Malaysian Public Administration

Acknowledgements
This report is only possible with the sincere dedication of our group members and Dr. WasonLueangpapat, Public Administration Professor. For the members, their contributions and hard work has been the chance to fulfill their part of the distributed duty in Public Administration of Malaysia. As researchers and editors, we especially want to acknowledge the Comparative Public Administration lecturer, Ajarn. Dr. WasonLueangpapat, to his friendly contributed lectures and every example that he has tried to make us understand. Even though, we still did not get them. The other groups that we must acknowledge are our parents who bring us up and sponsor for every tutorial fee and other financial supports. Finally, an untold number of people made it possible for us to work on this Malaysia report, including friends and former teachers in high school. We deeply appreciate the support and contributions of all.
All Members

About the Authors and Duty Distribution Authors | Student ID | Duties | ChanapatChandarubeksa | | Research and Prepare information: Malaysia’s Structure and process | ChayanidChayuti | 5303640212 | Research, Prepare and Present: Malaysia’s background | DhirarutJetnavanich | | Research and Prepare information: Malaysia’s Structure and process | Jen Meckhayai | 5303640337 | Present: Malaysia’s Structure and ProcessAnswer: all questionEditor: Term Report | KanabuunSukchan | 5303640394 | Research and Prepare information: Malaysia’s Structure and process | NawitAunvichid | 5303640592 | Research and Prepare information: Malaysia’s Structure and process | SuparatJongdeepaisarn | 5303641038 | Research, Prepare and Present: Malaysia’s Challenges and Changes | Tiffany Jinawong | 5303641178 | Research, Prepare and Present: Malaysia’s Challenges and Changes | WirinyaSrisawat | 5303641293 | Research, Prepare information: Malaysia’s background |

Comments on Purpose and Drawback
All members
This report serves the requirement of Ajarn. Dr. WasonLueangpapat and the needs of those who wish to learn how government works in Malaysia, focusing on the system of public administration. According to what we have learned and conceive in the Comparative Public Administration course, Ajarn. Wason contributes us many case studies of United Kingdom, United State of America, Germany and Thailand. This report is a term assignment that we must research and analyze; (1) structure, (2) process, (3) challenge, and (4) change in public administration of interested country. In this report, these topics allow answering such questions as: * What is the general background of Malaysia? * What is the Malaysian’s governmental structure and process? * What are the challenges of Malaysian’s public administration? * How Malaysia deals with those upcoming challenges?
This report has included what topics that ajarn. Wason has mentioned during Q&A on our group presentation, Decentralization and local governance in Malaysia: * British Colonial Legacy * Decentralization * Inter-Governmental Relationships * Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization * Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening on Decentralization * Reinforcing Centralization * Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization * Where to Decentralization?
This report required a lot of time consuming because there are many detail to research and look through. Therefore members attempted to copy and paste information into this report which was considered as plagiarism. As the editor of this report, I had already asked them to make every copy and paste into their own languages and paraphrases. We had tried our best to accomplish this paper. Please give us a suitable mark.

Content
Chapter 1: General Background
Overall Detail of Malaysia 7
Geography 9
History of Malaysia 11
Malaysia economics 14
Chapter 2: Structure and Process
Legal Structure 16
1. Legislative Branch 16
2. Executive Branch 17
3. Judicial Branch 19
3.1 The Superior Courts 23
3.2 Subordinate Courts 24
3.3 Other Courts 25
4. Local Government 26
4.1 What is a Local Government? 26
4.2 Local Government in Malaysia 26
5. The State and Civil Society 30
5.1 Ombudsperson 30
5.2 Civil Society 30
6. Civil service 30
6.1 Legal basis 31
6.2 Recruitment 31
6.3 Promotion 32
6.4 Remuneration 32
6.5 Training 33
7. Ethics and Civil Service 33
7.1 Corruption 33
7.2 Ethics 34
Chapter 3: Challenges and Changes
New Public Management (NPM) 36
The development of Malaysia before the public administration reform 37
Challenges to Public Administration 37
Public Management reforms in Malaysia 39
1.The “Malaysia incorporated” policy 39
2.Downsizing the civil service 40
Appendix: Decentralization and Local Governance in Malaysia
Introduction 42
British Colonial Legacy 43
Decentralization 45
Defining Local Government in the Context of Malaysia 48
Inter-Governmental Relationships 50
Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization 53
Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening Decentralization 54
Reinforcing Centralization 56
Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization 57
Where to Decentralization? 58
Conclusion 61
References 63

