By Jerry Francis
Ipoh Echo
The Perak Government’s proposal to establish advisory boards in every district to hear public views from a broad spectrum in determining the state‘s direction, appears to be a good idea.
However, why is it necessary now? Is the state government admitting that what had been done in the past was not according to “public opinion and feedback” and therefore it needs to form the advisory board comprising NGOs and media representatives? Or, it is merely to satisfy those aspiring to hold official post?
This is the impression I got when state chairman for local government, Dato’ Dr. Mah Hang Soon, recently explained that the advisory board is merely to channel public opinion and feedback on issues and problems faced by the people. “Its role is only to give opinions and advice from their respective field of interest,” he stressed.
The creation of an advisory body was first disclosed by the Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir last year, although he labelled it as a civic society council. “What is good is that it would involve the whole community in social development where the NGOs chosen will be representing all the bodies which focus on poverty eradication, welfare and development,” Zambry had stated.
Appoint Only Knowledgeable Councillors
In an immediate reaction to the proposed move, President of Ipoh City Watch (ICW), Augustine Anthony, described it as “creating more bureaucracy”.
According to him if the local government had followed section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 1976 when appointing their councillors then there would be no need to set up such an advisory board.
“At present the Councillors are mostly from political parties who perhaps are clueless in the affairs of the local council matters and the fact that there is a suggestion that there should be an advisory body only compounds the belief that they are so,” he said.
Augustine pointed out that under the said section, the councillors appointed must have wide experience in local government affairs, have achieved distinction in any profession in commerce or industry, and are capable of representing the interest of their communities in the local authority area. “It is for this reason we have always asked the local government to follow the spirit of section 10(2) and that is to appoint the best brains in the community. And if we have the best, then there is no reason for them to be advised by some other advisory body,” he added.
Two Heads Rather Than One?
It appears that the present corps of local councillors in the state is incapable of getting opinions and feedback from the people and therefore it is necessary to have two heads rather than one? How can such an advisory board be relevant to the local authorities when its members can only provide lip service, as they have no voting rights.
Certainly the state government has sufficient expertise and the machinery to undertake development projects which are beneficial to the people without having an advisory board to pass on opinion and feedback.
Creating an advisory board will just encourage discussion after discussion, and waste time as well as public funds, without achieving its objectives. Take for instance the various state government’s sponsored tourism seminars and symposiums held in the past with the view to get “opinions and feedback” from private sector and individuals to promote tourism to the state. I was invited to attend a number of them. Lengthy discussions were often held and views and suggestions were compiled and reported to the state government.
The same views and suggestions repeatedly emerged at subsequent seminars and symposiums. Yet, nothing came out of such discussions, just a waste of time and money.
Need For Honest Intention
Therefore, there is no doubt that the proposed advisory board will end up the same, unless the state government has the honest intention to hear the “opinions and feedback” of the people.
The state government has all the trained professionals and agencies, including the State Economic Planning Unit, State Development Corporation, and various local councils to plan and implement suitable projects. All the state government needs is for their elected representatives, councillors and officers to be dedicated and sincere in carrying out their responsibilities, and for the authorities, to honestly and fairly implement all viable requests from the people, irrespective of opposition controlled constituencies.
There are a lot of hangers on and out of job BN politicians and cronies to be fed, clothed and housed.
This is just another scam to give them public money to live. Whether the money is haram or halal is not an issue here. The money has to be given away from the generosity of the BN government.
It is fully in line with the 1Malaysia concept.
Augustine Anthony, described it as “creating more bureaucracy”.
Absolutely. It just serves to create another layer and dilute the speed and effects of feedbacks. It is a proven management tool that the most effective feedback structure is a simple and direct path.
This proposal smacks of creating more opportunities to “feed, clothed and house BN hangers on” as Sheriff Singh describes it. It is also more form than substance and provides a convenient platform for the appointed councillors to hide behind in the event that there are public complaints that the appointed councillors have failed in their duties.
Yes I agree that such boards are a waste of taxpayers’ monies.
A more effective way to get effective local government is to bring back local elections.
Remember the vertical banners hung outside all the courts in Malaysia with the words “BUAT KERJA”? These are just silent admissions to the world at large that the courts have NOT BEEN DOING WORK ALL THESE WHILE and that court staff have been getting GAJI BUTA!