卫生白皮书引领卫生改革的实质讨论

 自凯里被委任为卫生部长以来，他启动和努力打造的《卫生白皮书》终于在6月13日由接任的卫生部长扎丽哈发布并提呈给国会。经过与许多利益相关者多轮谘询和反馈，白皮书能在不同的部长和政府下继续生存面世，这绝非易事。

这份厚达57页的文件，目前只有马来文版本，是卫生部立下里程碑的重要策略性出版物，或可说是自10多年前卫生部提出1Care医疗改革倡议以来最大胆的系统和结构改革声明。能发布这白皮书也说明，卫生部及旗下公务员能批判性地体认这国家的卫生健康挑战和核心问题，而不需政府花费宝贵的纳税人钱，高价聘请国际谘询公司做研究或提供“建议”。

当年卫生部单方面宣传1Care卫生制度大改革是个大败笔，时任卫生部长廖中莱并没有很强的政治意愿。由于1Care倡议从目前的政府津贴和服务制度改去独立的健保制度，人民将会要因此额外付出保金。这个倡议不受公民社会欢迎，到了2013年大选，1Care就被搁置。卫生部显然已吸取了过去1Care的教训，它在过去一年制定《卫生白皮书》时与超过800个利益相关者以及超过7000参与者接触，并听取了他们的意见。现在卫生部决心在议会里为这个15年计划寻求和争取跨党派支持。

这份文件中提出了许多重大改革建议： 将卫生部作为服务提供单位和购买单位的角色分开；给予医院和初级卫生保健（PHC）团队自主权；为卫生基金创建一个专门的公共账户；创建一个新的策略购买单位；加强公共和私营领域以及非政府组织在提供健康医疗服务方面的合作和资源整合；通过建立社区的PHC团队，从“疾病护理”迈向促进和预防保健（promotive and preventive care）的模式转变；采用电子医疗记录和电子终身健康记录；等等。

有鉴于现有卫生系统和普遍政府运作的局限和挑战，再加上白皮书第一章概述的社会人口和健康趋势，卫生部清楚地认知维持现状是不可持续的，不再是一个良好选择。

他们所提倡的建议并非没有挑战：为了将公共卫生投资增加到国内生产总值的5%，白皮书建议不要仅依赖一个金钱来源（即联邦财政预算对卫生部的拨款），而是要实现财源多样化并汇集在一起： 官联公司、个人贡献、wakaf、基金会和私人捐赠。所谓的“国家卫生缴费计划”（skim caruman kesihatan negara）在白皮书里没有提及具体细节；它或会引起争议，因为白皮书已呼吁要调整《收费法》下的收费结构。这个计划让人想起了当年1Care的健保倡议，当时遭受多人的反对。

小心政客煽动情绪

原则上，我同意医疗支出应该有交叉补贴。有能力承担医疗费用的高收入家庭不应如低收入家庭成员那般获得高额补贴。但是，习惯了在政府医疗设施象征性付费，突然要求某一家庭收入阶层开始支付或缴纳费用给某项医疗基金，或不容易让受影响的民众明白其中的必要。我可以想像，更多的民粹主义政客会利用这个课题煽动情绪，把它描绘成受影响家庭的不公平损失。

然而，我不确定该计划是否会有如过去1Care提案中的健保强制付费机制。我不会为类似健康保险的计划背书，因为运行一个类似的系统的行政成本很高，一些社会人士很容易会被该系统排除在外并被边缘化。因此，我有兴趣知道的是，《卫生白皮书》中提及的所谓“健康福利配套”的实际好处和效果如何，它是否有如目前的PeKaB40计划，即人们不必为所提供的健康检查服务付费。

在规划和管理方面，卫生部有许多改革的承诺，以证据、价值和需求为决策根据。白皮书也非常强调公共和私营领域之间更好的整合、资源共享与合作。我有顾虑的是，若私人界将自己的既得利益置于公共利益之上，那么公私合营计划是否真的有利于人民？潜在的风险和成本会是什么？私人界会完全信任政府吗？政府会向私人界的要求让步、妥协多少？

即使是将服务提供单位和购买单位的角色分开，我很想知道到底卫生部如何才能有效地做到这一点，而不会增加更多的官僚行政，最终影响医疗服务的效率和素质。我理解卫生部声称要避免所谓的“利益冲突”说法——可能是在狭义下，卫生部旗下各部门在联邦预算底下有限的项目资源分配，各自划分争夺和圈定资源，尽管卫生部的这两个角色在很大程度上仍为公众利益和需求而服务。我担心角色分离后会导致把关者划地为王，“购买单位”或可限制或拒绝服务单位的更多真正需求。

尽管如此，我还是相当乐见卫生部为改革我国的卫生系统所付出的真诚努力，使其系统可持续为民众提供更好的服务和导向更良好的健康结果。卫生改革应该如何，《卫生白皮书》提供了基础让大家可实质讨论，这是改革的开始。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2023年6月21日 

東方臉書鏈接

Encouraging substantive discussion on health reform in Malaysia (original unedited article)

Encouraging substantive discussion on health reform in Malaysia

The Health White Paper, which has been the brainchild and effort of Khairy Jamaluddin since he was appointed Health Minister, was finally published and tabled in Parliament on 13 June. The fact that it could survive under different ministers and governments after rounds of consultations and feedback from many stakeholders, is no easy feat.