Chapter 1: General Background
Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy in Southeast Asia. It consists of thirteen states and three federal territories and has a total landmass of 329,847 square kilometers (127,350 square mi) separated by the South China Sea into two similarly sized regions, Peninsular Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo. Land borders are shared with Thailand, Indonesia, and Brunei, and maritime borders exist with Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The capital city is Kuala Lumpur, while Putrajaya is the seat of the federal government. In 2010 the population exceeded 27.5 million, with over 20 million living on the Peninsula.

Kualalumpur

Overall Detail of Malaysia Capital
(and largest city) | Kuala Lumpur[a]

Putrajaya(administrative centre)
3°08′N 101°42′E | Official language(s) | Malaysian[b] | Official script | Latin alphabet[c] | Used for some purposes | English[d] | Ethnic groups | 50.4% 23.7% 11.0% 7.1% 7.8% | MalayChineseIndigenousIndianOther | Demonym | Malaysian | Government | Federal constitutionalelectivemonarchyand Federalparliamentary democracy | | King | Abdul Halim | | Prime Minister | NajibTunRazak (BN) | | Deputy Prime Minister | MuhyiddinYassin(BN) | Legislature | Parliament | | Upper house | Dewan Negara | | Lower house | Dewan Rakyat | Independence | From the United Kingdom | | Malaya | 31 August 1957 | | Sarawak | 22 July 1963 | | North Borneo[e] | 31 August 1963 | | Federation of Malaya,NorthBorneo,Sarawak, andSingapore[f] | 16 September 1963 | Area | | Total | 329,847 km2 (67th)
127,355 sq mi | | Water (%) | 0.3 | Population | | 2010 census | 28,334,135 (42th) | | Density | 86/km2 (114th)
216.45/sq mi | GDP (PPP) | 2011 estimate | | Total | $447.279 billion | | Per capita | $15,568 | GDP (nominal) | 2011 estimate | | Total | $278.680 billion | | Per capita | $9,699 | Gini (2002) | 46.1 (36th) | HDI (2011) | 0.781 (high) (61th) | Currency | Ringgit (RM) (MYR) | Time zone | MST (UTC+8) | | Summer (DST) | Not observed (UTC+8) | Date formats | dd-mm-yyyy | Drives on the | Left | ISO 3166 code | MY | Internet TLD | .my | Calling code | +60 | ^ a. Kuala Lumpur is the capital city and is home to the legislative branch of the Federal government. Putrajayais the primary seat of the federal government where the executive and judicial branches are located.^ b. The terminology as per government policy isBahasa Malaysia (literally Malaysian language)[10] but legislation continues to refer to the official language asBahasaMelayu (literally Malay language).^ c. Under the National Language Act 1967: "The script of the national language shall be the Rumi [Latin] script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi script, of the national language."^ d. English may be used for some purposes under the National Language Act 1967.^ e. Before the accession, Sabah was refers as North Borneo.^ f. Singapore became an independent country on 9 August 1965. |

Geography
The geography of Malaysia deals with the physical and human geography of Malaysia, a country located in Southeast Asia. There are two distinct parts to this country being Peninsular Malaysia to the west and East Malaysia to the east. Peninsular Malaysia is located south of Thailand, north of Singapore and east of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. East Malaysia is located on the island of Borneo and shares borders with Brunei and Indonesia.
Malaysia Map

Malaysia has its origins in the Malay Kingdoms present in the area which, from the 18th century, became subject to the British Empire. The first British territories were known as the Straits Settlements, whose establishment was followed by the Malay kingdoms becoming British protectorates. The territories on Peninsular Malaysia were first unified as the Malayan Union in 1946. Malaya was restructured as the Federation of Malaya in 1948, and achieved independence on 31 August 1957. Malaya united with Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore on 16 September 1963, with being added to give the new country the name Malaysia. However, less than two years later in 1965, Singapore was expelled from the federation. Since independence, Malaysia has had one of the best economic records in Asia, with GDP growing an average 6.5% for almost 50 years. The economy has traditionally been fuelled by its natural resources, but is expanding in the sectors of science, tourism, commerce and medical tourism.
The country is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, which plays a large role in politics. The government system is closely modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system and the legal system is based on English Common Law. The constitution declares Islam the state religion while protecting freedom of religion. The head of state is the King, known as the Yang di-PertuanAgong. He is an elected monarch chosen from the hereditary rulers of the nine Malay states every five years. The head of government is the Prime Minister.

