It does describe the Malaysian situation.
After writing about the need for separation between the state and federal civil services for The Malaysian Insider during the 2009 Perak constitutional crisis, I learned that the relationship of the services depend on whether the state was part of the Federated Malay States. The FMS were the first states — from the north to the south, Perak, Pahang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan — to have federated in the modern history of what is now called Malaysia. While the civil service in other states are independent from the federal service, the services belonging to the former FMS is linked to its federal counterpart. Tricia Yeoh has written on the matter with greater insight.[1]
And so, when the controversy of the appointment of the State Secretary in Selangor erupted, I understood why the state government was more than apprehensive. What I understood less was the arguments pro-Pakatan Rakyat individuals and groups threw: how it was unconstitutional and how the state not should but have a say.
I am not an expert on the state constitution but as a layperson, the convention is clear and it is being followed, however abhorrent it is to the spirit of federalism. It is ultimately within the power of the federal civil service. Nevertheless, the federal service could at least solicit opinion from the state out of courtesy, which the state insisted did not happen. The way the federal service shocked the state government is not ideal to say the least.
I fully understand that convention does not always coincide with constitutionality, but in this case, chances are it does. The convention provides the context and the background of the issue. Many who believe that controversy is a violation of the state constitution seem to ignore history, hence context. The history of the former FMS matters. The fact that the Selangor state government has proposed to amend the state constitution to address the issue reveals how untenable the argument about unconstitutionality is.[2]
So, I am skeptical of the arguments about unconstitutionality forwarded by pro-Pakatan Rakyat individuals and groups (some have turned into conspiracy theories which I through and through reject; observed the argument related to Anwar Ibrahim and Wikileaks), although I definitely can sympathize with the fear of the possible toppling of the current Selangor government in the same style as Perak. But I am thinking that if that does happened, Barisan Nasional will be guaranteed to not to win Selangor in the next general election, whenever that will be.
In the end, regardless of my criticism of Pakatan Rakyat, I am on their side on this matter simply because I am a federalist by virtue of my distrust of an overly strong government, at the federal level or otherwise. Besides, legal or not, it is outrageous to have someone who is distrusted by the state government to work as the state’s top civil servant. When the law does that, then something is wrong with it. It needs to be changed.
I am all for greater division between the state and the federal governments. Therefore, I support the proposal by Selangor to increase the independence of its civil service. I am less enthusiastic about improving the power of the sultan though.[3] Remember, I am a republican. A dormant republican but a republican nonetheless.
But as a friend wrote to a bunch of people connected to the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, there are other concerns with regards to greater division. One involves the issue of prestige. For states other than the former FMS, the civil servants have nowhere to go. Imagine the civil service of Perlis. It is the smallest state in Malaysia and it is not too rich. It is a dead end, career-wise for state civil servants. For the service in the FMS, one can do very, very well.
Prestige is euphemism for higher compensation and perks, if you are wondering.
[1] — Since taking over several state governments, one of the areas the Pakatan Rakyat has had to contend most with is the civil service. A majority of the bureaucrats working within the state governments are federally appointed, especially higher-ranked officials from the prestigious Administrative and Diplomatic Service (Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik). [Civil servants at an impasse. Tricia Yeoh. Penang Economic Monthly via The Malaysian Insider. September 4 2010]
[2] — SHAH ALAM, Jan 4 — Selangor is considering amending the state constitution with retrospective effect to break the impasse over the appointment of Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi as the state secretary. [Selangor mulls retrospective amendments over Khusrin row. Boo Su-Lyn. The Malaysian Insider. January 4 2010]
[3] — SHAH ALAM: The Selangor state government wants the state constitution amended to return the power of appointing the state secretary to the Sultan and the Mentri Besar. [S’gor MB wants state constitution amended. Wani Muthiah. A. Ruban. The Star. January 3 2010]
CUEPACS, labor union for civil servants in Malaysia, given current environment of large fiscal deficit and economic uncertainty, has the audacity to demand for bonus.[1] The demand is not met, as evident by absence of such bonus in the proposed federal government budget tabled nearly two weeks ago. Today, the Prime Minister rightly admonished — admonished awfully understates the situation since the PM said demand is “morally wrong” — the union in the process.[2]
As a taxpayer staring at the possibility of higher tax in the future, that demand clearly is impossible to meet. The large fiscal deficit due to combination of structural and cyclical factors must be tackled and at the moment, I would probably be grudgingly willing to suffer increased taxes if government spending sees reduction at the same. I however would like to see those who fail to pay their taxes be brought to book first before having to suffer from a tax hike, although that is a different issue that I will not delve farther here.
Returning to my point, granting such bonus will only increase the likelihood of tax increase without a reduction of government size, which is already bloated.