The 57-page document, currently only available in Bahasa Malaysia, is a landmark publication by the Health Ministry, probably the boldest for systemic and structural reform since the Ministry proposed 1Care more than 10 years ago. But this document also shows that the Health Ministry and its civil servants can critically acknowledge what the health challenges and issues are in this country without the government having to spend precious taxpayers’ money on a particular international consultancy firm to carry out a study or ‘advise’.

The Health Ministry has learned the lessons of 1Care in the past, it has engaged with and listened to many stakeholders in developing the Health White Paper, and it is now determined to build cross-party support in Parliament for the 15-year plan.

There are many big calls made in this document: Separation of the Ministry's roles as service provider and purchaser; autonomy for hospitals and Primary Health Care (PHC) teams; creation of a dedicated public account for the health fund; creation of a new Strategic Purchaser entity; greater collaboration and integration between the public and private sectors and NGOs in service delivery; a paradigm shift from 'sick care' to promotive and preventive health care through the establishment of community-based PHC teams; adoption of the use of Electronic Medical Records and Electronic Lifetime Health Records; and others.

Given the limitations and challenges of the existing health system and larger government operations, as well as the social demographic and health trends outlined in the first chapter of the document, it is clear to the Health Ministry that maintaining the status quo is unsustainable and no longer a good option.

The proposals they call for are not without challenges: to increase public investment in health to 5% of GDP, the Paper suggests not relying on one source (federal budget allocation to the Health Ministry) but diversifying and pooling resources: GLCs, individual contributions, wakaf, foundations and donations. The exact details of the mechanism for the so-called 'National Health Contribution Scheme' (‘skim caruman kesihatan negara’) are not mentioned; it could be controversial, as the Paper has already called for the adjustment of the fee structure under the Fee Act. The scheme reminds some of the 1Care proposal, where it was met with many objections.

In principle, I agree that there should be cross-subsidisation of health expenditure, that higher income households that can afford to pay for health care should not be subsidised as much as lower income household members. It may not be easy to get the message across to ask a certain income segment of the household to start paying or contributing to a certain health fund. I can imagine that the more populist politicians would exploit this sentiment and portray it as an unfair loss for the affected households.

However, I am not sure whether the scheme would have the compulsory health insurance feature of the 1Care proposal. I would not vouch for it, given the high administrative costs of running an insurance-like system, some members could easily be left out and marginalised by the system. So it would be interesting to see how the so-called 'health benefit package' mentioned in the Health White Paper actually works out, whether it is similar to the current PeKaB40 packages where people do not have to pay for the health screening services provided.

There are many promises of reform in planning and management based on evidence, value and need. There is much emphasis on better integration, resource sharing and collaboration between the public and private sectors. My concern is that if the private sector puts its own vested interests ahead of the public interest, would the public-private partnership deals really benefit the people? What would be the potential risks and costs? Would the private sector fully trust the government? How much does the government have to give in to the demands of the private sector?

Even in terms of separating the Health Ministry's roles as provider and purchaser, I would be interested to see how this could be done effectively without adding layers of bureaucracy that would impact on the efficiency of health service delivery. I understand where the narrative of avoiding the so-called 'conflict of interest' comes from, probably in the narrow sense of resource demarcation of federal budget items, although both roles should still largely work for the public interest and demand. I am concerned that the role separation can lead to gatekeeping, where the 'purchaser' can limit or deny more genuine demand for services.

Nevertheless, I welcome this as a serious and sincere effort by the Health Ministry to reform and transform our health system to make it more sustainable and deliver better health outcomes for the population. This should be the beginning of a substantive discussion on what the health reform should look like.

 

 

Health white paper the first step to meaningful reform discourse

 

The health white paper, the initiative of former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin, was finally published and tabled in parliament on June 13.

The 57-page document, currently only available in Bahasa Malaysia, is a landmark publication by the Health Ministry. It is probably the boldest step for systemic and structural reform since the ministry proposed 1Care more than 10 years ago.

This document also shows that the Health Ministry can acknowledge what the health challenges and issues are in this country without the government having to spend precious taxpayers’ money on a particular international consultancy firm to carry out a study or “‘advise”.

The Health Ministry has learnt from the lessons of 1Care. It listened to the stakeholders while drafting the white paper, and it is now determined to build cross-party support in parliament for the 15-year plan.

The paper makes many big calls: separation of the ministry’s roles as service provider and purchaser; autonomy for hospitals and primary healthcare (PHC) teams; creation of a dedicated public account for the health fund; creation of a new strategic purchaser entity; greater collaboration and integration between the public and private sectors and NGOs in service delivery; a paradigm shift from “sick care” to promotive and preventive health care through the establishment of community-based PHC teams; adoption of the use of electronic medical records.

Given the limitations and challenges of the existing health system and larger government operations, as well as the social demographic and health trends outlined in the first chapter of the document, it is clear to the Health Ministry that it is unsustainable to maintain the status quo.

The proposals it calls for are not without challenges: to increase public investment in health to 5% of GDP, the paper suggests not relying on one source (federal budget allocation) but diversifying and pooling the resources of government-linked companies, individual contributions, wakaf, foundations, and donations.

