BN’s predecessor) controlled the Penang state government, the Socialist Front (Then Opposition coaliation) seized the City Council of George Town.
When the federal government declared the end of the state of emergency against the communist threat in 1960, all local authorities were requested to decorate its towns and raise the National Flag. However, the City Council of George Town refused to follow suit and went against the Penang State Government’s order.
The outraged Penang State Government then bulldozed the amendment of the Municipal Ordinance in the State Legislative Assembly to empower the State Secretary to take over the Council’s role in taking necessary actions in respect of an event of national importance or of special significance to the State.
When the Socialist Front again defied the State Government’s order to celebrate Malaysia Day in 1963, the latter immediately exercised its new powers by instructing the State Secretary to mobilize the City Council’s resources to celebrate the occasion.
A question of “Efficiency vs Democracy”
Ironically, the state of emergency was retained although the Konfrontasi ended in 1966, as the government claimed that the country was still under threat by subversive communist activities. The government preferred to maintain emergency rule to ensure uniformity of policy and increase local administration efficiency.
Even though the George Town turmoil was settled through legislative and democratic methods, it became a political weapon frequently used by the ruling party to reject any proposal to revive local government elections.
Another frequently cited reason to deny local elections is the argument that local government elections would only benefit urban residents while rural residents will be marginalized in terms of finance and resource sharing.
Recently, the President of PAS, Hadi Awang and Minister of Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Abdul Rahman Dahlan cited these reasons in supporting their view that local government elections should not be reintroduced.
Are the above reasons valid? The insightful findings of the Athi Nahappan Commission are useful in delving into this discussion. This was a report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry led by the late Athi Nahappan to investigate the function and effectiveness of local council elections. The resulting report was four volumes long and two feet high, when stacked up – it has been regarded as one of the most thorough and comprehensive reports produced by the government.
Firstly, let us look at the question of whether rural people rejected local government elections. In contrast to what Hadi Awang and Abdul Rahman Dahlan said, the Athi Nahappan Report recorded that “In the long run a healthy, vibrant participation of the citizens at all levels of public administration is more desirable… Democracy with efficiency is always more desirable and better than efficiency without democracy” (p. 102)
Furthermore, it recorded “we were impressed by the fact that most rural people felt democracy had come to stay and that they would not bargain for anything less. This may due to the fact they now do see the value of their rights to discuss, deliberate and decide on matters of local interest.”(p. 55)
With regard to the George Town turmoil, it concluded “the fact that the State Government could do this (empowering the State Secretary to override City Council Chairman’s decision) clearly indicates that the power was there for the State Governments to invoke and to avert the kind of embarrassing situations that arose. Therefore, conflicts of this nature are curable with relative ease…” (p.103)
It is worth noting that the Athi Nahappan Commission made the observations based on digesting 71 proceeding records and memoranda or written evidence submitted by 315 organisations and individuals. Obviously, the report is more credible than the half-baked facts provided by the duo.
Kuala Lumpur as a State?
After the Penang and Selangor State Governments were taken over by Pakatan Rakyat in 2008, efforts were carried out to restore the local government elections as advocated by the Athi Nahappan report.
Nevertheless, these efforts encountered the biggest set back when the Federal Court ruled in August 2014 that only the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to dictate when and who can hold local government elections.
A new approach must be concocted in order to break the deadlock.
Kuala Lumpur, the Capital of Malaysia, was one of the early municipalities which was fortunate to enjoy local government elections even after Merdeka. This also beat other capital cities around the world like Washington D.C. , London and Canberra which did not have municipal elections.
However, the “good times” did not last for long and Kuala Lumpur was also the first municipality to be stripped of its electoral rights.
The enforcement of the Federal Capital Act 1960 repealed the Federal Capital (Municipal Elections) Ordinance 1958 and stipulated that the Capital would be administered by a King-appointed Commissioner and an advisory board.
While the Federal Government was busy in consolidating the non-elected Commissioner’s power, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia moved forward to introduce electoral system to its respective capitals.
The Australian model went even further through passing the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act in 1988 which granted Canberra the right to set up its own Legislative Assembly and appoint its own Chief Minister.
Kuala Lumpur possesses more resources than other states which entitles it to achieve statehood. In terms of financial status, the KL City Hall annual budget has averaged RM2 billion in the last ten years. This is larger than every state budget except for oil rich states like Terengganu, Sarawak and Sabah.
Furthermore, Kuala Lumpur’s population is the seventh highest among the thirteen states which provides solid financial autonomy and personnel capacity to achieve greater self-governance.
While the efforts in Penang and Selangor to restore local governance have hit a roadblock, perhaps it is timely to open the third local democratic battlefront which should be led by KL-ites.
*Note: This article was written based on the research on The Report Of The Royal Commission Of Enquiry To Investigate Into The Workings Of Local Authorities In West Malaysia, December 1968.
