By: (Sun, 11 Apr 2010)


The basic allowance is RM500 a month. An additional allowance of RM50 is thrown in for attendance at every full-board meeting or sub-committee meeting. Mere attendance will suffice. You hardly have to speak at meetings and when proposals are put forward, you just have to raise your hand or say the word "setuju" (agree). You don’t even have to put on your thinking cap.
Almost every year, a bonus incentive in the form of an all-expense paid overseas trip comes your away. It could be South Africa this year and Mexico next ... Don’t worry about being chided for taking a holiday on someone else’s account. After all, everyone in this position does and you are just standing in queue for the first available junket. There are other perks that come with the job. Like making contacts or putting deals together. Whether there could be benefits is for the conscience to answer.
THESE words appeared on April 10, 2002 – two days after the re-launch of this newspaper. We marked our 8th birthday last Wednesday and it was the opportunity to re-look this writer’s first column in the revamped and free edition of theSun. Eight years on and has anything changed?
For years, it has been advocated that the system of appointing state government nominees to local councils must stop. In its place, I had said several times, there should be councillors elected by the people. Having investigated, discovered and written about abuses in the system, I had argued that there is no substitute for elected representatives who will be accountable to the people. If they are incompetent or corrupt, I had said, we could throw them out in the next election.
Eight years on, with a change in government, in Selangor at least, little has changed. Instead of a full quota of political nominees, community leaders and those with knowledge of local government affairs have been appointed. They make up less than a third, and the majority are from political parties. Using the Petaling Jaya City Council as a yardstick, it’s not the system of appointing councillors that should change, but some key personnel who consider themselves "Little Napoleons" and "Untouchables".
Councillors’ allowance has gone up to RM750, but some spend up to four days a week "doing council work". Because the Little Napoleons refuse to budge from their old work culture, councillors have to compel them to implement the policies that had been approved. These employees know they cannot be transferred or sacked, that their actions will be accepted and condoned, and that they can carry on doing so until they retire.
Councillors do not have executive powers and are mere policymakers. They leave the implementation to council staff, many of whom seem to have adopted the phrase "Mana Aku Punya?" as their motto. Councillors can make good decisions but when council employees treat them as "intruders", things can go wrong – very wrong. When wrongdoings are uncovered, a systematic machinery comes into play to cover up and to protect perpetrators. Last year, an independent and internal inquiry found four officers guilty of malpractice in the purchase of signboards. The findings were sent to the higher-ups for action. Instead of being sacked or referred to the authorities because there were elements of criminality, two were denied increments for two years and the others given warnings.
For councillors who have been pushing for good governance, it was a slap in the face. "You can’t do anything to me" is now the common taunt of staff. And as one councillor put it: "They are waiting for the next election. They think the familiar faces they worked with previously will return and that they can collectively prosper."
Many show their contempt for the councillors by sending junior officers who can’t make decisions to sub-committee meetings. At a meeting to iron out issues on sites for advertising billboards, no one from the licensing department was present although notices of the meeting were sent out two weeks earlier.
Besides, councillors are subjected to being "hauled up" by big brothers in the state government who see it as their birth right to change or object to policies promulgated by councillors. In at least two instances, the exco member in charge of local government vetoed "good-for-the-people" policies because of lobbying by business interests.
We can understand the frustrations of "volunteer" councillors who see roadblocks at every corner in their endeavours to see better service to the ratepayers. Perhaps the time has come for a handful of full-time, salaried councillors with executive powers. Why not, if it means they will drive the council to greater heights? If a big stick needs to be wielded in the quest for excellent service, there must also be provisions to fire those who don’t perform or deliver. But does the state government have the political will and determination to do it? Watch this space for answers.
R. Nadeswaran has been covering and tracking local governments in his 40 years as a journalist and knows that for some staff, nothing will get into their heads except through a crack. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com.