政府支持中小微型企业的理性政策基础

您是否在中小微型企业（MSMEs）工作？很有可能，因为大约有一半的雇用人口──即48.2%的总就业人口，是由这些中小微型企业创造工作机会的。但在2022年，中小微型企业在马来西亚的国内生产总值（GDP）中仅占据了38.4%，出口额也只有10.5%。政府一般认为这在劳动生产率方面不理想，并期望中小微型企业能做得更多更好。 

当然，在这117万家中小微型企业中，必然有一部分企业希望挑战自我，力图超越中小型企业规模发展至大企业或上市公司，但事实上更多的企业却在为生存而挣扎。这就是市场需求对创业精神的残酷考验。

中小微型企业与外国联营公司（Foreign Affiliates，由外国投资者作为大股东控制的公司）在业绩表现上存著显著的差距，这差距应归因于后者的雄厚资本和进步技术以及广阔的全球供应网络所带来的优势，这些优势尤其在跨国公司中显而易见。

在我国，虽然外国联营公司仅有2087家，却在2021年占据了GDP的17.7%。中小微型企业在2022年仍未恢复到2019年或者说是疫情发生前的GDP水平，而外国联营公司却早已在2021年迅速反弹至疫情前的水平。

让我们来探讨并对比一下制造业。在2021年，中小微型企业雇佣的员工人数几乎是外国联营公司的四倍，然而，就GDP产值而言，外资联营公司仍然居于领先地位，占该领域GDP的36.8%，比中小微型企业多出2.2%或80亿令吉。若政府注重中小微型企业的产量和出口表现，那么制造业领域里的中小微型企业将是政府应当合作的对象。 

副财长务实和敏锐

财政部第二副部长沈志强上周表示，政府将在2024财政预算案中重点关注中小型企业，这是一件令人欣喜的事情。许多政治人物更关心的似乎是国家吸引外国直接投资（FDI）的能力，然而沈志强却意识到，国内直接投资（DDI）才是国家经济发展的重要组成部分，尤其是来自中小型企业的投资。

这说明了沈志强副部长的务实态度和敏锐观察力。他关注中小型企业，认为这些企业需要来自各方的大力支持，尤其是政府的扶持。他进而宣称，政府将致力于帮助该行业实现可持续发展，以推动国家经济增长。毕竟许多企业在几年前的疫情中受到了严重打击。 

政府对中小微型企业的关注十分合理，因为它们雇佣了半数劳动力。因此，政府必须明白，如果中小微型企业运营良好，那么劳动力人口便可以获得更稳定的工作和拥有更良好的前景。这样一来，才能吸引并留住人才，从而推动公司的业绩更上一层楼。

消除贫穷、关注劳动工资

首相兼财政部长安华对即将由团结政府发布的第二份财政预算案作出了承诺，表示2024年的预算案将重点关注中小微型企业。他强调，政府正努力推动创业发展，将其视为消除贫困的重要政策之一。这是基于一个假设，即中小微型企业能够创造更多就业机会，从而雇佣贫困家庭的成员，并在最低工资保障下为他们提供更为稳定的收入。

政府也提出了一项累进工资计划（Progressive wage scheme），迄今为止，这已公开给私营机构自愿采纳。该计划是以激励表现（incentive）为基础，以及与生产力水平相挂钩。

或许政府已意识到，劳动工资占国内生产总值的比重偏低，仅为32.4%，这是导致许多家庭陷入经济困境的一个重要问题。对于本地社区经济发展，这并不是一个积极正面的现象，因为消费者没有过多的可支配收入。那么，试问如果当地民众的购买力没有增强，我们应该如何扶持中小微型企业呢？

创业的知识和技能极其宝贵，因为并非所有的中小微型企业管理者都接受过这方面的系统培训。许多中小微型企业经常将“现金流”问题视为经营难题；但若他们不知道如何妥善处理财务问题，还可能因为看不透市场需求低迷而生存困难，那么政府提供再多的企业贷款也无济于事。

数码科技优化业务势在必行

另一方面，中小微型企业已经开始采用数码科技来优化业务，尤其是在行政和营销方面。许多企业已转向使用电子银行/电子商务、会计以及销售点（POS）软件。这些数码服务面对高度的市场竞争，即使是中小微型企业也应该能负担得起。大多数中小微型企业更倾向于将更多的预算投入数码营销上，尤其是社交媒体平台，而减少在报纸或广告看板等传统实体广告上的投入。

