Has Selangor S Cat Policy Gone To The Dogs

---

In March 2008, the ruling government fell in Selangor, marking the end of more than 50 years of rule by the initially formed Alliance Party, which later evolved into BN. A loose coalition of DAP, PKR and PAS then found itself in control.
Like a new broom sweeping clean, Selangor joined Penang in creating a new policy – Competent, Accountable and Transparent (CAT) in their governance policies.
In Selangor, the ghosts of the past and skeletons hidden in closets came into the public domain, especially with the lawatan sambil belajar (field trip) extravaganza of the then outgoing menteri besar Khir Toyo and his family’s trip to Disneyland in Orlando, Florida, accompanied by his maid.
Even his wife was in the news for having organised a VIP Wives trip to Cambodia to see “how poor people lived” using donations from state-owned companies.
ADSKhir was summoned to appear before the Selangor Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat), a state-level committee, which resulted in his suspension from his position as an assemblyperson for one year.
Former Selangor menteri besar Khir ToyoSlowly, local councils began dismantling the historical apparatus that allowed politicians and their cronies to enrich themselves at the expense of residents.
Saddled with an outstanding amount of RM6.2 million from a BN-appointed crony company, the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ, now City Council MBPJ) decided, with the state government’s blessing, to operate all street parking.
In doing so, outstanding amounts were not written off as bad debts but instead recorded in the books under the heading “amounts due”.
Accountability and transparency
These days, CAT appears to have gone to the dogs. While judging competency may be subjective, issues of accountability and transparency have gradually diminished, with secrecy and opacity prevailing.
Questions on the proposed privatisation, which I have previously described as “piratisation”, of the collection of street parking fees have been met with a stoic yet bulwark defence of silence, stock answers where the CAT principle was conspicuously missed by omission.
“We will look into it” and “nothing has been finalised” were two such phrases used by Selangor Local Government and Tourism executive councillor Ng Suee Lim at a media conference two weeks ago.
Selangor exco Ng Suee LimDid they hear the loud voices of objection from residents’ associations, MPs, and civic societies?
Some of them were against, Ng said, but others voiced support.
What about the revenue-sharing agreement? Are the councils satisfied with the arrangements, especially given the drastic drop in income?
Ng said the state had engaged with the councillors of the four authorities, but did not provide details. However, that was not exactly truthful.
ADSIt was Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari, who let the cat out of the bag two days ago, saying that only the PJ council has opposed the privatisation scheme. That may not be accurate, to say the least.
The proposal was not formally presented to a full board of PJ councillors to take a formal stand. It was rejected, not objected to, at an informal gathering of not all councillors.
What about the other councils?
The Star quoted Shah Alam mayor Fauzi Yatim as saying that the Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) would accept and support the decision made by the state government.
“It was decided by Selangor government and we will execute what is needed,” he said at MBSA’s monthly full board meeting.
Local councils
The general principle is that the state government can “advise” local councils. Still, councillors are not required to follow instructions from the state government or members of the state executive council if those instructions are unlawful or exceed their legal authority.
Under Section 7(1) of the Local Government Act, local authorities are “bodies corporate,” meaning, among others, they have perpetual succession; they can sue and be sued; and can make decisions independently through the council and are not just a department or an arm of the state government.
The decision-making powers rest with the council and councillors, as members make decisions collectively via meetings and resolutions, with a caveat: the decisions must comply with laws, by-laws, and regulations, not with political directives from “outsiders” unless these are lawful.
The role and powers of the state government are supervisory, not micromanaging. It can issue general policy directions, but not compel illegal acts. It cannot override lawful decisions of the councils unless there has been a breach of law.
However, councillors may be personally liable under tort or criminal law if they participate in decisions that are illegal or corrupt. The law does not protect them from liability if they follow an unlawful order.
Under these circumstances, what is going to happen to the scheme, which is supposed to be implemented on Aug 1?
Have amendments been made and gazetted the relevant laws on street parking, including the Road Transport Act?
Let us not forget that parking charges imposed can be deemed to be a nullity if there are no relevant laws to authorise them.
Privatisation scheme
Previously, I suggested that the privatisation scheme be deferred pending a formal inquiry by Selcat, which Subang MP Wong Chen supported.
Subang MP Wong ChenWong said Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto highlights the transparent conduct of business and policy matters through open tenders.
“Any terms that we sign must be displayed to the rakyat. We are confident that the government can defend the scheme, but when silence persists, the people will conclude that something is not right.
“The scheme must be sustainable and fair. If the private company is going to make a profit worth hundreds of thousands of ringgit, the state government might as well do so itself,” Wong said.
Considering the new revelations emerging and the groundswell from residents’ associations and MPs, the entire scheme must be abandoned.
We do not need a third party taking away half of the parking revenues from councils for value-added services to residents.
Also, stop using the “RM200 million investment in CCTVs” ruse to hoodwink the people. At a whopping RM110,000 each, they must be the most expensive systems in the world!
Even in London, one of the most wired cities in the world, parking wardens still issue tickets, and not through artificial intelligence as touted by Ng. It is just gibberish, claptrap - humbug. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN, a veteran journalist, says the skeletons and ghosts of the past must be resurrected to remind our leaders that they can no longer hoodwink the people with pasar malam vendors’ lingo or misrepresenting or amplifying chinchai (simple) facts and figures. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---