- •Public Administration And Public Policy
- •Contents
- •Acknowledgments
- •About The Authors
- •Comments On Purpose and Methods
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Culture
- •1.3 Colonial Legacies
- •1.3.1 British Colonial Legacy
- •1.3.2 Latin Legacy
- •1.3.3 American Legacy
- •1.4 Decentralization
- •1.5 Ethics
- •1.5.1 Types of Corruption
- •1.5.2 Ethics Management
- •1.6 Performance Management
- •1.6.2 Structural Changes
- •1.6.3 New Public Management
- •1.7 Civil Service
- •1.7.1 Size
- •1.7.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •1.7.3 Pay and Performance
- •1.7.4 Training
- •1.8 Conclusion
- •Contents
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Historical Developments and Legacies
- •2.2.1.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of King as Leader
- •2.2.1.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.1.3 Third Legacy: Traditions of Hierarchy and Clientelism
- •2.2.1.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition of Reconciliation
- •2.2.2.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of Bureaucratic Elites as a Privileged Group
- •2.2.2.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.2.3 Third Legacy: The Practice of Staging Military Coups
- •2.2.2.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition for Military Elites to be Loyal to the King
- •2.2.3.1 First Legacy: Elected Politicians as the New Political Boss
- •2.2.3.2 Second Legacy: Frequent and Unpredictable Changes of Political Bosses
- •2.2.3.3 Third Legacy: Politicians from the Provinces Becoming Bosses
- •2.2.3.4 Fourth Legacy: The Problem with the Credibility of Politicians
- •2.2.4.1 First Emerging Legacy: Big Businessmen in Power
- •2.2.4.2 Second Emerging Legacy: Super CEO Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.4.3 Third Emerging Legacy: Government must Serve Big Business Interests
- •2.2.5.1 Emerging Legacy: The Clash between Governance Values and Thai Realities
- •2.2.5.2 Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters
- •2.3 Uniqueness of the Thai Political Context
- •2.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •3.1 Thailand Administrative Structure
- •3.2 History of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.2.1 Thailand as a Centralized State
- •3.2.2 Towards Decentralization
- •3.3 The Politics of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.3.2 Shrinking Political Power of the Military and Bureaucracy
- •3.4 Drafting the TAO Law 199421
- •3.5 Impacts of the Decentralization Reform on Local Government in Thailand: Ongoing Challenges
- •3.5.1 Strong Executive System
- •3.5.2 Thai Local Political System
- •3.5.3 Fiscal Decentralization
- •3.5.4 Transferred Responsibilities
- •3.5.5 Limited Spending on Personnel
- •3.5.6 New Local Government Personnel System
- •3.6 Local Governments Reaching Out to Local Community
- •3.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Corruption: General Situation in Thailand
- •4.2.1 Transparency International and its Corruption Perception Index
- •4.2.2 Types of Corruption
- •4.3 A Deeper Look at Corruption in Thailand
- •4.3.1 Vanishing Moral Lessons
- •4.3.4 High Premium on Political Stability
- •4.4 Existing State Mechanisms to Fight Corruption
- •4.4.2 Constraints and Limitations of Public Agencies
- •4.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 History of Performance Management
- •5.2.1 National Economic and Social Development Plans
- •5.2.2 Master Plan of Government Administrative Reform
- •5.3 Performance Management Reform: A Move Toward High Performance Organizations
- •5.3.1 Organization Restructuring to Increase Autonomy
- •5.3.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.3 Knowledge Management Toward Learning Organizations
- •5.3.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned
- •5.3.5.1 Organizational Restructuring
- •5.3.5.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.5.3 Knowledge Management
- •5.3.5.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.4.4 Outcome of Budgeting Reform: The Budget Process in Thailand
- •5.4.5 Conclusion
- •5.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •6.1.1 Civil Service Personnel
- •6.1.2 Development of the Civil Service Human Resource System
- •6.1.3 Problems of Civil Service Human Resource
- •6.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •6.2.1 Main Feature
- •6.2.2 Challenges of Recruitment and Selection
- •6.3.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.2 Salary Management
- •6.4.2.2 Performance Management and Salary Increase
- •6.4.3 Position Allowance
- •6.4.5 National Compensation Committee
- •6.4.6 Retirement and Pension
- •6.4.7 Challenges in Compensation
- •6.5 Training and Development
- •6.5.1 Main Feature
- •6.5.2 Challenges of Training and Development in the Civil Service
- •6.6 Discipline and Merit Protection
- •6.6.1 Main Feature
- •6.6.2 Challenges of Discipline
- •6.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •English References
- •Contents
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Setting and Context
- •7.3 Malayan Union and the Birth of the United Malays National Organization
- •7.4 Post Independence, New Economic Policy, and Malay Dominance
- •7.5 Centralization of Executive Powers under Mahathir
- •7.6 Administrative Values
- •7.6.1 Close Ties with the Political Party
- •7.6.2 Laws that Promote Secrecy, Continuing Concerns with Corruption
- •7.6.3 Politics over Performance
- •7.6.4 Increasing Islamization of the Civil Service
- •7.7 Ethnic Politics and Reforms
- •7.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 System of Government in Malaysia
- •8.5 Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization
- •8.6 Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening Decentralization
- •8.7 Reinforcing Centralization
- •8.8 Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization
- •8.9 Where to Decentralization?