中小微型制造业企业面临的另一个挑战是运营──它们的员工往往更多地从事体力劳动，这与外国联营公司的情况不同，后者常掌握资金投入到最新的尖端技术如设备和机器上，以提高生产效率。许多现代设备通过电子传感器优化操作，从而减少人为错误，而且相比于手工劳动，它能减轻工人的疲劳。因此，中小微型制造业企业可能需要在新技术的资本投入上获得帮助以提高效率。

随著2024年财政预算案即将来临，政府既然已对中小微型企业作出了承诺，且让我们拭目以待那些将帮助中小微型企业发展的政策与措施。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2023年10月11日 

東方臉書鏈接

Government's sensibility to support MSMEs (Unedited article)

 Are you employed by one of the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs)? The chances are probably 1 in 2 - about 48.2% of total employment is contributed by MSMEs. However, MSMEs account for only 38.4% of Malaysia's GDP and 10.5% of exports in 2022. Policymakers often see this as less than ideal in terms of labour productivity and challenge them to do more.

Surely, among the 1.17 million MSME establishments, there must be companies that would like to challenge themselves to grow beyond small and medium size, but many more are struggling to survive, which is the harsh reality of entrepreneurship subject to market demand.

There is a gulf in performance when comparing MSMEs with foreign affiliates (companies controlled by foreign investors as majority shareholders), which should show what capital and technological advances as well as an extensive global supply network can do for companies, especially multinationals. Foreign affiliates have only 2087 establishments in Malaysia, but already contributed 17.7% of GDP in 2021. MSMEs have not yet recovered to their 2019 or pre-pandemic GDP levels in 2022, but foreign affiliates have done so quickly in 2021.

Let's examine and compare the manufacturing sector. In 2021, MSMEs employed and engaged almost 4 times more workers than foreign affiliates, but in terms of GDP output, foreign affiliates come out on top, contributing 36.8% of sectoral GDP, 2.2% or RM8 billion more than MSMEs. If the government is concerned about MSME output and export performance, this is the sector the government can work with.

It's good to know that the government will focus on SMEs in Budget 2024, according to Deputy Finance Minister II Steven Sim. More often than not, many politicians seem more concerned with highlighting the country's ability to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). Recognising domestic direct investment (DDI) as an important component of the country's economic development, especially that which comes from the SME sector, shows the Deputy Minister's practicality and sensibility. Sim's concern for SMEs is also evident in his comment that the sector needs a lot of support from various parties, especially from the government. He said the government would help make the sector more sustainable for the country's economic growth, as many businesses were hit hard by the pandemic years ago.

It makes sense for the government to look at MSMEs, because they employ half the workforce, so the government should know that if MSMEs are doing well, then the working population will have more stable jobs and better prospects. Then the talent can be retained, taking the companies to higher levels of performance.

Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim had also made the pledge about the unity government's upcoming second national budget, saying that Budget 2024 would focus on MSMEs. He pointed to the government's efforts to promote entrepreneurship as one of the ways to end poverty, presumably on the assumption that job creation by MSMEs would hire from poor households, giving them a more stable income with the guarantee of a minimum wage.

The government has also proposed a progressive wage scheme, so far voluntarily adopted by private sector entrepreneurs, which Anwar says is incentive-based and linked to productivity levels. Perhaps the government has realised that the low contribution of labour wages to GDP, at 32.4 per cent, is a problem that leaves many households in financial difficulty, which does not bode well for the local economy as they do not have much disposable income. So how can we help MSMEs if local people do not have more purchasing power?

Entrepreneurship knowledge and skills can be valuable, as not all MSME managers are well trained in this area. MSMEs often cite 'cash flow' as a problem for their business; the government SME loan may not help if the MSME does not know how to manage its financial problem and may find that its business is not viable due to poor market demand.

It is also safe to say that the adoption of digital solutions for MSMEs is already underway, mostly in terms of administration and marketing, many have turned to e-banking/e-commerce, accounting and point-of-sale (POS) software. These services can be competitive and are now more affordable even for MSMEs. Most MSMEs would prefer to allocate more budget to digital marketing, especially on social media platforms, and less to physical advertising such as newspapers or billboards.

Another hurdle for MSMEs in the manufacturing sector is operations - they tend to have more workers to do the manual labour and, unlike their foreign counterparts, have the capital to invest in the latest cutting-edge technology such as equipment and machinery to produce more efficiently. Many of the modern machines can optimise the operation through electronic sensors, thus reducing human error, and workers may be less tired compared to the manual work they used to do. MSMEs in the manufacturing sector may need a helping hand in capital investing in new technology.

With the government's promises to the MSME sector in Budget 2024, let's look forward to the measures to help MSMEs.

