Can I disagree, Mr DPM?

As a Malaysian of non-Malay origin and a student of the Malaysian system of parliamentary governance, I personally took offence to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak\’s \”inappropriate instruction\” to Penang Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon to \”demonstrate that he is also the Chief Minister of all Malaysians.\”

This statement was followed by yet another by Umno minister Hishamudin Hussein reacting to YB Ong Tee Keat\’s \”facts about the Chinese school project,\” when he spoke at the Chinese school dinner in response to chairman of the board\’s allegation against the government, and especially about the Ministry of Education\’s system of \”small project management.\”

In short, the grouse from the school board chairman was that the system was both inefficient and costly (a RM3,000 project billed at RM30,000) and this may be because of the prominence of political corruption; of contractors and sub-sub-contractors. The MCA deputy minister (Ong) responded to the issue saying the matter needed to be studied further. But, apparently the press is reported to have misreported the whole incident.

Nonetheless, in elaborating on this issue in the absence of the Prime Minister, Najib as the acting chairman of the cabinet \”clarified the so-called cabinet policy and decision that inter- ministerial cross-jurisdictional comments are inappropriate.\” He then went on to further clarify that under the so-called cabinet policy \”only the PM and the DPM are allowed to make cross-ministries comments for process improvements.\” Can I disagree, Mr DPM?

First among equals?

I think Najib does not fully understand and appreciate that in Malaysia the DPM is not the deputy \”primus inter pares\” (first amongst equals) or, he has been wrongly briefed on this subject. There is only one PM and only he is the \”prime amongst equals\”. The same unfortunately applies to all chief ministers and menteri besars; each of them at their state levels is \”primus inter pares\” under our system of the Westminster parliamentary governance.

And, neither does our system of governance give the DPM such \”jurisdictional authority, even if the cabinet decides otherwise\”. If I am not mistaken, under the Ministers of the Cabinet Portfolio Act, the post of DPM does not have any explicit authority or jurisdiction, and it may not even include the role to chair the cabinet meeting in the absence of the PM. If I am not mistaken again, the DPM\’s only formal authority is as a full minister in the cabinet.

That is why the DPM in our cabinet is always given a normal but important portfolio, and he has to assume the DPM\’s role within that portfolio and within some legal limitations. The only real legal authority the DPM has is only delegated authority of the cabinet. Even any cross-jurisdictional committee that he may be authorized to chair only derives their delegated authority from the cabinet, as a sub-committee of the cabinet; and not explicitly based any

specific role of the DPM.

Therefore, if you follow the cabinet system of governance strictly, even the chairman for the cabinet is a choice by election at every meeting in the absence of the PM, unless the PM explicitly deputizes the DPM. That is probably our current practice though but may need to be questioned in light of the fact that so many of the other cabinet ministers are far more senior in cabinet.

Now, to extend that delegated or deputized authority into the political sphere by virtue of being the DPM is to me categorically wrong. Let me argue this case. Every cabinet minister is in cabinet because he or she represents a party in the government. No one is elected in his own right or personal capacity. They are all party appointees, even at the election.

That is our system of representative governance. Therefore, the most senior person in our cabinet is not our elected prime minister but rather the \”appointed one\”. The head of the party with the greatest majority is appointed by the Agong to be the prime minister. He is the \”primus inter pares\”, but not anyone else. The deputy PM is appointed only as a cabinet minister and given the role of the DPM by the PM.

It can easily be anyone the PM so chooses, and can in fact come from any of the component parties; not necessarily from only from within Umno. For that matter the PM can even appoint three DPMs if he so chooses. The appointment of the cabinet is the absolute authority of the PM, and only that of the PM. He may however choose to seek the advice of the other members of his potential cabinet but that is entirely his preference and prerogative.

Therefore, may I suggest that the DPM was out of turn in publicly \”admonishing the chief minister of Penang\”, based on the same principle that he, the minister of education and the minister of higher education used to \”admonish\” the deputy minister over the wrongly reported incident.

Public apology

Can I therefore demand that the DPM publicly apologize to the chief minister on behalf of all the people of Penang for his inappropriate words?

Here my argument is yet another simple one. The chief minister for Penang, like the PM of the country, was elected based on the clear and absolute understanding that they will lead their jurisdiction after the election; not so every other minister of the cabinet or state cabinets.