History of Malaysia Evidence of modern human habitation in Malaysia dates back 40,000 years. The first inhabitants are thought to be Negritos. Traders and settlers from India and China arrived as early as the 1st century AD, establishing trading ports and coastal towns in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Their presence resulted in strong Indian and Chinese influence on the local cultures, and the people of the Malay Peninsula adopted the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Sanskrit inscriptions appear as early as the 4th or 5th century. The Kingdom of Langkasuka arose around the 2nd century in the northern area of the Malay Peninsula, lasting until about the 15th century. Between the 7th and 13th centuries, much of the southern Malay Peninsula was part of the maritime SrivijayaEmpire. After the fall of Srivijaya, the Majapahitempire had influence over most of Peninsular Malaysia and the Malay Archipelago. Islam began to spread among Malays in the 14th century. In the early 15th century, Parameswara, a prince of the former Srivijayanempire, founded the Malacca Sultanate, commonly considered the first independent state in the peninsula. Malacca was an important commercial center during this time, attracting trade from around the region. Parameswara became a Muslim, accelerating the spread of Islam.
A Famosa fortress in Malacca was built by the Portuguese in the 16th century.In 1511 Malacca was conquered by Portugal, after which it was taken by the Dutch in 1641. In 1786 the British Empire established a presence in Malaya, when the Sultan of Kedah leased Penang to the British East India Company. The British obtained the town of Singapore in 1819, and in 1824 took control of Malacca following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. By 1826 the British directly controlled Penang, Malacca, Singapore, and the island of Labuan, which they established as the crown colony of the Straits Settlements. By the 20th century, the states of Pahang, Selangor, Perak, and Negeri Sembilan, known together as the Federated Malay States, had British Residents appointed to advise the Malay rulers, to whom the rulers were bound to defer by treaty. The remaining five states in the peninsula, known as the Undefeated Malay States, while not directly under British rule, also accepted British advisers around the turn of the 20th century. Development on the Peninsula and Borneo were generally separate until the 19th century. Under British rule the immigration of Chinese and Indians to serve as laborers was encouraged. Sabah was governed as the crown colony of British North Borneo after it was leased from the Sultanate of Sulu in 1878. In 1842, Sarawak was ceded by the Sultan of Brunei to James Brooke, whose successors ruled as the White Rajahs over an independent kingdom until 1946, when it became a British colony.
In the Second World War the Japanese army invaded and subsequently occupied Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore for over three years. During this time, ethnic tensions were raised and nationalism grew. Popular support for independence increased after Malaya was reconquered by Allied Forces. Post-war British plans to unite the administration of Malaya under a single crown colony called the Malayan Union met with strong opposition from the Malays, who opposed the weakening of the Malay rulers and the granting of citizenship to the ethnic Chinese. The Malayan Union, established in 1946 and consisting of all the British possessions in the Malay Peninsula with the exception of Singapore, was quickly dissolved and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection. During this time, mostly Chinese rebels under the leadership of the Malayan Communist Party launched guerrilla operations designed to force the British out of Malaya. The Malayan Emergency lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. After this a plan was put in place to federate Malaya with the British crown colonies of Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore. The proposed date of federation was 31 August 1963; however, the date was delayed until 16 September 1963 due to opposition from Indonesia 's Sukarno and the Sarawak United Peoples ' Party.
Merdeka Square in Kuala Lumpur, where Independence Day is celebrated on 31 August each year, federation brought heightened tensions including a conflict with Indonesia, Singapore 's eventual exit in 1965, and racial strife. This strife culminated in the 13 May race riots in 1969. After the riots, the controversial New Economic Policy was launched by Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, trying to increase the share of the economy held by the bumiputra. Under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad there was a period of rapid economic growth and urbanisation beginning in the 1980s. The economy shifted from being agriculturally-based to one based on manufacturing and industry. Numerous mega-projects were completed, such as the Petronas Towers, the North-South Expressway, the Multimedia Super Corridor, and the new federal administrative capital of Putrajaya. However, in the late 1990s the Asian financial crisis almost caused the collapse of the currency and the stock and property markets.