Government right to support MSMEs

 

Chances are you are employed at a micro-, small- or medium-sized enterprise (MSME). Data show that MSMEs hire about 48.2% of the working population in Malaysia.

However, MSMEs accounted for only 38.4% of the GDP and 10.5% of exports in 2022. Policymakers see this as less than ideal in terms of labour productivity.

Among the 1.17 million MSMEs in the country, there must be some companies that would like to challenge themselves to grow, but many more are struggling to survive, which is the harsh reality of entrepreneurship subject to market demand.

There is a gulf between the performance of local MSMEs and their foreign affiliates (companies with foreign investors as majority shareholders), which show what a large capital, technological advancements, and an extensive global supply network can do for companies.

Foreign affiliates have only 2,087 establishments in Malaysia but contributed 17.7% of GDP in 2021. Local MSMEs have yet to return to their pre-pandemic GDP levels in 2022 but foreign affiliates had done so quickly in 2021.

In 2021, MSMEs employed nearly four times as many workers as foreign affiliates in the manufacturing sector. However, in terms of GDP output, foreign affiliates outperformed MSMEs, contributing 36.8% of sectoral GDP, which is 2.2% or RM8 billion more than what local MSMEs contributed.

If the government is concerned about MSME output and export performance, this is the sector where the government can focus its efforts.

It’s good to know that the government will prioritise SMEs in Budget 2024, as announced by Deputy Finance Minister II Steven Sim. Often, politicians seem more preoccupied with foreign direct investment.

The deputy minister showed practicality and sensibility in recognising domestic direct investment, particularly in the SME sector, as a crucial component of the country’s economic development.

Sim’s concern for SMEs is also evident in his statement that the sector requires significant support, especially from the government. He emphasised that the government would help make the sector more sustainable for the country’s economic growth, given the challenges many businesses faced due to the pandemic in recent years.

It makes sense for the government to focus on MSMEs because they employ half of the workforce. Therefore, the government should understand that if MSMEs thrive, the working population will have more stable jobs and better prospects. This, in turn, will enable talent retention and elevate companies to higher levels of performance.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is also the finance minister, has also pledged that next year’s national spending plans will have a significant focus on MSMEs. He has highlighted the government’s efforts to promote entrepreneurship as a means to alleviate poverty, assuming that job creation by MSMEs will provide stable incomes for poor households with a guaranteed minimum wage.

The government has also proposed a progressive wage scheme, which private sector entrepreneurs have voluntarily adopted. Anwar has stated that this scheme is incentive-based and linked to productivity levels.

Perhaps the government has realised that the low contribution of labour wages to GDP, at 32.4%, is a problem that leaves many households in financial difficulty. It does not bode well for the economy when households lack significant disposable income.

So, how can we help MSMEs in the face of a lack of purchasing power?

Entrepreneurship knowledge and skills can be valuable because not all MSME managers are well-trained in these areas.

MSMEs often cite “cash flow” as a problem for their business. A government loan may not be helpful if the MSME does not know how to manage its financial issues, potentially leading to an unviable business due to poor market demand.

It is worth noting that the adoption of digital solutions for MSMEs is already underway, particularly in terms of administration and marketing. Many have embraced e-commerce, accounting, and point-of-sale software. These services have become more competitive and affordable, even for MSMEs.

Most MSMEs would prefer to allocate more of their budget to digital marketing, especially on social media platforms, and less to physical advertising, such as newspapers or billboards.

Another challenge for MSMEs in the manufacturing sector is their operations. They tend to rely more on manual labour, unlike their foreign counterparts, who have the capital to invest in cutting-edge technology and machinery to enhance efficiency.

Many modern machines can optimise operations with electronic sensors, reducing human error,and making work less physically demanding for employees.

MSMEs in the manufacturing sector may require assistance in investment in new technology.

As the government is committed to boosting MSMEs in Budget 2024, we can look forward to aid and measures to elevate the sector.

175th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 9 Oct 2023 

从联邦直辖区历史看“吉隆坡回归雪州”倡议

 

上周，八打灵再也国会议员李健聪在国会参与第12大马计划中期检讨辩论时，大胆提出了一项建议，即让吉隆坡“回归”雪兰莪州，引起了公众议论纷纷。在他为时约两分钟的演说，健聪透露，这样做的目的是为了要让首都城市能摆脱土地发展限制，与雪州合并以产生经济协同效应。

这样，吉隆坡就可以继续以繁荣且可持续的方式发展，综合公共交通、提供可负担房屋，并统筹整个城市规划，使得吉隆坡可以与区域大都市如新加坡、印尼的雅加达和越南的河内竞争。另外，李健聪也认为此举将第二张选票还给吉隆坡居民，让他们能有代表参与雪州议会，并享受雪州政府提供的福利与津贴。

