Decentralised government once worked pre-Malaysia, says scholar
Malaysia’s centralised government in Putrajaya which restricts functional domains in other parts of the country is a historical anomaly, a scholar said.
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas) fellow Dr Francis Hutchinson said if one looked history, there were plenty of examples of the sultanate and states being administratively responsible for many functional areas.
“Looking at the sultanate established in 1400s, the country had a sophisticated state function. There was a sultan and a developed state society relationship where the former had a very deep obligation to his people.
“The state structure consisted of special advisors for foreign affairs, revenue, judiciary, and another layer of consultants made up of decision makers who arrived at decisions through a consensus,” he said at a talk on federalism and Malaysia in Penang yesterday.
Federalism refers to a system of government whose sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units, or states.
It implies meaningful self-and-shared rule between the centre, states and local councils.
Hutchinson, who is also Iseas regional economic studies programme coordinator, said state governments of the Malayan Federation were established in 1948 and survived till 1957.
Already, in 1941, only four government functions were run at the colonial central base in Singapore and in Kuala Lumpur. These functions were the military, posts and telegraphs, labour and the Chinese Secretariat, Hutchinson said.
The bulk of government functions such as agriculture, education, medical audit, customs, prisons, statistics and public works, were managed by the settlements, federated and unfederated Malay states.
Hutschinson said this at a joint presentation with Penang Institute fellow Dr Wong Chin Huat titled “Revisiting Malaysia’s Centralised Federalism – 1948: 2014”.
Penang government think tank, Penang Institute, organised a two-day conference on “Federalism in Malaysia: Design and Practice” to revive the debate on the functionality of the concept of governance.
Malaysia’s present federal system shows some semblance of federalism because of the many levels of government and the list of revenue sources.
“But in terms of revenue and responsibilities, they are strongly geared to the centre.
“Ninety percent of Malaysia’s revenue belongs to the federal government. There is a power imbalance because the centre can intervene on the pretext of national interest or to ensure uniformity of laws,” Hutchinson said.
He added that it was also relatively easy to amend the Malaysian constitution that has over time also changed the role of the Dewan Negara.
He explained that at the constitution’s inception, there was to be a majority of senators appointed by the states to act as a check against the centre-state encroachment and centralisation of revenue.
However, a recent count revealed that there were about 44 federal-appointed senators and 26 appointed by the states.
“The check is no longer working. When we look at the government in Malaysia, we can see the encroachment of the federal government in areas traditionally and constitutionally stipulated to be in the purview of state governments.
“This was done through constitutional amendments made possible by parliamentary majority.
“There were no longer safeguards for states’ rights against constitutional amendments as the role of Dewan Negara had changed,” he said.
He added though federalism offered a way to incorporate diversity and foster innovation, history, its design and political institutions led to the progressive centralisation of power and responsibilities over the decades. – September 16, 2014.