Malaysia economics
Malaysia, a middle-income country, has transformed itself since the 1970s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy. Under current Prime Minister NAJIB, Malaysia is attempting to achieve high-income status by 2020 and to move farther up the value-added production chain by attracting investments in Islamic finance, high technology industries, medical technology, and pharmaceuticals. The NAJIB administration also is continuing efforts to boost domestic demand and to wean the economy off of its dependence on exports. Nevertheless, exports - particularly of electronics - remain a significant driver of the economy. As an oil and gas exporter, Malaysia has profited from higher world energy prices, although the rising cost of domestic gasoline and diesel fuel, combined with strained government finances, has forced Kuala Lumpur to reduce government subsidies. The government is also trying to lessen its dependence on state oil producer Petronas, which supplies at least 40% of government revenue. The central bank maintains healthy foreign exchange reserves and its well-developed regulatory regime have limited Malaysia 's exposure to riskier financial instruments and the global financial crisis. Nevertheless, decreasing worldwide demand for consumer goods hurt Malaysia 's exports and economic growth in 2009, although both showed signs of recovery in 2010. In order to attract increased investment, NAJIB has also sought to revise the special economic and social preferences accorded to ethnic Malays under the New Economic Policy of 1970, but he has encountered significant opposition, especially from Malay nationalists. For Malaysia GDP Growth Rate (The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded 1.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 over the previous quarter. Historically, from 2000 until 2011, Malaysia 's average quarterly GDP Growth was 1.17 percent reaching an historical high of 5.90 percent in September of 2009 and a record low of -7.60 percent in March of 2009. Malaysia is a rapidly developing economy in Asia. Malaysia, a middle-income country, has transformed itself since the 1970s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy. The Government of Malaysia is continuing efforts to boost domestic demand to wean the economy off of its dependence on exports. Nevertheless, exports - particularly of electronics - remain a significant driver of the economy. This page includes: Malaysia GDP Growth Rate chart, historical data, forecasts and news. Data is also available for Malaysia GDP Annual Growth Rate, which measures growth over a full economic year.

Chapter 2: Structure and Process
Malaysia is a federal parliamentary monarchy, the Prime Minister of Malaysia is the head of the government. The Malaysian political system refers to all those regulations and practices and the structure of laws that show how the government is run. Malaysian political system has a unique foundation on which the country 's machinery functions.
Legal Structure
The law of Malaysia is mainly based on the common law legal system. The law was a direct result of the colonization of Malaya, Sarawak, and North Borneo by Britain between the early 19th century to 1960s. The supreme law of the land or the Constitution of Malaysia, sets out the legal framework and rights of Malaysian citizens. Federal laws enacted by the Parliament of Malaysia apply throughout the country. The constitution of Malaysia also provides for a unique dual justice system, the secular laws (criminal and civil) and sharia laws.
1. Legislative Branch Malaysia has a bicameral Parliament consisting of the Senate or Dewan Negara with 70 seats; 44 appointed by the paramount ruler, 26 appointed by the state legislatures and the House of Representatives or Dewan Rakyat with 219 seats. The members of which are elected by a popular vote to serve a term of five-years. The legislative power of the political system of Malaysia is divided between the federal and the state legislatures.
The House of Representatives with 219members are elected to parliamentary terms lasting up to 5years. Sabah holds 20seats in House of Representatives and Sarawak holds 28 seats in House of Representatives. Parliament is the legislative authority for the Federation, and in this capacity, it makes laws suitable or appropriate to the Federation as a whole. Parliament passes federal laws and makes amendments exists to federal laws, examines the government’s policies, approves the government’s expenditures, and approves new taxes. To enable Parliament to undertake the responsibilities to it fully and effectively, the Constitution confers or discusses certain rights and legal immunities designated Parliamentary Privileges upon Parliament. These privileges are enjoyed by each House as a whole, and by individual members of Parliament. Each Houses are empowered to regulate their own procedure and each has exclusive control over their own proceedings, the validity of which may not be questioned in any court. Members of the Parliament individually enjoy immunity from civil and criminal proceedings in respect of things said or
Legislative Branch
70 Senates (Upper House)
219 House of Representatives (Lower House)
26 elected by the states assemblies
44 appointed by King
Elected to parliament 5 years term done by them in Parliament, and the same immunity protects other persons acting under the authority of either House.