The mechanism for the so-called National Health Contribution Scheme (“Skim Caruman Kesihatan Negara”) is not mentioned; it could be controversial, as the paper already calls for the adjustment of the fee structure under the Fee Act.

The scheme reminds some of the 1Care proposal, which was met with many objections.

In principle, I agree that there should be cross-subsidisation of health expenditure, that higher income households that can afford to pay for healthcare should not be subsidised as much as lower-income households.

But it might not be easy to get selected income groups to start contributing to a health fund.

I imagine the more populist politicians would seize the chance to portray the move as an unfair loss for the affected households.

But it is uncertain if the scheme would have the compulsory health insurance feature of the 1Care proposal. I would not vouch for it, given the high administrative costs of running an insurance system. Some members could easily be left out.

It will be interesting to see how the so-called “health benefit package” mentioned in the health white paper actually works out; whether it is similar to the current PeKaB40 packages that do not require people to pay for the health screening services that they provide.

The paper holds many promises of reform to planning and management based on evidence, value and need. There is much emphasis on better integration, resource sharing and collaboration between the public and private sectors.

My concern is that should the private sector put its own interests ahead of public interest, would the public-private partnership deals really benefit the people? What are the potential risks and costs? Will the private sector fully trust the government? How much does the government have to give in to the demands of the private sector?

As to separating the Health Ministry’s roles as provider and purchaser, I would be interested to see how this could be done without adding layers of bureaucracy that would affect the efficiency of health service delivery. I understand the risk of so-called “conflict of interest in the narrow sense of resource demarcation of federal budget items, although both roles should still largely work for the public interest and demand. I am concerned that the role of separation can lead to gatekeeping where the “purchaser” can limit or deny more genuine demand for services.

Nevertheless, I welcome the paper as a serious and sincere effort by the Health Ministry to reform and transform our health system for better sustainability and to deliver better health outcomes for the population.

This should be the beginning of a substantive discussion on what the health reform should look like.

159th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 19 Jun 2023 

數據研究經驗談

 我希望我國教育能培養出有一定解讀和分析數據能力的民眾。同時，大眾要能明白和珍惜數據收集、處理、核對、分析、製圖、發表和表達等整個過程牽涉的人力和技術。數據是有價值的，需要創造和管理的，這不是理所當然。要特別小心某些利益集團正收集和濫用有關你的個人資料。因此，政府應該加強管制個人數據和資料的收集、傳送和使用。

---

【文／林志翰】

數據——在日常生活裡，對一般人以及研究員而言有什麼意義，兩者看待數據的態度又有什麼不同？你會相信數據，被數據說服嗎？開放數據是好東西？或者局限應該在哪裡？本文憑著作者過去的學習和工作經驗嘗試回答這些提問。

或有人會埋怨為何政府或機構乃至公司單位不提供完整數據。究竟如何才算完整數據呢？我們可否先知道這些數據是否存在、以什麼格式存在，才來質疑這些單位不能或不願意全部公開的原因。

數據不會從天而降。首先一定要考慮是否有收集數據資訊的機制——這就是原始數據（primary data）或數據的最小單位的來源。比如，你想知道巴生（Klang）有多少家餐館，那麼對官方數據來源而言，地方政府和衛生部即以這些餐館業者申請執照時提呈的數據為準。

如果你要知道更仔細的資訊。比如，巴生有多少家肉骨茶餐館，那就要看這些餐館業主註冊時是否有需要填寫註明餐廳的種類。否則，你就得憑著餐廳名稱來作判斷其種類。除了業主自己填寫資料的統計，第三方也可通過本身的市場調查方式或搜索來估計這數目。

再來相當重要的是，數據的定義。就以上的例子，何謂「餐館」（外賣為主的飲料店或雪糕店算嗎？），「肉骨茶」（攤位檔口而已算嗎？），甚至「巴生」是指哪個範圍（根據地方政府的管轄範圍、國會議席選區、土地局劃定的市區還是縣區？）。數據統計的結果有分歧就可能是計算方式或定義不同而導致。

數據統計的準確度和確信度視所謂定義的可被接受程度。經常被環保份子挑戰和質疑的數據就如：永久森林保護區（Hutan simpanan kekal）和森林覆蓋地面積，只因為政府引用的定義是根據土地的憲報類別，而非通過高空俯視圖或親臨鑒定該區是否還有森林。結果，政府的森林數據可說統計得不夠精確、不符合現實，很多稱呼為永久森林保護區是不見（原始）樹，也不見林，已被夷平為曠地，或全部已翻種為橡膠樹等。

不少人容易誤會數據就等於統計數據（Statistics）。沒錯，統計數據是摘自原始數據，再演算綜合分析而成。同樣的原始數據庫可以導出各種統計數據，若有關當局全都發佈，會有意義嗎？因此，很多時候當局鎖定某些統計數據，定期公佈給大眾。這對於他們的部門或機構職責和功能而言是最主要或最重要的。同時，這也是公眾有可能最在乎和最期待的數據組。可是，一般上的政府數據會停留在全國或到州級的統計。這讓研究員（無論是政策或市場調查）都很懊惱。他們會要求縣級、地方政府管轄區、乃至國州議席選區的數據細分。當中的理由很簡單，國和州依然是很大的範圍的。如果只是綜合平均起來的數字，很容易忽略問題嚴重的地區或受影響的社區群體。