坦白说，我认为这是一个非常浪漫的想法。健聪认为这是可行的，或许在技术上是这样，但在现实操作中并非如此，即便当初1974年吉隆坡从雪兰莪州分离出来成为联邦直辖区也非易事。考虑是否应将吉隆坡重新并入雪州，我们就得回顾历史，理解为何吉隆坡需要被分离，其中涉及的因素和过程中的代价，皆值得参考。

当年吉隆坡分离最大的导因是1969年大选带来的震撼结果：联盟首次失去了国会的2/3议席，还有槟城（州政权易手）、雪兰莪及霹雳（悬峙议会）的多数议席，这都成为引发513种族冲突的导火线。当年，在野党民政党和民主行动党在雪州大有斩获，特别是在首都——也是雪州首府的吉隆坡（在8个州议席中赢了7席）。

联盟领袖担心，日后若雪州与联邦政权不同调，而吉隆坡又是雪州的首府，可能会引发政治纷争和僵局，从而影响甚至限制国家和首都吉隆坡的发展。再者，即使没有513事件，在马来亚独立初期，联邦政府和首相东姑阿都拉曼已意识到这个局面，早已有讨论和计划协助雪州迁移和建立新首府。

在1958年，联邦政府内阁批准拨款200万令吉给雪州政府，建议将巴生附近的581英亩园丘土地发展为新首府。可惜雪州政府不同意，他们认为该地山丘和斜坡过多，会大幅增加建筑成本，而且由于地点距离吉隆坡较远，不利于商务活动来往。后来，雪州政府选择了Sungai Renggam地区，也就是后来被称为莎阿南的地方，并计划通过建造联邦大道连接两地。

一个大都市的诞生

起草马来亚宪法的莱德委员会曾在1957年建议吉隆坡设为联邦政府能独立管理和施政的行政中心。因此，从1960年开始，联邦政府在吉隆坡市中心开始征地，并在同年通过联邦首都法案来落实这一任务。

513事件为联邦政府和雪州苏丹提供了一个方便的借口，以尽快完成吉隆坡土地分割事宜。然而在1970年，首相阿都拉萨积极拉拢在野党加入并扩大联盟（后来更名为国阵），已成功招揽了民政党和霹雳州的人民进步党，政治危机得以解除，按理说并不需要分割吉隆坡。

事实上，雪州苏丹对于割让吉隆坡一事不太乐意──毕竟，吉隆坡是我国的首座城市。原本市政局的管理范围有93平方公里，但到了1974年，割让转移到联邦直辖区的范围占地扩大到243平方公里。这版图增加的面积已预计了吉隆坡的未来发展，因此，在签署1974年联邦直辖区吉隆坡协议后，海峡时报隔天头条标题为：一个大都市（metropolis）的诞生。

原本联邦政府在1971年计划一并把八打灵也纳入吉隆坡，但遭到当地居民的强烈反对，其中的原因是吉隆坡的门牌税是八打灵的两倍。而州政府也不愿轻易把州内仅有的主要工业区拱手让人。在签署协议之前，当局至少召开了近百场会议和辩论，并接收了多份建议书、意见和方案。毕竟，当时这仍是个敏感且复杂的大课题，政府必须谨慎行事。

此外，值得注意的是，雪州苏丹当初开出的条件是联邦政府必须答应赔偿以资助迁移首府、建设新首府莎阿南的各种主要政府建筑和设施，如州政府大厦、州议会、莎阿南蓝顶大清真寺、图书馆等。联邦政府对州政府的赔偿有两种形式：（一）补偿州政府失去来自吉隆坡的收入，约为每年1830万令吉；（二）补偿州政府在吉隆坡内的建筑和产业，通过协商谈判，最终在1981年确定总值为35亿令吉，其中一大部分后来被用来资助莎阿南体育馆的建设。

因此，问题来了，若联邦政府现在要将吉隆坡归还给雪州，是要无偿转让，还是需要按照当初的条件，如考虑吉隆坡目前的收入和土地与资产的价值？雪州政府能否承担得起？2020年吉隆坡市政厅的收入约为20亿令吉，而雪州政府2023年预算案也仅预计20亿令吉收入。

地方投票权

回到健聪的提议，我认为地名如“雪隆”和“巴生谷”已在我国华社家喻户晓，基本上国人已不太过于关注区分雪州和吉隆坡。2010年推出的国家经济转型计划（Economic Transformation Programme，ETP）设定的国家主要经济区域（National Key Economic Area，NKEA）包括大吉隆坡区-巴生谷（Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley），并在2011年推出大吉隆坡区-巴生谷公共交通大蓝图，展望未来20年的规划。

