We Have Ways To Keep Local Govts Accountable Without Polls

---

 


The call to restore local government elections has been ongoing since they were abolished in 1965. Many civil society groups, lawyers, and political parties have spoken and written about the need to give people back their “third vote”.
In 2012, the Penang government passed the Local Government Elections (Penang Island and Province Wellesley) Enactment 2012 to revive local elections, but the Election Commission refused to act, and the matter went to court.
In Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2014] 7 CLJ 861, the Federal Court ruled that Parliament was within its powers under Article 76(4) of the Federal Constitution to suspend local elections through Sections 10 and 15 of the Local Government Act 1976.
The Court also held that state enactments inconsistent with federal law would be struck down under Article 75.
But the court did not declare local elections unconstitutional. It recognised that they once existed and were suspended only as a “temporary” measure.
The obstacle is therefore political, not constitutional. Parliament has the power to repeal Section 15 and return the people’s third vote, but it has chosen not to.
Political will replaced with expediency
Today’s political landscape shows little appetite for reform. Some claim that restoring local elections would allow certain ethnic groups to dominate urban councils - an argument that is divisive and irrational.
What was once a rallying cry for democratic reform has been reduced to political opportunism. With the present “unity” or “madani” government formed by former political rivals, local elections are unlikely to be revived anytime soon.
This denial of the third vote strikes at the very heart of democracy. The legitimate interests of the people and the principle of natural justice demand that citizens be allowed to vote at all three levels of government.
Malaysians already exercise their first vote for Parliament and their second vote for the state assembly.
To then deny them the third vote for local councils - the tier of government most directly responsible for daily issues like parking, grass cutting, waste collection, and assessment rates - is unjust and indefensible.
Two votes without the third is an incomplete democracy.
People can still hold local councils accountable
Yet, people are not powerless. Even if local elections are not politically possible for now, citizens still have remedies under the law.
Section 10(2) of the Local Government Act provides that councillors must be appointed from among persons who can “represent the interests of their communities”.
This statutory duty is not symbolic; it carries real weight.
To give meaning to this, residents must first know who their councillors are. Local councils should publish the names, contact details, and roles of councillors, and display them prominently in their communities.
Without such transparency, “representation” is meaningless.
Councillors must also be accountable when residents raise issues. What people should do is always put their complaints and requests in writing, and insist on a written reply from the councillor.
If that councillor fails to respond or dismisses legitimate concerns, the residents should not give up.
Acting collectively, they may bring a class action in court to compel the councillor to carry out their statutory duty to represent the interests of the community. This is the legal remedy already available under Section 10(2).
Furthermore, councillors must ensure openness by publishing the minutes of council meetings. 
Residents have the right to know how decisions are debated and made. Local government must not operate in secrecy if councillors are to be taken seriously as community representatives.
This obligation extends to practical matters that directly affect people’s daily lives.
The imposition of parking fees on Saturdays, despite it being a non-working day for many, including government servants, and the unfair requirement for shop owners to pay parking charges in front of their own premises, are clear examples of issues where councillors must defend the interests of their communities.
In addition, recent developments provide a concrete example of how councillors can and must act for the people.
Councillors perfectly capable of upholding people’s interests
In August 2025, veteran journalist R Nadeswaran reported how the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) defied a Selangor state directive to privatise street parking.
While other local councils - including Shah Alam, Subang Jaya, and Selayang - ceded to the directive, effectively handing over half their parking revenue to a private contractor, MBPJ councillors stood firm.
They rejected the scheme, arguing that it was unfair to residents and harmful to the council’s revenue base.
Nadeswaran rightly described this as a rare example of councillors showing strength and independence. Their decision reflected the wishes of residents, demonstrating what it means to act as true representatives of the people.
Contrast this with councils that complied and now face potential shortfalls in revenue, raising fears of higher fees or cuts in services like cleanliness and maintenance.
This episode shows two things: first, councillors can stand up to unfair directives; second, residents must push their councillors to do so consistently.
Councillors who merely rubber-stamp state policies are not “representing communities” - they are betraying them.
In short, even under the present appointed system, residents are not without remedies. By invoking Section 10(2), they can demand transparency, responsiveness, and accountability.
These mechanisms are not a substitute for the ballot box, but they are immediate ways for citizens to reclaim their voice in local governance.
The fight for the third vote continues, but until Parliament finds the political will to act, Malaysians must use the tools already in their hands to ensure councillors serve the legitimate interests of the people.
After all, representation without accountability is no representation at all. - Mkini
K KUNASEKARAN is a Perak PSM committee member.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---