經常遇到公眾或研究員要求有關當局提供根據種族群體的統計數據細分。在我國這個族群分化仍相當嚴重的國度，這樣的要求可說是反映出國情和文化。可惜，這不盡然合情合理，怎麼說？這通常容易導致種族偏見和衝突。比如，衛生部公佈骨痛熱症（dengue fever）數據，但并没有刊出受感染的族群統計分類。二〇二一年，我國有26000宗骨痛熱症病例。假設其中馬來土著有18000宗，華裔有4000宗，這數據要如何解讀和比較？最糟糕的是，公眾揣測和污名化某些族群，指責相關群體「髒」、「懶惰」，或說某些生活文化習慣造成病例嚴重。毫無科學根據地解讀這樣的統計，反而不會對社會有幫助。

坦白說，不少工作單位和機構，由於職務和功能的關係，一直收集大量不同組別的數據。有時。公眾會認為政府若不公開數據，就是有所隱瞞。但是，真的有可能都公開所有的數據嗎？不知大家還記不記得，我國處在新冠疫情正嚴重之時，各界一直施壓政府公開數據。最後，政府在凱里（Khairy Jamaluddin）擔任衛生部長期間，公佈相當仔細的部分原始數據（列明每個病例的基本資料），放置在衛生部的Covid-19 GitHub數據庫。可是，這是一個充滿大量數字的數據庫，只有對數據有分析能力的研究員才會有幫助，一般公眾看不懂。

再說，這些數據需要有人負責設立機制收集和處理、檢查核對準確度、演算統計，甚至有時需要製圖及分析。這些都是耗時耗力的工作。若是政府聘請公務員來每天執行這些任務，這也會花費不少納稅人的錢。同時，也不是每個政府部門和機構都有相關技術和能力的公務員處理公開數據和統計。因此，若要定期公佈數據的細分細節，當局就要在資源有限的情況下斟酌和取捨。這無關要隱瞞。此外，很多數據也牽涉到個人和群體隱私問題，不能、也不該直接公佈。

當然，如果政府部門有意願、有技術、也有資源，當然也可以做得更好。就如衛生部在新冠疫情期間與COVIDNOW私人技術團隊合作，架設了一個有關最新官方疫情資訊的衛生部網站，這個就能讓大部分公眾和媒體輕易了解統計數據和圖表，達到傳達訊息和消息的目的。另一公私合作的應用程式KitaJaga，結合了國內貿易及生活費部PriceCatcher和統計局提供的數據，通過私人開發的平台把數據資訊以地圖定位分佈的方式公開分享給公眾。

另外，就個人隱私而言，我們其實更應擔心的是私人界，特別是跨國科技巨頭如谷歌（Google）、臉書（Facebook）等掌握我們的數據資料。這些數據資料是每一天，甚至是每時每刻都提供給這些企業的。當你發現有人會突然發短訊給你，或社交媒體的廣告對準你不久前刷屏、點擊或搜索，甚至是與人聊天的內容，你就知道個人資訊被商品化，你的隱私隨時被侵犯。

一般上，一些涉及敏感及隱私的個人數據，例如，某些疾病研究需要病例個案資料，那麼該研究員就得做好研究計劃書，以向醫藥倫理委員會申請批准，確保只有通過檢驗和倫理審查的特定人士才能獲得某些數據。相關研究必須帶著有利科學和社會利益的目的。更常見的是，研究員需要先得到相關研究對象的同意才行。因此，在這些情況，不自動公開數據是一個負責任的程序和方式，以防止資料數據遭到濫用。

數據是有價值的。公開數據對於每個人會有不同的價值。基本上，私人界也可獲取和利用這些數據。若這些有助於為社會和經濟活動增值，我覺得無可厚非。

本人身為研究員，平時最難得到的（免費）數據資料就是源自於私人界。私人界需要獲取的資料，倘若不在政府平時收集的範圍，一般會通過第三方：如市場調查機構或咨詢公司購買獲取資料。這些數據資料價格不菲。但是，有些攸關大眾利益的數據，例如：掌握在私人醫院診所的醫療和消費數據、公交經營者的乘客路線乘搭數據、私人教育學府的課程人數和收入等。這些業者必須強制繳交某些統計數據給當局。最好能與公立機構的統計數據公開程度相符，不能以商業機密為藉口不配合。更何況，這些私人機構都由官聯公司管理或掌控，自然應該可以在公開數據上扮演角色。

最後，我希望我國教育能培養出有一定解讀和分析數據能力的民眾。同時，大眾要能明白和珍惜數據收集、處理、核對、分析、製圖、發表和表達等整個過程牽涉的人力和技術。數據是有價值的，需要創造和管理的，這不是理所當然。要特別小心某些利益集團正收集和濫用有關你的個人資料。因此，政府應該加強管制個人數據和資料的收集、傳送和使用。

原文鏈接：http://contemporary-review.com.my/2023/04/28/1-518/

Full Response to TOC on royal pardon for Najib (21 Apr)

 

1.  In your opinion, why is UMNO so keen on freeing Najib? Is it because they view him as their potential "savior" to win back Malay support?

