The government\’s privatisation policy, when launched by the Economic Planning Unit, promised to deliver efficiency, improved costs and greater effectiveness in the delivery of what was hitherto considered as public goods. That was more than 20 years ago.

Today, it appears that the spirit of privatisation has become the basis for a new kind of economics of artificial demand creation and especially to create false and artificial oligopolies to benefit select people, apparently so that crony capitalism can be propagated as a full blown policy.

Is this the new and unwritten government policy for privatisation? Pardon my skepticism.

After the last attempt by the Selangor government to monopolise advertising space in all local authorities failed, there now appears to be another attempt by two councils to require another public good function to be \’piratised\’ by way of some agents from the pest control and fumigation industry.

This improved demand creation strategy took the form of requiring food and hawker businesses under these local authorities to seek approval of the specified \’agents\’ before the annual licences are issued.

\"\"

The theory is that cleanliness needs to be ascertained – in practice it is a quality assurance issue. Both councils are supposed to have approved this new policy.

The Sun got another scoop in discovering that the so-called \’agents\’ are not \”accredited by the professional association or approving authorities to undertake the specified function\”. It raises a number of questions.

How did this happen? Why the sinister need to dictate or create such an oligopoly? Are any kick-backs involved? Are there other reasons, like trying to kill the currently competition for the benefit of a few? Why this pro-monopoly market development policy? Should it be the public sector that defines and controls suppliers in the market?

Is this really in the best interests of citizens? Who are the ultimate consumers of the public good of cleaner and healthier eating places? Is it not all of us? But at what cost and at whose cost will all this be added?

Why dictate demand?

I fail to understand why the privatisation policy has blatantly and vulgarly become the framework for backdoor \’piratisation\’ of countless goods and services all of which can also be secured through the tender process?

What do I mean? Most of such contracts are given to new RM2 companies that who have a short track record or none at all. They may have the right connections instead of the right competence. When these unqualified companies are entrusted with work in an area where they have no demonstrated competence, is that not an official way of allowing pirates to come in?

\"\"

There are many legitimate and authorised pest control agencies. Why not let the market determine demand and supply? Is that not what free-market economics is all about? Why should the public sector begin to dictate specific and particular demand that cuts off competent suppliers?

Is the creation of such oligopolies in the particular interest of the powers-that-be? Do the RM2 companies represent some kind of special interest, and could someone help identify them? Why are dormant companies given contracts for a 20-30 year period without due diligence?

As has been made evident by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the Matrade building case, why would the finance ministry reject a legitimate and qualified company selected by the tender process and instead conclude a negotiated tender with an unknown company which led to a fiasco?

Will the cabinet address such cases and clarify what the \’new\’ privatisation policy is about? Does not the Financial Procedure Act clearly state and dictate the due processes for all public assets procurement or disposal? Are such violations not clear and definite evidence of corruption or at least abuse of power through the absence of due diligence process?

Waiting for answers

Who will answer my questions where these relate to Selangor and its local authorities? If the semua-ok MB of Selangor cannot answer the questions – since his is subsidiary jurisdiction in relation to financial due diligence – can the housing and local government minister – as the second most senior member of the Barisan Nasional cabinet – please answer the question of this taxpayer?

Alternatively can the finance minister clarify the real policy and due procedure for such privatisation of public goods? Or, must this also must also fall to the PAC to check if there is any conflict of interest, non-compliance with federal law, or absence of mandated due diligence processes?

In conclusion, how can the two local authorities incompetently approve unqualified agents of public goods delivery, without due process, as dictated by the Federal Financial Procedure Act for all public assets acquisition and disposal?

Based on what the Subang Jaya assemblyperson is reported to have said, the \”Finance Committee of the MPSJ was misled into believing that these were fully authorised agents\”.

Can we then be assured that someone\’s head will roll over this specific misinformation? Or, is this also part and parcel of the semua-OK MB\’s governance of the state and local authorities?

Can I expect someone with authority and responsibility to reply, or does the MB have to be invited to meet the PAC before this citizen can expect a policy oversight reply?