- •8.10 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Ethics and Corruption in Malaysia: General Observations
- •9.2.1 Factors of Corruption
- •9.3 Recent Corruption Scandals
- •9.3.1 Cases Involving Bureaucrats and Executives
- •9.3.2 Procurement Issues
- •9.4 Efforts to Address Corruption and Instill Ethics
- •9.4.1.1 Educational Strategy
- •9.4.1.2 Preventive Strategy
- •9.4.1.3 Punitive Strategy
- •9.4.2 Public Accounts Committee and Public Complaints Bureau
- •9.5 Other Efforts
- •9.6 Assessment and Recommendations
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •10.1 History of Performance Management in the Administrative System
- •10.1.1 Policy Frameworks
- •10.1.2 Organizational Structures
- •10.1.2.1 Values and Work Ethic
- •10.1.2.2 Administrative Devices
- •10.1.2.3 Performance, Financial, and Budgetary Reporting
- •10.2 Performance Management Reforms in the Past Ten Years
- •10.2.1 Electronic Government
- •10.2.2 Public Service Delivery System
- •10.2.3 Other Management Reforms
- •10.3 Assessment of Performance Management Reforms
- •10.4 Analysis and Recommendations
- •10.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.2.1 Public Service Department
- •11.2.2 Public Service Commission
- •11.2.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •11.2.4 Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit
- •11.2.5 Administrative and Diplomatic Service
- •11.4 Civil Service Pension Scheme
- •11.5 Civil Service Neutrality
- •11.6 Civil Service Culture
- •11.7 Reform in the Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.2.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.3.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.3.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.4.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.4.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.5.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.5.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.6.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.6.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.7 Public Administration and Society
- •12.7.1 Public Accountability and Participation
- •12.7.2 Administrative Values
- •12.8 Societal and Political Challenge over Bureaucratic Dominance
- •12.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Constitutional Framework of the Basic Law
- •13.4 Changing Relations between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •13.4.1 Constitutional Dimension
- •13.4.1.1 Contending Interpretations over the Basic Law
- •13.4.1.3 New Constitutional Order in the Making
- •13.4.2 Political Dimension
- •13.4.2.3 Contention over Political Reform
- •13.4.3 The Economic Dimension
- •13.4.3.1 Expanding Intergovernmental Links
- •13.4.3.2 Fostering Closer Economic Partnership and Financial Relations
- •13.4.3.3 Seeking Cooperation and Coordination in Regional and National Development
- •13.4.4 External Dimension
- •13.5 Challenges and Prospects in the Relations between the Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •References
- •Contents
- •14.1 Honesty, Integrity, and Adherence to the Law
- •14.2 Accountability, Openness, and Political Neutrality
- •14.2.1 Accountability
- •14.2.2 Openness
- •14.2.3 Political Neutrality
- •14.3 Impartiality and Service to the Community
- •14.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Brief Overview of Performance Management in Hong Kong
- •15.3.1 Measuring and Assessing Performance
- •15.3.2 Adoption of Performance Pledges
- •15.3.3 Linking Budget to Performance
- •15.3.4 Relating Rewards to Performance
- •15.4 Assessment of Outcomes of Performance Management Reforms
- •15.4.1 Are Departments Properly Measuring their Performance?