Najib to UMNO is like Erling Haaland to Manchester City, in football terms, Najib is definitely UMNO's superstar striker, he can score 'goals' and provide big 'assists' for UMNO, winning back votes and seats for UMNO, which desperately needs such a turnaround in their political fortunes.

How strong is his 'firepower': his social media influence?

Here are his follower numbers on some key platforms:

4.1 million (Twitter), 4.6 million (Facebook), 1 million (Instagram). 

He often knows how to create a hot topic of discussion with his witty short comments, poking fun at political opponents.

His influence is not only on social media, but look at the whirlwind he created wherever he went (when he was still a free man). His star power cannot be overstated, and he is likely to retain it and has the ability to draw large crowds. 

Looking at the by-election results since the Tanjung Piai by-election, and recalling the outcome of 2 major state elections in Melaka and Johor, Najib's involvement had certainly helped the case and brought the most favourable results for UMNO.

Compare again what has happened to UMNO since Najib is in jail? UMNO and BN could only win 30 seats in GE15, another half of their last so-called worst performance in GE14. What's more damning? UMNO-BN lost their votes to PN because the latter was said to have a more influential and effective social media campaign!

Those in UMNO who want Najib’s release are surely hoping he will help the campaign, especially in the crucial upcoming 6 state elections.

 

2.   Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaacob has described the alliance between PH and UMNO as a "forced marriage." Do you agree with this description, and what implications could it have for the Unity Government?

I do not think that the political alliance between PH and UMNO is a "forced marriage", but see it as a "marriage of convenience" - both sides, especially the leaders, are willing parties, more than happy to hold hands and join forces as long as they can share the spoils of government and stay in power. UMNO could have gotten a worse deal if it had been "forced" to form a coalition government with PN; similarly, PH doesn't have enough seats to form a government on its own, and would certainly be happy if the "kingmaker" UMNO-BN decided to back PH to lead the new government after GE15.

But what Ismail Sabri said could have implications for UMNO's reputation and image. He made UMNO sound like it was compromising too much, forced to play second fiddle to PH, the former political opponent UMNO always tries to demonise. Ismail Sabri's statement could be perceived and resonate with traditional UMNO supporters, especially by casting doubt on the party's unchallenged president, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

 

3.  With the Royal pardon petition to free Najib gaining momentum, could this jeopardize the stability of the ruling Unity Government coalition?

If political mileage is the only consideration, rather than principles of justice, even PH would have much to gain from a royal pardon for Najib. They might want UMNO to strengthen their hands and not concede any more seats to the PN in the upcoming 6 state elections. Moreover, if it were a decision by the royalty, "at the king's discretion" as Law Minister Azalina claimed, the government should not be implicated in influencing it.

However, it took Transport Minister and DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke to issue a statement distancing the government from the royal pardon petition and saying that it was UMNO's stance to support it. He only said that the matter was never discussed in the cabinet meeting, stopping short of saying that he or his party colleagues disagreed with the royal pardon petition. In fact, not many politicians in the unity government have voiced their objections. It is unclear how this petition could threaten the stability of the government, but if members of the ruling coalition are seen not to be helping, or worse, blocking UMNO's efforts, tensions could arise.

4.    If Najib is freed, what political costs could Anwar and PH potentially face?

 

PN supporters would definitely call the bluff of Anwar and PH's anti-corruption stance if the government's efforts were impartial or merely for political convenience: how could a convicted person with strong evidence of corruption go free while their PN leaders are now being investigated and 'harassed' by the corruption charges? PN supporters would cry injustice and claim victimhood, and this could reinforce the perception among ordinary people that the government is selectively prosecuting to score political points. Certainly, PH supporters would defend that this is not the government's position and that it is unfair to accuse their leaders, but this news may not go down well with many.

5.    Will UMNO lose more Malay support to Perikatan National if they continue to push for Najib's release?

UMNO would definitely like to have Najib's superstar power to help with the campaign to deter the PN; it is a safer bet that UMNO stands to gain more if Najib is released.

On the other hand, if Najib does not get his wish, UMNO would have to face the louder music from the PN.

From a technical point of view, as there are still a number of charges against Najib that have not been completed in court, there could be some risks if Najib could be sent back to jail for other convictions... Then there is the question of if Najib is released now on royal pardon, what about later, could he get another chance?

Najib can be liability to UMNO to win back Malay support as they push for his royal pardon, says political analyst （21 Apr Interview by TOC）

 

‘Najib to UMNO is like Erling Haaland to Manchester City’

Dr Lim Chee Han, Co-founder of Agora Society Malaysia, suggested that Najib to UMNO is like Erling Haaland to Manchester City, “Najib is definitely UMNO’s superstar striker, he can score ‘goals’ and provide big ‘assists’ for UMNO, winning back votes and seats for UMNO, which desperately needs such a turnaround in their political fortunes.”

According to Dr Lim, Najib’s social media following is massive, with 4.6 million followers on Facebook, 1 million on Instagram, and 4.1 million on Twitter.

“He often knows how to create a hot topic of discussion with his witty short comments, poking fun at political opponents,” said Dr Lim in an interview with TOC.

Looking at the by-election results since the Tanjung Piai by-election, and recalling the outcome of 2 major state elections in Melaka and Johor, Najib’s involvement had certainly helped the case and brought the most favourable results for UMNO.