这说明，跨州跨地方政府的区域性发展规划并非不可行，也不一定要将吉隆坡重新纳入雪州，才能改善公共交通和房屋供应情况。即使在所谓“精明雪州”倡议下，各个计划如公共巴士、地方基础设施和房屋建设依然存在不少问题，其效率和优越性并未超越吉隆坡市政厅的管理。

我绝对赞成吉隆坡居民应有地方投票权。既然希盟竞选宣言已承诺要率先举行吉隆坡市长选举，然后在吉隆坡推行地方选举选出市议员。我认为应优先实施这些，而不是复杂且难度极高的吉隆坡回归雪州方案。若吉隆坡能够成功做到，这将为全国各州恢复地方选举提供了一个良好范例，这难道不是更好、一举多得的政策选择吗？健聪，请继续在国会推动地方选举，加油！

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2023年9月20日 

東方臉書鏈接

主要參考資料來源：

An Anguish Cession: Issues during the Shaping of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, 1974

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286702161_An_Anguish_Cession_Issues_during_the_Shaping_of_the_Federal_Territory_of_Kuala_Lumpur_1974

LENS: KL  Story time: The formation of the first Federal Territory, and then some…

https://www.thevibes.com/articles/culture/59902/story-time-the-formation-of-the-first-federal-territory-and-then-some

Reform electoral system for diversity of representation

 

Were the voters in the six state elections happy with the results? Did their vote produce the desired outcome?

Votes for the losing side did nothing more than contribute to the statistics. Those whose parties lost must have felt that their votes were “wasted”.

Due to malapportionment, urban seats such Kinrara and Subang Jaya have about six times more voters than Sabak Bernam, the smallest seat in Selangor. The landslide wins of by more than 50,000 votes in the two urban seats count for only two seats in the state assembly, so even the voters on the winning side would feel that their votes were heavily diluted.

Malaysia’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system has many weaknesses and is increasingly out of step with the diversity of voices in a democracy.

Because of its “winner takes all” design, it is not equitable for voters who wish to express and translate their support for specific political parties or candidates into representation in the state assembly. Consequently, it does not uphold the fundamental principles of electoral democracy, which include the notion of “one person, one vote, one value,” for equitable outcomes.

Most notably, I believe the suppression of third parties and alternative voices is particularly concerning as the system consistently encourages tactical voting, where voters are prompted to select the side most likely to win.

Hence, the election results often fail to reflect the true extent of support for third parties and alternative candidates, as they would in a proportional electoral system.

Election campaigns often see the two main coalition parties vilifying each other and instilling fear among their target constituencies.

Perikatan Nasional exploited the concerns of Malay-Muslims about losing power to the DAP-led coalition of Pakatan Harapan (PH), which propagated fearmongering among non-Malay communities regarding the “green wave.”

This left voters feeling disconnected and despondent – and confronted with the challenging decision of choosing the “lesser of two evils”.

The two major coalitions, especially PH and its supporters, would accuse third parties such as Muda and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) of splitting the votes.

Such statements are undemocratic and show disrespect for the voters’ rights and desire for alternative representation.

Due to the prevalence of tactical voting and fear-mongering, the number of votes for Muda and PSM in the recent state elections may not accurately reflect the level of support for the two parties.

In the recent Selangor elections, Muda and PSM secured a median of 3.45% and 2.15% of the vote, respectively, in the seats they contested.

Although they did not win any of the seats and forfeited their deposits (the threshold being 12.5%), the electoral pact won a total of 34,009 votes across 18 seats. Their vote share also exceeded the median of other third parties (1%), independents (1.2%), and spoiled votes (0.5%).

Hence, Muda and PSM effectively constituted the third political force.

Contrary to some beliefs, there was a weak but statistically significant positive correlation between the vote share of Muda-PSM and that of PH-Umno. In other words, the trend suggests that Muda-PSM received more votes and performed slightly better in traditional PH strongholds.

Instead of acting as “spoilers,” Muda-PSM were shown to be drawing votes away from PH’s primary opponent and stood poised to replace PN as the second-largest party in those constituencies.

It is true that in the two constituencies (Dengkil and Sungai Kandis) that transitioned from PH to PN-Bersatu, PSM and Muda received more votes than the margin of victory.

However, it would be presumptuous to claim these votes as PH’s if PSM and Muda had not contested.

Some oppose altering the FPTP system, contending that a proportional representation system would exacerbate societal fragmentation and encourage radical political forces.

