Er..... who's in charge?

Categories: Malaysia

A few news reports on Malaysia has highlighted a long-standing problem with the Malaysian governance. Sadly this problem is not new but had been present since the last administration. It was either not highlighted or was suppressed.

On May 19, the Star reported that the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) has ordered a company constructing a pedestrian bridge at Section 10 here to halt piling work with immediate effect even though it had approval from the Works Ministry. The reasons reportedly cited by MPPJ was "because the company allegedly did not obtain approval for the plan and a licence from the MPPJ to carry out construction work." On May 23, the Works Minister, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu, replied that "Permission from the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) is not needed. ... Historically, when the (Public Works Department) PWD wants to put up a building or any structure, we don't ask permission from anybody, since the PWD is the prime department and the government agency to do it." Both parties also cited different section of the Road Transport Act 1987.

On May 20, the New Straits Times reported that corals near the island of Sipadan off the cost of Sabah was destroyed by a barge which was carrying construction materials for upgrading in the island. What is more surprising is that the Chief Minister of Sabah does not know about the construction work. He said: "In May last year, a proposal was submitted to me for a RM2.6 million project to build some facilities there. I asked the then Finance Ministry permanent secretary to check and brief me further, but I never heard anything again until I read reports about destruction at Sipadan." It was his understanding that the project was initiated by the Tourism, Environment and Culture Ministry through Sabah Parks. The Minister Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat clarified that the contract was approved by the State Government.

On May 23, Home Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said that the movie The Last Communist may be screened locally if the Umno supreme council gives its approval. The next day, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said that it is the Government and not Umno that decides whether a film can be released for public screening, as under the Film Censorship Act, the Home Affairs Minister has the final say on whether or not to allow the screening of a film.

The three cases are perfect examples of one of the many problems that plaque the governance in Malaysia. Malaysia has many Ministries and departments from municipal level to state level till the federal level. All sectors seemed to have been covered. Unfortunately in spite of/because of too many levels of bureaucracy, sometimes instructions got lost somewhere along its transmission and chaos happens. This is also partly due to too many Acts and by-laws without a proper Ministry overseeing it. As a result, there are too many overlaps and redundancies creating a cacophony of rules. Each is able to interpret as selected section of the law and each will still be legally right!

What the government should do now is perhaps to ask the Attorney-General office to draw up a protocol of the hierarchy of the various Ministries, departments and councils from the federal, state and municipal levels. This way, there will be no discrepancy or confusion as to who should be giving out permits. If there is confusions among the various government agencies, how do you expect the common man-in-street to understand? With less ambuguity, there will be greater accountability because now no agency can plead ignorance or push blame to one another.

Secondly, the Attorney-General office should also look into all the laws with a view of tightening up any loose, ambiguous or redundant laws. By so doing, there will be less of a chance for misinterpretation and less loopholes for would-be offenders pass through.

Given such a mammonth task for the Attorney-General office, maybe it is high-time to reintroduce the Law Ministry. The Law Ministry was removed during the later years of the Mahathir administration. The de-facto 'Law Minister' then was actually a Minister in the Prime Minister's department. Maybe the rule of law was not of the highest priority then. Given that we now have 6 Ministers in the Prime Minister's department, reintroducing the Law Ministry does not mean extra expenditure to the government. Surely one of them can be put to better use. Incidentally, the reason why Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim knows about the Home Affairs Minister's power of approving movie screening under the Film Censorship Act is because he was, and later the de facto, Law Minister. Sadly even the Home Affairs Minister is unaware of the provision. This goes to show how important the Law Ministry is.