- •15.4.2 Are Budget Decisions Based on Performance Results?
- •15.4.5 Overall Evaluation
- •15.5 Measurability of Performance
- •15.6 Ownership of, and Responsibility for, Performance
- •15.7 The Politics of Performance
- •15.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Structure of the Public Sector
- •16.2.1 Core Government
- •16.2.2 Hybrid Agencies
- •16.2.4 Private Businesses that Deliver Public Services
- •16.3 Administrative Values
- •16.4 Politicians and Bureaucrats
- •16.5 Management Tools and their Reform
- •16.5.1 Selection
- •16.5.2 Performance Management
- •16.5.3 Compensation
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 The Philippines: A Brief Background
- •17.4 Philippine Bureaucracy during the Spanish Colonial Regime
- •17.6 American Colonial Regime and the Philippine Commonwealth
- •17.8 Independence Period and the Establishment of the Institute of Public Administration
- •17.9 Administrative Values in the Philippines
- •17.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Toward a Genuine Local Autonomy and Decentralization in the Philippines
- •18.2.1 Evolution of Local Autonomy
- •18.2.2 Government Structure and the Local Government System
- •18.2.3 Devolution under the Local Government Code of 1991
- •18.2.4 Local Government Finance
- •18.2.5 Local Government Bureaucracy and Personnel
- •18.3 Review of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its Implementation
- •18.3.1 Gains and Successes of Decentralization
- •18.3.2 Assessing the Impact of Decentralization
- •18.3.2.1 Overall Policy Design
- •18.3.2.2 Administrative and Political Issues
- •18.3.2.2.1 Central and Sub-National Role in Devolution
- •18.3.2.2.3 High Budget for Personnel at the Local Level
- •18.3.2.2.4 Political Capture by the Elite
- •18.3.2.3 Fiscal Decentralization Issues
- •18.3.2.3.1 Macroeconomic Stability
- •18.3.2.3.2 Policy Design Issues of the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.3.2.3.4 Disruptive Effect of the Creation of New Local Government Units
- •18.3.2.3.5 Disparate Planning, Unhealthy Competition, and Corruption
- •18.4 Local Governance Reforms, Capacity Building, and Research Agenda
- •18.4.1 Financial Resources and Reforming the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.4.3 Government Functions and Powers
- •18.4.6 Local Government Performance Measurement
- •18.4.7 Capacity Building
- •18.4.8 People Participation
- •18.4.9 Political Concerns
- •18.4.10 Federalism
- •18.5 Conclusions and the Way Forward
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Control
- •19.2.1 Laws that Break Up the Alignment of Forces to Minimize State Capture
- •19.2.2 Executive Measures that Optimize Deterrence
- •19.2.3 Initiatives that Close Regulatory Gaps
- •19.2.4 Collateral Measures on Electoral Reform
- •19.3 Guidance
- •19.3.1 Leadership that Casts a Wide Net over Corrupt Acts
- •19.3.2 Limiting Monopoly and Discretion to Constrain Abuse of Power
- •19.3.3 Participatory Appraisal that Increases Agency Resistance against Misconduct
- •19.3.4 Steps that Encourage Public Vigilance and the Growth of Civil Society Watchdogs
- •19.3.5 Decentralized Guidance that eases Log Jams in Centralized Decision Making
- •19.4 Management
- •19.5 Creating Virtuous Circles in Public Ethics and Accountability
- •19.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2 Problems and Challenges Facing Bureaucracy in the Philippines Today
- •20.3 Past Reform Initiatives of the Philippine Public Administrative System
- •20.4.1 Rebuilding Institutions and Improving Performance
- •20.4.1.1 Size and Effectiveness of the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.1.2 Privatization
- •20.4.1.3 Addressing Corruption
- •20.4.1.5 Improving Work Processes
- •20.4.2 Performance Management Initiatives for the New Millennium
- •20.4.2.1 Financial Management
- •20.4.2.2 New Government Accounting System
- •20.4.2.3 Public Expenditure Management
- •20.4.2.4 Procurement Reforms
- •20.4.3 Human Resource Management
- •20.4.3.1 Organizing for Performance
- •20.4.3.2 Performance Evaluation
- •20.4.3.3 Rationalizing the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.3.4 Public Sector Compensation
- •20.4.3.5 Quality Management Systems
- •20.4.3.6 Local Government Initiatives
- •20.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Country Development Context