Yet, when we examine the state of party politics in Malaysia today, we already observe numerous well-established political parties, resulting in a “fragmented” political landscape.

Moreover, even mainstream parties have radical factions and can contribute to the polarisation of our society.

So, what do we stand to lose by allowing voters to cast their ballots for their preferred party and have those cumulative votes directly translate into a specific number of seats and public funding support (provided the votes surpass a certain threshold)?

Shouldn’t democracy encompass inclusivity, valuing the choices of the minority and celebrating the diversity of representative voices?

I’m sick of being forced to eat a “less rotten” apple. Could I not have a healthy watermelon or papaya?

If we could change the electoral system to one of proportional representation, there will be more fresh fruits  available for the choosing and every voter will contribute to making them available.

170th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 4 Sep 2023 

Testing SiputMoci Point Checking embed

大学固打制是我国社会公平正义的缩影

 近来因首相安华在槟城的一场与学生对话会里回应一位印裔学生的提问，而再次把大学和预科班（Matrikulasi）固打制课题搬出台面。看似老掉牙的课题，安华的回应居然没有不同，还是以前国阵的论述和戏码！相信这让很多支持者失望，尤其是期盼这位据称有改革理想的首相会遵循他以往的政见。

这位勇敢的年轻学生问道：何时可废除固打制并以绩效制取代？她看到待遇的分别只基于土著身份。她希望可以不逃避但公开讨论这敏感问题。她的提问频频被打断，但勉强举例她所看到的不公平现象：获7A的印裔友人不得以进入大学预科班，获8A的友人则须提出上诉后在第二轮入学才被录取，但却有人凭著一两个A就可在首轮被录取了。

安华回答：必须看待历史脉络和“社会契约”；若上诉个案处理，他和部长可以帮忙，这比较容易办，但若要改变政策（废除固打制）会导致他们败选给国盟的伊斯兰党和土团党，非土著的权益情况会更糟。他继续批评绩效制不公平，因为城乡经济能力和教育水平有差距。他甚至抛书包提及美国哈佛政治学教授桑德尔（Michael Sandel）的著作力证绩效制大有问题，因此美国需根据肤色有扶弱政策确保有一定人数的非裔国民入学，保障少数民族的利益。为了扶弱（affirmative action），安华以此为例辩护固打制存在的需要。

我国有的是联邦宪法，当然宪法也是当初独立时期，马来西亚联邦成立和受近代政治历史影响的立国文件。宪法不曾提过有“社会契约”甚至土著（Bumiputera）字眼。宪法确实在第153条文里提及马来人和东马土著（Natives）特别地位，包括确保公务员和教育机构入学的名额。

首先，联邦宪法也不该一成不变，应根据社会发展情况的需求修宪与时并进。政府和社会各界热切期盼能修宪允许海外大马籍妈妈能自动传承公民权给孩子就是一个最好的例子。

若谈历史，我们不能忘记草拟联邦宪法的莱德委员会曾建议过有关第153条文在每15年应重视检讨一次，国会应决定保留、或减少甚至废除固打。然而，政府和国会有做到吗？

引用例子不贴切

即使因为政治局势先不要修宪（不然政治对手或说这会“动国本”），不代表政府不能在确保马来人和东马土著特别地位同时改进固打制的录取方式、名额和其他条件，确保能贯彻更为进步和公平的新政策和思想，如另设以需求为本（Needs-based）的条件和名额。

固然我曾撰文认同说绩效制不是一个最好和公平的政策和解决方案，安华对绩效制的批评没错，但问题是，它不是一个能为目前设定的固打制辩护的好理由。

安华引用美国例子不贴切的关键在于美国扶弱保护少数，以及还确保有多元民族的入学名额，而我国扶弱政策的对象是谁？目前还是弱方吗？如何定义扶弱？政府有如安华所说般，根据需求条件（家庭经济和地理）制定下名额录取学生吗？安华在对话会里指示教育部长研究入学大学预科班的学术资格资料，我呼吁政府不仅公布那组数据，也希望能有家庭收入和地理或城乡分布数据，以正视听。

再说那位印裔女生在场提问，并不为了仅要解决她看到和经历的个案，而是宏观地看待不公平的政策。最令我喷饭的是，安华竟然要求学生和家长们上诉，认为个案处理比较好！相信很多人，特别是非土著同胞，这一辈子至今都一直重复听到如此的论述。

过去马华帮忙处理上诉个案的戏码每年都上演，许多人很不满也厌倦这样的做法，因为这绝对治标不治本，其实根本就是人治政策——通过政治人物上诉得直获得学额的学生要心怀感恩上报示人，这些人也只是少数幸运的学生。