2. Executive Branch Malaysia, a federal constitutional elective monarchy, is nominally headed by the Paramount Ruler or Yang di-Pertuan Agong , commonly referred to as the King of Malaysia. Selected for a term of five-years from among the nine Sultans of the Malay states. The other four states, which have titular Governors, do not participate in the selection. The political system of Malaysia is closely modeled on that of Westminster parliamentary system, a legacy of British colonial rule. Abdullah bin Ahmad Badawi has been the Prime Minister since 31 October 2003 chosen from the lower house of parliament. The Executive power is vested in the cabinet led by the prime minister. The members of the cabinet are all chosen from among members of both houses of Parliament and are responsible to that body.
The Cabinet appointed by the prime minister from among the members of Parliament with permission of the supreme ruler elections which the supreme or paramount ruler elected by and also from the hereditary rulers of nine of the states for five-year terms; election last held in 12 December 2001. The prime minister designated from among the members of the House of Representatives and following legislative elections, the leader of the party that wins a plurality of seats in the House of Representatives becomes prime minister.

Executive Branch
Prime Minister
26 Ministers
5 officers of Prime Minister
Although, the Constitution accords the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with executive authority, subject to the provisions of any federal law and of the Second Schedule of the Constitution, Parliament may by law confer executive functions on other persons. Except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution as regards his position and authority, the Yang di-PertuanAgong usually acts in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or more specifically, of the Prime Minister, in the exercise of his functions. However, the Yang di-PertuanAgong is entitled to and at his request, any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.The Prime Minister who is also the Chairman of the cabinet which is made up of 24 Ministers responsible for various functions. The cabinet is led by the prime minister. The Malaysian Constitution specifies that the prime minister must be a member of the lower house of parliament who in the opinion of the Yang di-PertuanAgong, and commands a majority in parliament. The cabinet is chosen from among members of both houses of parliament and is responsible to that body.

3. Judicial Branch The Malaysian legal system is based on English common law and most of the laws and the constitution are adapted from Indian law . There are the Federal Court, Court of Appeals, high courts, session 's courts, magistrate 's courts, and juvenile courts. The judges of the Federal Court are appointed by the paramount ruler on the advice of the prime minister. The federal government has authority over external affairs, defense, internal security, justice, federal citizenship, finance, commerce, industry, communications, transportation, and other matters.
The Federal Court has original jurisdiction in constitutional matters and in disputes between states or between the federal government and a state. Peninsular Malaysia and the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak each have a high court. The Constitution which is the supreme law of the Federation spells out, among others, the duties and powers of the Federal and State Governments and their relationship. One of the main functions of the Federal Court in its original jurisdiction "to the exclusion of any other court" is to determine whether a law made by Parliament or a State Legislature is invalid on the ground that it makes provision to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the State. Legislature has no power to make the law. It also has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between States or between the Federation and any State.
His Majesty Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who has been chosen from nine Sultans of the Malay states and serves for a five years term. The current King is Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin. The King is the head of the Islamic faith in the country. The Executive Power is exercised by the government and the devolved governments of the 11 states in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak headed by the Prime Minister. As stated in the Constitution, the prime minister must be a member of the Lower House, and usually controls a majority in Parliament. The present Prime Minister is Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, informal known as “Pak Lah”. The Malaysian Parliament is a bicameral congress which consists of the Senate (Dewan Negara/Upper House) and the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat/Lower House).
All 77 Senators serve for a three years term, with a maximum of two terms. The 26 are chosen by the 13 state assemblies while the 44 are selected by the King with the recommendation of the Prime Minster.Yang di-PertuanAgong may invoke the advisory jurisdiction of the Federal Court by referring for its opinion questions as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution which appears to him likely to arise. The Federal Court also makes final judgments on legal matters which come before it on appeal from the Court of Appeal. It is the greatest and ultimate court in civil, criminal and constitutional matters. Moreover, having the jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal against any decision made by the High Court and in respect of any criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court, section 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act, in 1964 also provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of that Court, against any decision of the High Court in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter decided by a Magistrates ' Court but such appeal shall be confined to only questions of law.