- •21.3 Evolution and Current State of the Philippine Civil Service System
- •21.3.1 Beginnings of a Modern Civil Service
- •21.3.2 Inventory of Government Personnel
- •21.3.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •21.3.6 Training and Development
- •21.3.7 Incentive Structure in the Bureaucracy
- •21.3.8 Filipino Culture
- •21.3.9 Bureaucratic Values and Performance Culture
- •21.3.10 Grievance and Redress System
- •21.4 Development Performance of the Philippine Civil Service
- •21.5 Key Development Challenges
- •21.5.1 Corruption
- •21.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.2 History
- •22.3 Major Reform Measures since the Handover
- •22.4 Analysis of the Reform Roadmap
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •23.1 Decentralization, Autonomy, and Democracy
- •23.3.1 From Recession to Take Off
- •23.3.2 Politics of Growth
- •23.3.3 Government Inertia
- •23.4 Autonomy as Collective Identity
- •23.4.3 Social Group Dynamics
- •23.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.2 Functions and Performance of the Commission Against Corruption of Macao
- •24.2.1 Functions
- •24.2.2 Guidelines on the Professional Ethics and Conduct of Public Servants
- •24.2.3 Performance
- •24.2.4 Structure
- •24.2.5 Personnel Establishment
- •24.3 New Challenges
- •24.3.1 The Case of Ao Man Long
- •24.3.2 Dilemma of Sunshine Law
- •24.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.2 Theoretical Basis of the Reform
- •25.3 Historical Background
- •25.4 Problems in the Civil Service Culture
- •25.5 Systemic Problems
- •25.6 Performance Management Reform
- •25.6.1 Performance Pledges
- •25.6.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.7 Results and Problems
- •25.7.1 Performance Pledge
- •25.7.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.8 Conclusion and Future Development
- •References
- •Contents
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.2 Civil Service System
- •26.2.1 Types of Civil Servants
- •26.2.2 Bureaucratic Structure
- •26.2.4 Personnel Management
- •26.4 Civil Service Reform
- •26.5 Conclusion
- •References
Chapter 7
History and Context of Public
Administration in Malaysia
James Chin |
|
|
Contents |
|
|
7.1 |
Introduction.................................................................................................................... |
141 |
7.2 |
Setting and Context ........................................................................................................ |
141 |
7.3 |
Malayan Union and the Birth of the United Malays National Organization .................. |
144 |
7.4 |
Post Independence, New Economic Policy, and Malay Dominance ................................ |
145 |
7.5 |
Centralization of Executive Powers under Mahathir ....................................................... |
147 |
7.6 |
Administrative Values ..................................................................................................... |
148 |
|
7.6.1 Close Ties with the Political Party ....................................................................... |
148 |
|
7.6.2 Laws that Promote Secrecy, Continuing Concerns with Corruption.................... |
149 |
|
7.6.3 Politics over Performance..................................................................................... |
150 |
|
7.6.4 Increasing Islamization of the Civil Service ......................................................... |
151 |
7.7 |
Ethnic Politics and Reforms ............................................................................................ |
151 |
7.8 |
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... |
152 |
References ................................................................................................................................ |
153 |
7.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the history and context of public administration in Malaysia. The central theme here is that while the civil service was fairly professional and representative at the time of independence, after the 1969 riots new political realities caused the civil service to become dominated by the Malay community. The leading Malay party, UMNO, assumed a pre-eminent place in the political system and began to control the state and all of the state apparatus.