You know what?
If they really want their bonus, I can be amenable to that but only on one condition: a lot of civil servants need to lose their job. This means badly performing civil servants have to go through the door. I will not mind having high quality and productive civil servants, which definitely will mean smaller workforce, being paid good bonus.
The union is a vote bank. That is probably why it has the audacity to do this. In this case, its audacity comes at the expense of taxpayers. That is intolerable.
Money does not grow on tree, mate.
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: Cuepacs wants the Government to pay the 1.2 million civil servants a two-month bonus this year.
It hopes the Government will include the bonus in Budget 2010 plus a similar incentive for 400,000 pensioners, said the umbrella body’s president Omar Osman. [Cuepacs seeks bonus of two months for govt staff. The Star. October 18 2009]
[2] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 4 — It is morally wrong to ask for bonuses while the country is still struggling to sail out of the economic downturn and people in the private sector are being retrenched, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today.
”It’s morally wrong to ask for bonus when the economy has not recovered. I keep telling Cuepacs (president Omar Osman) that it cannot be just like a trade union, shout for bonus every time (there is budget) because you want to (remain) popular among your members,” he said. [Najib slams Cuepacs as ”˜immoral’ to demand bonus. Bernama. October 18 2009]
PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Alimuddin Mohd Dom has been named the Education Ministry’s new director-general.
Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein described Alimuddin, formerly deputy director-general (schools), as experienced, fair and hardworking. [Alimuddin named Education Ministry’s new DG. The Star. August 17 2007]
He was appointed to the position of deputy DG back in March.
When a disgustingly overweight person gluttonously swallow a plate for four, it is only right for a doctor to kindly advise the person to slow down and go on a healthier diet. It would be almost sinful if the doctor kept his wisdom to himself. In the same light, it is almost sinful not to criticize the Malaysian civil service for going on an unhealthy diet of salary increase.
I believe that I speak within the same wavelength with many others when I say I would like to see a respectable civil service. I would like to see a civil service that creates envy among those not on its payroll. I would like to see a civil service that attracts not contempt but admiration among the public.
The Malaysian civil service could do just that by raising wages and benefits within the institution as well as downsizing. One of two components of the policy has been exercised this week. Unfortunately, it has not been done properly. When the Prime Minister announced the pay hike, it is not a step forward but instead, it is a step backward.
High wages, given proper condition, is a tool to attract the best talents into any organization. Furthermore, wages reflect productivity and productivity between individuals might differ. Hence, there should be variance among wages when productivity levels differ, vertically as well as horizontally. In order words, wages increase across individual of different productivity level should not be uniform, horizontally or vertically, unless productivity itself is uniform.
The hike recently declared by the Prime Minister is clearly being executed without respect to productivity. It seems that everybody is being rewarded equally horizontally and thus, it does not discriminate high and low productivity individuals. Therefore, its carrot and stick model lacks the stick while everybody gets a carrot. In short, the policy is blunt.
While that method might reward deserving individuals with wondrous work effort, it also rewards under-performers. If an organization rewards low performance — as much as high productivity workers, no less — the better workers would sooner or later realize that one would get the same rewards with less effort. Thus, given time, the average productivity would fall toward the lowest point.
This undiscriminating reward system requires resources and the over-generous act of rewarding everybody requires tremendous resources. Scarcity unfortunately is real. Nobody needs an economics degree to know this, save, maybe, the communists. Eventually, there will be insufficient resources to sustain the over-generous model. This unsustainability will bring the civil service back to square one: low paid public sector. Moreover, it prevent the introduction of competitive salary levels across similar productivity levels needed to attract the best talents available.
If the civil service aspires to be the employer of last resort, then the over-generous model might work marvelously well in its favor. As an employer of last resort, the civil service would prefer quantity to quality.
For a respectable civil service, the model must reward performers and punish slackers. What the civil service needs is a proper carrot and stick model. Reward the able, sack the slackers and through this, stop being an employer of last resort. I say it again: increase the salaries within the civil service to competitive market rate and downsize. The civil service must get on a healthier diet.
In the final analysis, the recent hike is a perfect example of blunt and poorly designed policy. Blunt policy, including blanket fuel subsidy among others, creates unintended and possibly adverse consequences. This blunt policy of unselective wages increase in the civil service without attention to productivity in particular will create adverse unintended consequences that will further lower the standard of the Malaysian civil service.
Blunt policy might help the Prime Minister winning an election but it is not good enough to build a better society.
p/s — I might have unwittingly given the impression that productivity is the only determinant of wages. I apologize but I do not imply as such. Just to clear the air, there are other determinants of wages. One of them is scarcity of skills.