Dr Lim noted that UMNO’s performance in GE15 was poor due to losing votes to PN, partly attributed to the latter’s more effective social media campaign, and those in UMNO hoping for Najib’s release to boost their chances in the upcoming state elections.

AD

PH might want UMNO to strengthen their hands

Regarding the potential impact of a royal pardon for Najib on the ruling Unity Government’s stability, Dr Lim suggested that even PH could benefit from such a move if political gains outweigh justice.

“They might want UMNO to strengthen their hands and not concede any more seats to the PN in the upcoming six state elections. ”

Moreover, if it were a decision by the royalty, “at the king’s discretion” as Law Minister Azalina claimed, the government should not be implicated in influencing it.

He mentioned that Transport Minister and DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke from PH, distanced the government from the petition, but did not voice objections or mention any disagreement from his party colleagues.

...

PN supporters would definitely call the bluff of Anwar and PH’s anti-corruption stance

Dr Lim also warned that PN supporters would definitely call out Anwar and PH on their anti-corruption stance: how could a convicted person with strong evidence of corruption go free while their PN leaders are now being investigated and ‘harassed’ by the corruption charges?

“PN supporters would cry injustice and claim victimhood, and this could reinforce the perception among ordinary people that the government is selectively prosecuting to score political points. ”

...

Dr Lim: political alliance between PH and UMNO as a “marriage of convenience”

Meanwhile, Dr Lim does not think that the political alliance between PH and UMNO is a “forced marriage”, but rather a “marriage of convenience”.

“Both sides, especially the leaders, are willing parties, more than happy to hold hands and join forces as long as they can share the spoils of government and stay in power. ”

He said UMNO could have gotten a worse deal if it had been “forced” to form a coalition government with PN.

Similarly, PH doesn’t have enough seats to form a government on its own, and it would certainly be happy if the “kingmaker” UMNO-BN decided to back PH to lead the new government after GE15.

Dr Lim said Ismail Sabri’s statement could harm UMNO’s reputation by portraying the party as compromising too much and playing second fiddle to former political opponent PH, which could cast doubt on party president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and resonate with traditional UMNO supporters.

...

Full article URL here: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/21/najib-can-be-liability-to-umno-to-win-back-malay-support-as-they-push-for-his-royal-pardon-says-political-analyst

988時事100度-4月28日

 

点评课题：

1. 传国盟拉拢议员辞职补选倒安华

2. 巫统恳求元首特赦纳吉

3. 反贪会调查法官掀起的争议

現場點評錄影：

https://fb.watch/kccMSrhV6G/

议员可以或应该随意跳槽吗？（董总《中学生》4月版）

 马来西亚是个君主立宪的民主国家，这个国家体制承袭自1957年生效的马来亚联邦宪法（1963年改名为马来西亚联邦宪法）。

我国之所以是个民主国家，其中一个重大要素是我国有定期举行选举：国会选举选出各选区的人民代议士（国会议员，目前有222席）。当中掌握最多议员支持的人选出任首相，首相则有权推荐最高元首委任他的内阁成员（部长们）及其他前座议员（副部长们）。这些就是所谓的民选政府。同样的过程，州选举也推选出州务大臣或首长，由他们组织州内阁。

首相人选依照惯例是由国会最大联盟和政党的党魁来担任，过去在国民阵线（国阵）一党独大的情况下毫无疑问地让胜选的巫统主席任相。在我国，议员通常都拥有党籍，独立议员是极少数。政党在民主制度里扮演着重要的角色，其中一个是代表某种政治理念和原则，让拥有相同价值观的人民可以自由结社组织政党，聚集力量动员争取更多选民的支持，以让该党的候选人（通常已是党员）可以胜选落实这些政治理念。

选举时，政党竞选机器启动，投入资源为旗下的候选人助选。投票日当天，选民的选票上有该候选人的名字和党标志并列在一起。除非那人是独立候选人使用指定的标志之一，选民投票既是投给候选人也投给政党。

在马来西亚，特别是西马，政党代表身份特别影响选民的投票倾向。“选党不选人”倾向，对于华裔选民来说更为明显——根据去年大选成绩分析，高达94%华裔选民一面倒投给希望联盟（希盟）候选人。

1988年沙里尔退出巫统后，以独立人士身份竞选新山国席补选胜出已成为了西马政治的绝响了；而2018年大选峇都国会议席由巴拉峇卡兰以独立人士胜出，情况不一样不能算数，原因是获得被取消竞选资格的希盟原任候选人蔡添强的全力支持。后来该议员也加入了公正党。

在还未制定《反跳槽法》之前，无论是国会议席或州议席皆属于该议员的名下，而议员本身在任的时候仍享有结社自由。跳槽，意即从A党议员退党转为B党议员，但也有人先转为独立议员，过后才加入另一政党，这些动作过去都不会影响该议员的资格。

在我国，议员跳槽事件过去一直频频发生。国阵长年执政中央时，跳槽通常是单向的，少有动摇政权，除了联邦执政党国阵要篡权。沙巴州在历史上多次民选政府易手，以及2009年霹雳民联州政府垮台就是其中的例子。还有，跳槽议员被收买、获得金钱利益或权位好处一直被人诟病，相信不少选民也会生气自己选出的政党代表背叛了他们的委托，可是过去人民似乎都在容忍着“跳槽文化”。

2020年喜来登政变和随后的政治动荡席卷多个州政权，如沙巴、马六甲和柔佛，这些都与议员为了政治利益跳槽或撤消对政府的支持有关。这些政治动荡的负面影响严重冲击选民对民主选举制度的信心，成为了依斯迈沙比里领导的政府与希盟领袖签署合作备忘录里要落实的重要政治改革法案之一：反跳槽法，并于去年7月28日在国会一致通过修改宪法，法律在10月5日生效。

《反跳槽法》主要针对结社自由方面设下了限制，列明在任的国会议员和州议员的权益受限于第49A新增条例。而这条例说明一位议员如果他退党或不再是该党党员（‘ceases to be a member of the political party’）将丧失议员资格，议席将悬空进行补选（但该人可以再参选）。同时胜选的独立议员也不能在选后加入政党。只有三种情况下是例外，可保住议员资格：该议员（一）党籍因党解散而受影响；（二）获委任为议长后而退党；（三）被开除党籍。

可惜这个法律并不完美。例外（三）是跨党议员们辩论政策妥协的结果，主要是担心党领导坐大，要议员们“听话”，不然被开除就丧失席位代表资格。可是这个例外却与“不再是该党党员”的条例有所冲突。因此，在大选前，民主行动党和诚信党分别召开特别大会修改党章阐明何谓“不再是该党党员”，为的是避免未来行动被诠释为“开除党籍”。笔者认为这并不足以化解争议。

去年底闹得沸沸扬扬的沙巴人民联盟（GRS）原籍沙巴土团党的4名议员宣布退出原党（包括沙巴首长哈芝芝本身），这动作也惹了不少宪法诠释的争议。由于这4名议员辩称自己是在GRS的旗帜下竞选，GRS也允许直属成员，所以没有违反《反跳槽法》。而沙巴州宪法里还未加入《反跳槽法》，以致14名前沙巴土团党州议员可过关转换新党籍身份。到底《反跳槽法》里诠释的政党是否已足够清楚，可以包括已注册的政治联盟吗？这起沙巴个案让人看到了《反跳槽法》的漏洞。

除此之外，《反跳槽法》也无法阻挡政党集体选择换边支持，因此不能阻止类似喜来登政变：土团党退出希盟，联合另一边的政治势力组织新政府的结果。《反跳槽法》固然有其不足之处，但至少可以有效减缓直接跳槽所带来的政局动荡。笔者也支持增设《罢免法》，好让选民有机会针对一位议员的滥权、失信或行为不检，在任期内收回对他的委托，因为《反跳槽法》就只涵盖议员的跳槽行为而已。

原文链接：

https://dzblueprint.dongzong.my/component/content/article/121-author/1104-1104

Podcast:

Malaysia takes significant step towards abolition of death penalty, say activists (TOC, 10 Apr)

 Malaysia has taken a significant step towards the abolition of the death penalty by passing the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Bill 2023 in its Lower House of Parliament on 3 April.

The abolishment of the mandatory death penalty means that judges will now have discretion in considering all the circumstances of the offense and the offender before deciding whether to impose a death sentence or a prison sentence not exceeding 40 years.

The bill will now go to Malaysia’s upper house, the Dewan Negara, for review and, if passed, will be sent to the King for signing into law. The upper house is expected to test the bills on 11 April.

The bill replaces 11 offences previously punishable by an automatic death sentence with discretionary sentences to be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges.

The death penalty will also be removed as an option for some serious crimes that do not cause death, such as discharging of a firearm and trafficking and kidnapping.

The bill received unanimous support from lawmakers and will reduce the number of offences punishable by death and abolish natural life prison sentences.

Since 2018, Malaysia has placed a moratorium on executions, and this new law is seen as a crucial move towards restricting the use of capital punishment.

Civil society in Malaysia and international rights groups welcomed the passing of the bill in Malaysia’s Parliament, believing that the abolition of the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia is a significant achievement for Malaysia’s civil society efforts.

AD

Ngeow Chow Ying, a practising lawyer in Kuala Lumpur and anti-death penalty activist, said many individuals and human rights organisation in Malaysia has long advocated for the abolition of the death penalty.

“The move towards abolition of the death penalty ran across five different governments and over a decade. It is the collective efforts of all involved in shaping public narrative and pushing for the law maker to take up the reform. ”

Ms Ngeow was part of a team of lawyers who represented Malaysian Yong Vui Kong and joined the ‘Save Vui Kong’ campaign, which advocated clemency for Mr Yong, who was on death row for drug trafficking in Singapore.

Vui Kong was arrested in June 2007. He was 18 and a half years old then. The Singapore courts subsequently sentenced him to death for trafficking 47g of heroin into Singapore.

He was originally scheduled to hang on 4 December 2009, but back then, the Yong family, civil society groups both in Malaysia and Singapore worked round the clock, organising public forums and collecting signatures online and on the streets to appeal to then-President Nathan to spare Vui Kong’s life.

On 14 November 2013, Yong’s death penalty was lifted after he was given the Certificate of Cooperation by Singapore’s Attorney-General’s Chambers.