7.2 Setting and Context
Malaysia is a federation of 13 states, 11 on the peninsula and 2 on Borneo Island. Malaya, as the peninsula is known, gained independence from the British in 1957. In 1961, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the
141
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
142 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
then Malayan prime minister, suggested a federation comprising Singapore, Malaya, Brunei, Sabah (then called British North Borneo), and Sarawak. In other words, he suggested merging all the British enclaves in Southeast Asia into a single political unit. After much discussion, the federation came into being in September 1963. Brunei, rich in oil resources, refused to join the federation at the last minute. Two years later, serious disagreements between Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Tunku saw the island state becoming an independent state.1
The Federation of Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. The head of state is the Yang diPertuan Agong, or king of Malaysia. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected for a 5-year term among the nine hereditary sultans of the Malay states, all situated on the peninsula. The other states are ruled by a Yang di-Pertua Negeri or governor. The bicameral parliament consists of the lower house, the Dewan Rakyat or House of Representatives, and the upper house, the Dewan Negara or Senate. Members of the lower house are elected from single-member constituencies, serving for a maximum of 5 years. Like the British prime minister, the Malaysian prime minister can seek to dissolve Parliament anytime within the 5 years and call for fresh elections. Members of the Senate are indirectly elected through a complex formula for a 3-year term; 26 are elected by the 13 state assemblies, 2 representing the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur, 1 each from the federal territories of Labuan and Putrajaya, and 40 are appointed by the king. Besides the federal parliament, each state has a unicameral state legislative chamber.
The executive part of the government is governed by a prime minister and cabinet members are selected from the ranks of Parliament. Although, in theory, power lies with Parliament and the written constitution, in practice, the executive dominates the entire political process [2]. Since independence in 1957, Malaysia has been governed uninterrupted by a coalition known as the Barisan Nasional (BN) or National Front.2 This coalition is made up of political parties that represent all the major ethnic groups in the country. In the past decade, the coalition had 14 coalition parties.
The Federal Constitution (Article 132) defines “Public Service” as consisting of: (i) General Public Service of the Federation; (ii) Public Service of the States; (iii) Joint Public Service; (iv) Education Service; (v) Judicial and Legal Service; (vi) police force; and (vii) armed forces. This chapter refers to people who work in all branches except those in the police and armed forces. The civil service in Malaysia is further divided into the federal and state civil service. Six states (Kelantan, Kedah, Terengganu, Johor, Sabah, and Sarawak) have their own state service, while all other states and the federal government rely on the federal civil service. This dividing line, however, is more in theory than in practice since there is close integration and cooperation between the six state civil services and the federal service. Officers are regularly seconded to each other and many issues, such as development projects, are dealt with collectively. The existence of the six state civil services is due more to historical circumstances rather than deliberate design. The key difference between the federal and state civil service is simply who bureaucrats report to. The federal civil service reports ultimately to the prime minister while the state service reports to the chief minister or menteri besar of the state concerned.
To understand the formation of the Malaysian civil service requires an understanding of the period just prior to independence and the demography of the country. Malaysia if often referred to as a plural society. There are three major ethnic groups—the Malays, Chinese, and Indians. There are also many indigenous tribal groups found mostly in Sabah and Sarawak. Each of the three major groups has their own language, faith, and customs. Ethnic tensions in the political
1Singapore wanted a meritocracy-based political system—what Lee referred to as “Malaysian Malaysia” while Tunku wanted Malay dominance [1].
2 The BN was previously known as the Alliance.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
History and Context of Public Administration in Malaysia 143
system exist as each group seeks to gain an advantage over the other. At the time of independence, the Malay constituted about half the population, the Chinese 35%, and the Indians about 11%. In 2007, the Malays and other bumiputeras (indigenous groups) constituted about 62% of the 27 million population, the Chinese 24%, and Indians 8%.
Malaya gained independence in 1957 through negotiations with its colonial master, the United Kingdom. These negotiations were led by Tunku Abdul Rahman, leader of the Alliance, a coalition of three political parties—United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), and the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC).3 As their names suggest, these three parties represented the three dominant ethnic groups in Malaysia—the Malays, Chinese, and Indians. While the Malays are indigenous, the Chinese and Indians were brought to Malaya in large numbers during the colonial era primarily for economic reasons. The British wanted them to help expand the Malayan economy, especially in the tin mining and rubber industries. Most of them came in the nineteenth century and by the time of independence in 1957, they (Chinese and Indians) constituted about half the population.
Because the British brought in the Chinese and Indians for economic reasons, there was no real attempt to integrate them into the local environment—the thinking then was that these were temporary workers and they would go back to China and India once they have saved up enough money for retirement. In reality, with such large numbers, this was not possible. Many did not earn enough to go back to the Chinese mainland or India. The large numbers also allowed the Chinese and Indian communities to build their own insular communities—they established their own schools, temples, and townships. The British were also keen to keep the communities apart as it was easier to rule over them [3].