好不容易替换了一党独大长期执政的国阵，现在代表改革派和“希望”的安华还提同样的做法和政策？“社会契约”也是以前国阵特别是巫统领袖一直提醒我们的事，但似乎没人说得出是谁代表缔约，有合法合理代表性吗？还合适宜吗？

破旧立新

还有，所谓的政治近代史都是由联盟+国阵胜利者撰写的历史，“改朝换代”后难道不能破旧立新，随著社会局势演变而改变政策吗？即使不能一朝一夕改变，但至少能不能不要守旧，特别是那些自己早已不能认同的事？

说穿了，安华在场自己承认他的政治考量：目前正面临6州选举，如果他回答说要废除固打制，他担心会败选给国盟，特别是对手会借机渲染这课题。这不就是政治化教育课题？莘莘学子的教育机会还要被现时政治需求绑架，难道这样对他们公平和正义？

然后安华还需要用这平台妖魔化政治对手，政治恐吓在场的非土著学生吗？国盟也曾执政过，想问现在的团结政府在教育政策方面与过去的国盟政府有何不同？我认为，安华可以不用说要废除固打制，甚至不赞成绩效制，但他绝对可以说他和政府会改进目前的固打制以反映当下的社会需要，让它更公平云云。

看到现在的安华以首相身份回答这位印裔年轻女学生的表现，我不禁回想起当初安华喊出的两个口号：“我们都是一家人”，还有“马来人、华人、印度人、伊班人、卡达山人的孩子都是我的孩子”时，究竟家庭成员和孩子们之间的关系是如何？其实这才是关键。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2023年8月9日 

東方臉書鏈接

State polls: Overhaul Penang’s public transport and end mega-reclamation (3 Aug)

 I represent Penang Forum, a coalition of key civil society organisations and individuals in Penang to support Bersih’s #VoteLokal campaign.

This is indeed a great call; we thank Bersih for initiating this campaign to highlight local and state issues.

For the current state election campaign, Penang Forum would like to call on all contesting parties and candidates to talk about their policy ideas and solutions to the longstanding local and state issues and to stop greenwashing the issues – green as in environmentally green and green as in fearmongering about the political “green wave”.

We want real and practical solutions for sustainable development; we can no longer accept the type of plan that sacrifices local communities to vested interests. Please put the interests of the people first, not your developer friends.

The traffic congestion is worsening due to the still broken public transport system in Penang, despite three terms of uninterrupted 15 years of DAP-led Pakatan Rakyat and then Pakatan Harapan state government.

We also lost a decade of opportunity to properly develop our public transport after Halcrow’s transport masterplan was released and endorsed by the state government in 2013.

Why? The subsequent “Penang South Reclamation” plan by SRS Consortium, favoured by the state government, is a colossal mistake and a disaster in the making. Though reduced from three islands to one, Penang is still threatened with a very large island reclamation project in the south of Penang Island – and this has nothing to do with public transport anymore!

We understand that the caretaker government should not make major policy decisions during the election campaign. Nevertheless, projects which contradict the electoral promises of sustainable development should indeed be abolished!

Now that the controversial Petaling Jaya Dispersal Link (PJD Link) highway in Selangor has been cancelled, we demand that the new government cancel the “Penang South Island” land reclamation project entirely.

The new state government should also think beyond the Kuala Lumpur public transport model of “LRT” [overhead light rail] and monorail to solve Penang’s traffic problems. Even the MRT [mass rapid transit] has not saved KL!

Shockingly, so-called progressive Penang is the last state in Malaysia without a single gazetted local plan for either Penang Island or Seberang Perai. Penang voters and the general public want to have a greater say and better participation in the formulation of the local plans. Judge your politicians and governments not by what they say but by what they do!

And Penang voters, please ask the candidates important and difficult questions, and make a rational decision to cast your votes accordingly. The party logo itself is not the answer, we must do our own homework.

Lim Chee Han is a Penang Forum steering council member. He delivered this address at the launch of Bersih’s “#VoteLokal” campaign

https://aliran.com/coalitions/penang-forum/state-polls-overhaul-penang-public-transport-overhaul-and-end-mega-reclamation

‘NHI too costly’ - (June 2)

 Extracted from an interview article featuring also a proponent for the social health insurance.

The article title and URL link:   National health insurance the way forward, says academic

 

‘NHI too costly’

However, Dr Lim Chee Han, a senior researcher for the non-profit Third World Network, is opposed to the implementation of a NHI scheme.

Lim said the administrative cost of managing the scheme would be hefty – at least RM3.9 billion.

“This is more than the estimated RM2.4 billion for the health ministry’s management costs under the 2023 Budget.

“If the country switches to a NHI, it will cost RM 1.5 billion more,” he said.

Lim said Malaysia already had a good public healthcare system financed by general taxes and that it would be better to improve the public healthcare services instead.

The government should source revenue from the capital gains tax, goods and services tax, sin tax or a small percentage of income tax earmarked for healthcare, he suggested.

He said cost escalation was a concern under NHI if patients were prescribed unnecessary procedures and medication, especially by private healthcare providers. To control such costs, he said, a mechanism would have to be set up, adding another layer of cost to the healthcare system.

“If healthcare costs fail to be controlled, the NHI authority will have to increase the premiums that people pay,” he said, adding that Taiwan, South Korea and Germany were struggling to control costs and were constantly pressured to increase premiums.

Lim said the current public-funded healthcare system gave “no incentive” to anyone to overtreat a patient and if there was a shortfall, the health ministry could request for additional funds.

He acknowledged that an advantage in a NHI system was that patients would have access to private healthcare facilities besides public ones.

“But patients will have to pay extra if the charges go beyond the limit covered, either by paying it themselves or by private insurance,” he said.

What to look for in an assemblyman (31 July)

 

Will you vote in the state elections? Are you worried about the so-called “green wave” and the fall of the federal government as a result? Have you been told how to vote and have you already made up your mind before you even know the candidates? Don’t let yourself be swayed by the negative campaign of fear and vilification being waged by some parties.

The fear that some quarters are spreading may not be rational or even relevant to the state elections. This article aims to raise voters’ awareness of what is important in the state elections, what issues and policies voters should be asking about and educating themselves on, so that they can make a rational and good choice of who to vote for.

Firstly, voters need to understand that electing an assemblyman and a state government is different from electing a member of parliament and the federal government. Fundamentally, the federal and state governments have different but also overlapping jurisdictions of power, as stated in the ninth schedule of the Federal Constitution.

What a state government can do is set out in Lists II (State List) and III (Concurrent List). This means that voters should be concerned about the policies that the candidate and his party would propose on matters of state land, religion, agriculture and forestry, local government, permits and licences, social welfare, public health, town and country planning, housing, drainage and irrigation, libraries and museums, preservation of heritage and many more.

Voters should not forget to evaluate the performance of the caretaker state government as well as the opposition and its representatives. Was there a controversial plan or policy that was announced in the last term and supported by the current candidate seeking another mandate?

For example, if the representative had voted for an environmentally destructive and socially unjust plan, such as land reclamation, mining licenses, or building a highway through a densely populated neighbourhood, then his credibility as a defender of the public interest should be examined. 

Also, did the assemblyman attend all the meetings when the state assembly was in session? Did he ask the right questions on behalf of the people and participate in the debates to scrutinise policies?

This information would help voters to know how competent, dedicated, and professional the state representative was and decide whether to re-elect him regardless of party affiliation. In any case, one should judge whether the candidate has ideas to improve the wellbeing of the constituents and how he can bring changes to the state as an assemblyman.The candidate must show good knowledge as well as the right attitude for dealing with people and their demands. 

Often, people confuse the assemblyman’s role with that of a local councillor and expect him to solve local problems. But honestly, who can blame them? It is well known that the state government appoints local councillors who suit its political interests. This has been the case since local elections were suspended in the 1960s.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the people if the candidates and their parties will commit to reinstating local government elections, thus bringing back accountability to the currently politically controlled and democratically deficient local councils.

Campaigners, including leaders of the federal government, should refrain from threats or insinuations of non-cooperation or punishment if the electorate picks the other side. Usually, the message is spun to persuade the voters that having the state and federal governments on the same side can facilitate better “help” for the people. I urge the federal government to respect the democratic outcome based on the general will and wishes of the majority of voters.

Voters should also understand that in an electoral democracy, every political party and every individual has the right to stand but every vote they canvass for is earned on their own merits. They do not “split” votes so they should not be called “spoilers”. Parties who feel affected by the loss of votes should hold a post-mortem to find out how they failed to persuade some sections of the electorate. It is bad politics to blame others for one’s failures and disregard other people’s democratic rights.

Voters also need to realise that tactical voting would lead to a more polarised “us-versus-them” political mentality, which is not conducive to building a democratic, progressive, and harmonious society. Voters need to understand what they are voting for in the state elections, which is separate from the general election. This separation of federal and state elections is a new phenomenon, which is good for bringing more clarity to what a state government means to the electorate. 

165th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 31 July 2023