The Star
PUTIK LADA By KEVIN KAM SOO AUN
It makes sense that people be given the right to vote, including at local government level, to say that the democratic process has actually been exercised.
DEMOCRACY commonly refers to a political government carried out by means of elected representatives. In our country, the government is divided into three broad categories — federal, state and local governments. The earlier two are elected; the third is not.
Following the Indonesian confrontation in the early 60s, local council elections were suspended by the Emergency (Suspension of Local Government Elections) Regulations 1965. Later, the Local Government Act 1976 abolished local government elections altogether; local councillors were no longer elected but appointed by the state government.
Recently, the Penang government called for local government elections to be restored. The Selangor government echoed this call. If this materialises, local governments — which broadly consist of city councils, municipal councils and district councils — will move towards a more democratic process as elections will be held at the grassroots level.
While it may be argued that local government is a reflection of the mandate given by the people to the state government, it cannot be said that local government will always be the people’s choice if no direct elections have taken place.
It only makes sense — and should be seen to be done — that the people exercise the right to vote at any given level of government to say that the democratic process has actually been exercised.
Some have commented that local government elections will only lead to politicking and not raise the level of services, as well as being a waste of public funds.
The counter argument is that politicking and public spending are already part of the electoral process for the federal and state governments. They are necessary to instil public confidence in the democratic system practised in our country. So, why not restore what was originally in place before the 60s in today’s democratic process?
Some political scientists argue that local government elections lead to decentralisation of power and the opportunity to use local knowledge to meet local needs. Logically, this elected council would be better and more effective as what is best for the local community would be determined by the local community.
Reviving local elections will provide us with choices to decide the most efficient option. Who is efficient can then be decided by action and subsequent results from that action, not speculation. Unless and until we put into motion an election process to decide who runs the local governments, we cannot truly make comparisons to see who is doing or has done a good or bad job.
With better education, people today are more aware of the policies and actions carried out by the government of the day.
Elections bring out the best in dissemination of information when candidates battle out their manifestos at election campaigns. The people can weigh the information before deciding who can best serve their welfare.
This means there is indirect participation by the people in implementing policies that affect their daily life from urban and rural planning to approval of business licences, and so on.
Elections will also serve, to a certain degree, to reduce collusion, nepotism and corruption.
Accountability is perhaps the most important aspect of having local elections. The government of the day must account to the public for its actions. If power is given by the people, then the government answers to the people. But now, power to the local government is given by the state government. So, does this mean the local government answers first to the state government and then the state government answers to the people? It sounds ridiculous, but that seems to be the logical deduction.
For example, in the Highland Towers and Bukit Antarabangsa tragedies, who should be held responsible when the local government approved permits for construction of structures which led to the collapse, causing damage and personal injury (and even death)?
The local government or the state government? Accountability merely becomes a blame-pushing exercise. Moreover, the Highland Towers case has demonstrated that under section 95 (2) of the Street Drainage and Building Act 1974, the local governments enjoy much immunity from liabilities.
Of course, local governments are subject to judicial review by the Judiciary in the High Courts but this is limited to situations where an act of the government is ultra vires (outside of) its powers.
Furthermore, when cases can be properly heard and disposed of in the courts this is not only cumbersome but also time consuming.
Needless to say, if the local government has been inefficient or has acted to the detriment of the public, the people should have the choice to change it.
It is crucial that the people have more room to decide whom they want to exercise the power, and be responsible for the repercussions of the exercise of such power. This is only possible with elections.
Whoever pays, decides. Since we, the public, pay taxes — income tax to the federal government through the Inland Revenue Board, quit rent to the state government through the land office, assessment to the local government — we should get to decide who should be the ones spending our money.
That is why we get to elect the federal government and the state government.
There is no reason why the same should not apply to local government. Power lies not in who is the “favourite” of the people. Power is given by the people to the “favourite” of the majority of the people. The “favourite” of the people merely carries out the exercise of this power for the good of the people.
The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column — a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my/nylc.
PUTIK LADA By KEVIN KAM SOO AUN
It makes sense that people be given the right to vote, including at local government level, to say that the democratic process has actually been exercised.
DEMOCRACY commonly refers to a political government carried out by means of elected representatives. In our country, the government is divided into three broad categories — federal, state and local governments. The earlier two are elected; the third is not.
Following the Indonesian confrontation in the early 60s, local council elections were suspended by the Emergency (Suspension of Local Government Elections) Regulations 1965. Later, the Local Government Act 1976 abolished local government elections altogether; local councillors were no longer elected but appointed by the state government.
Recently, the Penang government called for local government elections to be restored. The Selangor government echoed this call. If this materialises, local governments — which broadly consist of city councils, municipal councils and district councils — will move towards a more democratic process as elections will be held at the grassroots level.
While it may be argued that local government is a reflection of the mandate given by the people to the state government, it cannot be said that local government will always be the people’s choice if no direct elections have taken place.
It only makes sense — and should be seen to be done — that the people exercise the right to vote at any given level of government to say that the democratic process has actually been exercised.
Some have commented that local government elections will only lead to politicking and not raise the level of services, as well as being a waste of public funds.
The counter argument is that politicking and public spending are already part of the electoral process for the federal and state governments. They are necessary to instil public confidence in the democratic system practised in our country. So, why not restore what was originally in place before the 60s in today’s democratic process?
Some political scientists argue that local government elections lead to decentralisation of power and the opportunity to use local knowledge to meet local needs. Logically, this elected council would be better and more effective as what is best for the local community would be determined by the local community.
Reviving local elections will provide us with choices to decide the most efficient option. Who is efficient can then be decided by action and subsequent results from that action, not speculation. Unless and until we put into motion an election process to decide who runs the local governments, we cannot truly make comparisons to see who is doing or has done a good or bad job.
With better education, people today are more aware of the policies and actions carried out by the government of the day.
Elections bring out the best in dissemination of information when candidates battle out their manifestos at election campaigns. The people can weigh the information before deciding who can best serve their welfare.
This means there is indirect participation by the people in implementing policies that affect their daily life from urban and rural planning to approval of business licences, and so on.
Elections will also serve, to a certain degree, to reduce collusion, nepotism and corruption.
Accountability is perhaps the most important aspect of having local elections. The government of the day must account to the public for its actions. If power is given by the people, then the government answers to the people. But now, power to the local government is given by the state government. So, does this mean the local government answers first to the state government and then the state government answers to the people? It sounds ridiculous, but that seems to be the logical deduction.
For example, in the Highland Towers and Bukit Antarabangsa tragedies, who should be held responsible when the local government approved permits for construction of structures which led to the collapse, causing damage and personal injury (and even death)?
The local government or the state government? Accountability merely becomes a blame-pushing exercise. Moreover, the Highland Towers case has demonstrated that under section 95 (2) of the Street Drainage and Building Act 1974, the local governments enjoy much immunity from liabilities.
Of course, local governments are subject to judicial review by the Judiciary in the High Courts but this is limited to situations where an act of the government is ultra vires (outside of) its powers.
Furthermore, when cases can be properly heard and disposed of in the courts this is not only cumbersome but also time consuming.
Needless to say, if the local government has been inefficient or has acted to the detriment of the public, the people should have the choice to change it.
It is crucial that the people have more room to decide whom they want to exercise the power, and be responsible for the repercussions of the exercise of such power. This is only possible with elections.
Whoever pays, decides. Since we, the public, pay taxes — income tax to the federal government through the Inland Revenue Board, quit rent to the state government through the land office, assessment to the local government — we should get to decide who should be the ones spending our money.
That is why we get to elect the federal government and the state government.
There is no reason why the same should not apply to local government. Power lies not in who is the “favourite” of the people. Power is given by the people to the “favourite” of the majority of the people. The “favourite” of the people merely carries out the exercise of this power for the good of the people.
The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column — a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my/nylc.
No comments:
Post a Comment