The British concentrated on building a civil service to fit their economic and empire needs while, at the same time, trying their best to co-opt the indigenous leadership—in this case, the Malay sultans and their senior officials. Through a mixture of strong-arm tactics, bribery, and promises of economic development, the British managed to convince the sultans to install a British “advisor” to help them rule their states. These “advisors”—far from offering suggestions—often ended up as the chief administrators, yielding real power in the name of the sultan. The only area where the advisors did not interfere was on the issues of Malay customs and religion—Islam. As part of their political ploy to win over the elite Malays, a Malay administrative service (MAS) was established in the 1930s [4]. The MAS was junior to the Malayan civil service (MCS), which was, in practice, reserved mainly for whites. Those few Malays who did manage to move from the MAS to MCS ended up as junior MCS officers. In other words, while selected Malays were co-opted into the civil service, at the higher levels of the MCS, the British were always in charge. Having Malays working in the bureaucracy helped to legitimize British rule.
Thus, the first group of Malays actively recruited to the MAS tended to be members of the Malay aristocracy and children of Malay chiefs. Many were sent to study at the elite Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) established in 1905.4 One writer observed that the MCKK was for “the training of Malays boys for admission to certain branches of government service [5].” As a result of bringing them into the civil service and making sure that most would never be at the most senior levels, within a short period, the Malay elite saw the British not only as their protector, but also their benefactor. The unintended consequence of this policy of luring the Malay elite into the civil service meant that the Chinese and Indian population moved into commerce and the non-government sector. As the
3After 1963, these parties were called the Malaysian Chinese Association and Malaysian Indian Congress to reflect the name of the new federation.
4 MCKK was often described as being modeled on Eton.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
144 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
Chinese and Indians began to dominate the private sector, the Malay elite began to move even closer to the colonial officials, fearing domination by the non-Malays.
Although the British were selective in the recruitment of Malayans into the MAS and MCS, this did not mean that the white officers who served in Malaya were less professional than the home service in the United Kingdom. By and large, many of the white officers who served in Malaya were highly experienced, some having served in British colonies in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Some were recruited directly from British universities. The MAS was generally corrupt-free and there was a strong respect for administrative law. The MAS believed in developing the Malayan economy, thus schools (mostly manned by missionaries), hospitals, roads, airports, and other infrastructure, were built. The belief was that a strong Malayan economy would contribute to the home country and the British Empire. However, there was a common belief among senior officials that the whites were still superior to the “natives” and all the top posts had to be reserved for the whites; racism was common during the era. The other negative legacy of the colonial era civil service was the deliberate exclusion of the Chinese and Indians from the civil service. Although a very small number were recruited, the prevalent thinking among the British was that these immigrants had no future in Malaya and would one day return to China and India.
7.3Malayan Union and the Birth of the United Malays National Organization
The myth that the British were invincible was shattered when Japan invaded Malay in 1941 and quickly overran it. The Malays and the other people realized that Britain and white people were not superior to the non-whites. The four years under Japanese occupation left an important impression among the Malay leaders that perhaps the British could be challenged after all. The first big challenge to the British came after the war when the British suggested the “Malayan Union” proposal.
The Malayan Union (MU) was a confederation of the Malay states and the Straits Settlements (excluding Singapore), which was placed as a crown colony under direct British rule from London. The British proposed this arrangement because it was the easiest way to consolidate their rule over the Malay Peninsula after the war. It was proclaimed on April 1, 1946, by the British despite strong opposition from the Malay elite. The Malay elite were against the MU because (a) citizenship with equal rights was granted to all residents of Malaya, including the Chinese and Indians who make up slightly more than half the population; (b) citizenship was based on the jus soli (place of birth) principle; and (c) power was transferred from the sultan to a British governor, except in matters of culture and Islam [6].
The Malay opposition was led by Malay civil servants. On March 1, 1946, Dato’ Onn Jaafar, a civil servant from Johor, established the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) expressly to oppose the formation of the MU. Seven of the 11 members of the first UMNO Executive Committee were civil servants.5 Onn Jafaar and his followers were so effective in their opposition to the MU that the British dropped the MU completely two years later in January 1948. Hence, from day one of UMNO, a political party had close and intimate links with the civil service and, by extension, the British colonial authorities. The civil service, then and now, was a place for Malay
5 For details on UMNO’s formation [7].
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC