How Do We Stop Privatisation Money Grabs

---

 


At the outset, let it be declared that this is a piece of journalistic work aimed at educating and informing the public of developments - past, present, and future in the public interest.
It should not be misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misrepresented as an idea or proposal for use by politicians, their cronies, or well-connected businesspersons to enrich themselves.
On the contrary, it can be viewed as an idea that borrows plotlines aimed at taking away portions of the residents’ contributions to the community and its quality of life.
Supposing you wake up one morning to read about a state government diktat which compels all local authorities to agree with an unrelated third party to share its revenue from the collection of assessments, what would you do?
Given the quantum, one would expect a small percentage, but what happens when it is decreed that 20 percent would be a fair figure for the third party to receive as a reward for its grand plans?
The Petaling Jaya City Council collects about RM280 million annually, and parting with RM56 million would certainly affect its services to the people.
State govt’s discretionary power
But who cares? It will be argued that this third party would enhance collection, introduce better solutions using artificial intelligence to better administer the council’s methods, increasing efficiency and delivery.
This, they will argue, is to be supported by a claim that an information technology system costing RM500 million would be installed to assist in streamlining the collection.
They would make promises but refused to give guarantees or undertakings on the forecast returns.
As far-fetched as they sound, do councils have to accept such dastardly, rotten, and despicable orders without raising a stink?
But the state will argue that they are empowered to do so under Section 9 of the Local Government Act, which reads: “The state authority may from time to time give the local authority directions of a general character, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, on the policy to be followed in the exercise of the powers conferred and the duties imposed on the local authority by or under this Act in relation to matters which appear to the state authority to affect the interests of the local authority area, and the local authority shall as soon as possible give effect to all such directions.”
With such vast powers vested in the state, who ensures that they are used fairly and equitably for the benefit of the people, instead of for selected individuals or corporate bodies?
As I had previously written, this general principle is that the state government can “advise” local councils, but it has been turned into one where the state has been accused of coercion, among other things.
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.
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.
ADSThe 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.
Who dares defy the bosses?
But there is always the state’s hold over the councillors. Since it is the state that appoints them, they are expected to be subservient to their master’s voice, not to those related to their role as “unelected representatives”.
Any dissension or opposition to state directives would result in not being reappointed when their two-year term expires in December.
Against such a backdrop, the systemic problem of enforced compliance comes to the fore as there is always the tendency to “angkat tangan” (raise your hand) and say “setuju” (agree) when it comes to orders from the state, however contentious they may be.
Even elected representatives - state assemblypersons - are reluctant to speak up against unfair policies for fear of being dropped as candidates in the next elections, leaving MPs as lawmakers to fight the cause.
So, with parking operations already in private hands in three areas, how would you, as a ratepayer, react if 20 percent of your money ends up in private hands?
Do not discount such a possibility. Did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams that half of what you pay for parking has ended up in private hands, at least in three local councils?
What happens if a similar outrageous project is shoved down the throats of residents? You have a choice: either to “surrender” or stand up and be heard.
Judging from the recent experience with parking, the voices of opposition will only come from selected quarters, while the majority will say “Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Three bags full.” and await the next privatisation (read: “piratisation”) and maintain stoic silence. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN fears the “success” of the privatisation of street parking operations may spawn or create more platforms for the theft of public money. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT

---