He was the first drug trafficker on death row in the country to have his sentence reduced to life imprisonment. The ‘Save Vui Kong’ campaign was widely seen as a successful example of how civil society groups can help to secure justice for individuals facing the death penalty.

Crucial step towards the total abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia

Dr Lim Chee Han, Co-founder of Agora Society Malaysia, stated that the move is a “huge step forward”, as the movement towards abolition started with the Save Vui Kong campaign in 2010, and since then, civil society has engaged with the public, politicians, and the government.

AD

“While there have been other notable milestones, such as the moratorium on death penalty executions since 2018, the removal of the 11 mandatory death sentence offences is a key stepping stone towards abolition, and there are law ministers, past and present, who are working towards this goal.”

Both Dr Lim and Ms Ngeow agreed that the abolition of the mandatory death penalty is a crucial step towards the total abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

Ms Ngeow also noted that the current law reform is a clear example that it takes political will to bring about the abolition of the death penalty, while previous governments had talked about abolition, it took only three months for the current government to make it a reality.

“With the moratorium in place, society will slowly accept that we actually don’t need to execute people to keep us safe. There are more to law and order than simply killing. ”

Professor Saul Lehrfreund, Co-Executive Director of The Death Penalty Project, believes that the passing of the bill is a major milestone for Malaysia and could inspire other countries in the region to reform their own death penalty laws.

“Malaysia’s move comes at a time when some Southeast Asian countries have increased their use of capital punishment,” said Prof Lehrfreund

‘Malaysia’s judge can still deliver the death penalty’

On whether current Malaysia’s laws are able to uphold justice for serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking, Dr Lim who also works as a senior researcher at Third World Network said there is a lack of concrete evidence to link the death penalty as an effective deterrent to serious crimes such as murder, as compared to a prison term.

“Drug trafficking does not meet the international law which often reserves the death penalty to be used for the “most serious crimes” – drug crime does not meet that threshold.”

AD

Ms Ngeow also noted that Malaysia has only abolished the mandatory death penalty, which means that the judge can, after considering all mitigating circumstances, still hands down the death penalty or, in the alternative imprisonment of 30-40 years plus canning.

“If the judge, after hearing all circumstances, considers that the crime committed is most serious and warrants a death penalty, he can still deliver the death penalty.”

Ms Ngeow, also vice-president of the Civil Rights Committee of the Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, said abolitionists argued that restorative justice, which emphasizes redemption and rehabilitation rather than retribution, is a more humane and effective approach to criminal justice.

Challenges achieving total abolition of the death penalty

On the challenges to achieving total abolition of the death penalty for all crimes, Ms Ngeow noted that this is a long process as it does not have the support of society, and the government will face pressure in its total abolition.

The biggest challenge is that concepts such as mandatory death penalty, judge’s discretion, and mitigating circumstances are legal jargon and concept that are difficult to explain to the general public, Ms Ngeow said.

“When the government announced the abolition of the mandatory death penalty, many take it that there will be no more death penalty and that murderer will walk free in the society. It takes a lot of explainer and outreach to explain the difference. ”

Ms Ngeow also highlighted the survey conducted by The Centre in 2019, in which many people believe that if there are circumstances that can justify that the accused does not “deserve” the death penalty, they would prefer an alternative punishment.

Dr Lim said the public sentiments could be easily riled up for the anti-abolition movement, sometimes linked to political mileage to some politicians and political parties on the anti-abolition side.

AD

“Whenever instances of serious and horrifying crimes took place, general public tend to resort to the death penalty as a ‘natural justice’ method, reactionary. Simple poll of public opinion cannot be sought as the yardstick of public understanding of the issue.”

Dr Lim highlighted that in the past, abolitionist NGOs and individuals were often told to change public opinion in their favor before the government would act.

However, the recent abolition of the mandatory death penalty shows that the government can still do the right thing even if it is not popular at that time.

“This latest move certainly would augur well with Malaysia’s image and reputation as a member of the UN Human Rights Council.”

A reference country on how to transition to an abolitionist state

Prof Lehrfreund said that the new law will restrict the use of capital punishment in Malaysia and allow more than 1,300 people currently on death row to have their sentences reviewed.

“The reforms have been a long time coming and individuals and human rights organisations in Malaysia should be applauded for their persistence and courage in advocating for change.”

Both Dr Lim and Ms Ngeow hope that Malaysia can now serve as a reference country on how to transition to an abolitionist state, and many other countries will follow suit.

Dr Lim added that Malaysia shows the way for abolitionist activists and their respective governments how to do it step-by-step; the latest case of development should motivate them moving to the same direction.

AD

Ms Ngeow emphasized that the mandatory death penalty is arbitrary and violates the right to life, which is why it has been deemed unconstitutional in many countries.

She also pointed out that only a few retentionist countries, including Singapore, still uphold this practice.

“The significant, in my opinion, is that in a country like Malaysia where society are generally conservative in terms of law and order and criminal justice, it is a crack for the light to shine through, as society starts to reflect on ourselves, and hopefully for us to eventually move away from this cruel and inhuman punishment, ” Ms Ngeow said.

The original news link: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/10/malaysia-takes-significant-step-towards-abolition-of-death-penalty-say-activists