Remember the DAP\’s \”chief minister without power campaign\”? Therefore, once elected, they each have absolute authority to appoint a cabinet and seek to deliver on the promises they made with the PM of the party elected to power. Now what are those promises? A clean, efficient and effective system of governance that is fair and equitable to all the different segments of the population. Both the PM and the chief minister are \”chiefs\” of all the \”other Indians\” (pun intended).

Now in both cases, whether the DPM at the federal level or the deputy chief minister at the state level, the appointment is a political one and never based on competence of the incumbents. Technically for the number of seats held in Penang, even MCA could make the case to be the deputy chief minister.

But the practice is not that way and some time ago the compromise was made by none other than the then PM Tun Abdul Razak that the CM would always be Parti Gerakan person.

That was a Barisan compromise within the family. The deputy CM would also be an Umno person, and the MCA in this state would only be given some other critical appointments like the city council post.

Now, is that not an unwritten rule? How can we violate this without opening the whole can of worms and start to undo the entire social contract of the BN? Can and should MCA not now demand that the chief minister should be an MCA person as they have more seats in Parliament?

I hope all parties understand, respect and appreciate what is really at stake here. My advice is as follows: we say in Malay, \” apa yang tersurat dan tersirat jangan mempersoalkan \” (Do not question the specified and implied policies).

I hope this applies to the Umno juniors as well as the seniors and those who should know better, and especially the DPM whose father \”personally brokered the original agreement\’.

Why blame others

Let me then conclude this piece with my limited experience of working for Abdul Razak during my ICDAU days between 1972 and 1975. One of my earliest assignments after joining the PTD service was to \”review and report on the progress of the Penang Development Corporation\” under the National Operations Room system of monitoring under Razak.

The CEO of PDC then was Chet Singh, a seconded PTD Officer from the Federal Government. One of the key and pet projects of the PM then was Komtar or the Kompleks Tun Abdul Razak.

The objective of this \”Dayabumi-type\” project was to inject Malay ownership into the heart of Georgetown to support the 30 percent bumiputera policy and agenda which was also directly under the jurisdiction of the ICDAU.

I remember how \”sensitive and delicate this issue and project were\”, but I also remember how happy the late Razak was with the effective implementation of the project. You see, one of the explicit goals of the all SEDC or State Economic Development Corporations was the creation and ownership of the bumiputera share of wealth in every state.

Penang is probably the only SEDC not called such because as she had other social development agenda as well, unlike the purely economic imperative of most of the others. Since the Razak days, the federal government had created many \”bumiputera development agencies\” explicitly to help with the 30 percent ownership agenda. These even include some special regional development federal agencies like the Penang Regional Development Agency or PERDA.

My question to the DPM: is not the PM one for all Malaysians and are you not the deputy president of Umno, and why have you not ensured the equitable development of Malays after your father gave such Penang an exemplary great start with KOMTAR?

Why blame others for the unfinished agenda?

Entirely a Malay agenda

Is it really fair to \”assign blame to the Penang CM, as do the Umno branches\” when the major funding and failures are well within the control of Malay agencies; ie those managed and controlled by Malay officials?

For that matter should not the minister of entrepreneur development under whose jurisdiction the Malay equity agenda sits be directly held and accountable for 30 percent Malay equity ownership?

Are not all the SEDCs under their jurisdiction? If I am not mistaken Chet Singh was the first and last non-Malay to head the PDC. Has not the PDC been under the domain of Malay Federal PTD officers since then?

Now why is the chief minister being blamed for the failure of this political agenda? Is not the primary responsibility of the Chief Minister of Penang to ensure economic development and growth of Penang in terms of wealth creation and NOT really the distribution agenda? Is not the distribution goal an entirely Malay agenda which is directly under Malay jurisdiction? So, why blame the CM for it?

And, if the Umno branches are wrong maybe they should be educated and informed but surely the blame should not be passed on to the chief minister of all Malaysians in Penang.

And equally, it is out of place for an Umno deputy president to publicly \”reprimand\” a BN chief minister of Penang. I am sure no other state would tolerate this; what more the CM of other states, like Sarawak and Sabah!