The Malaysian Judicial System is composed of the Superior Courts and the Subordinate Courts. The Superior Courts consist of The Federal Court as the apex court of all, the Court of Appeal, and High Courts (High Court in Malaya and High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. The Subordinate Courts are The Sessions Court, the Magistrates ' Court and the Court for Children. Each Superior and Subordinates Courts practices their specific judicial functions conferred by the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court is the apex court and had the highest judicial authority in Malaysia. It is headed by the Chief Justice and with the provision of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court must also consists of the President of the Court of Appeal, two chief judges of the two High Courts and seven other judges. All judges in the Federal Court are appointed by the Yang Di-PertuanAgong, with the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Malay Rulers.
According to the preparation or provisions of the Federal Constitution, there are 4 main jurisdictions of the Federal Court: * Exclusive Jurisdiction to determine whether a law made by the Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid and to determine the disputes between States or between the Federation and any State. * Referral Jurisdiction. The Federal Court should (without interfering the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear and determine appeals and subject to any rules of court regulating the exercise of that jurisdiction), determines any question arises in the hearing of the other court to the effect of any provision of the Federal Constitution, and send the case back to that court to be decide according to the determination. * Advisory jurisdiction. The Yang Di-PertuanAgong may refers to the Federal Court for its opinion on any question regarding the Federal Constitution or any constitutional issue, and the opinion of the Federal Court shall be pronounce in an open court. * Hearing and Determining Appeals: Civil Appeals & Criminal Appeals. The Federal Court may hears and determines appeals against decisions of the Court of Appeal to any criminal matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Civil appeals against the decision of the Court of Appeal may be made to the Federal Court with the leave of the Federal Court. According to the Federal Constitution, the Special Court has an exclusive jurisdiction to hears and determines all offences committed in the Federation by the Rulers of any States or even the Yang di-PertuanAgong; and it also has to jurisdiction to try all civil cases by or against any of the Rulers of any States or Yang Di-PertuanAgong, regardless of where the case was risen.
The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear and determines all civil criminal appeals against any decisions of the High Courts. The High Court has the unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine all criminal cases and civil cases. The High Court also acts as the appellate court referred by the Subordinate Courts, although not all decisions can be appeal from the Subordinate Courts to the High Courts.
In spite of the High Court, also acts as the revisionary power over all Subordinate Courts in the matter of criminal proceedings or criminal procedures. The Sessions Court acts as the highest court of the Subordinate Courts. The Sessions Court can try all criminal cases, except the offences which need to be punished with death sentences. For civil cases, the Sessions Court can hear and determine matters or cases with the value do not exceed RM 250thousand.
The Magistrates ' Court has jurisdiction to try all criminal offences for which the maximum sentences does not exceed ten years imprisonment or with fine only. And for civil cases, magistrates can hear and determine all offences with the amount disputed are not exceeding RM 25thousand. The Court for Children has jurisdiction to hear and determine any charges against a child, or may dispose the charges against the child.

Federal Court
Court of Appeal
High Court (Malaya)
High Court (Sabah & Sarawak)
Sessions Court
Sessions Court
Magistrate’s Court
Hierarchy of the Malaysian Judicial System
Juvenile Court
Penghulu’s Court
Juvenile Court
Penghulu’s Court
Magistrate’s Court

3.1 The Superior Courts The Superior Courts are divided into Federal Courts, the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Malaya, and High Court of Sabah and Sarawak. Being the highest court in Malaysia, the Lord president of the Federal Court is the head of the Judiciary. The Federal Court comprises the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, and six Federal Court Judges. In each proceeding to be heard by the Federal Court, there has to be a minimum number of three judges. The Federal Court has authority over appeals and can be referred to various matters except those which come under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. Among its functions include hearing appeals on decisions meted out by the High Court in both civil and criminal cases; to hear exclusively matters between any state and the Federal Government and issues pertaining to the Federal and State legislation; matters arising from the High Court, and issues pertaining to the Federal Constitution. The Court of Appeal came into effect on 24th June 1994. The Court of Appeal is directed and controlled over by the President of the Court of Appeal and eight judges. The Court of Appeal is authorized to hear any appeal and decide on the outcome of any decision made by the High Court or criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court. There are two High Courts in Malaysia, which are the High Court of Malaya and High Court of Borneo. The High Court has unlimited power in the exercise of its jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases. However, only cases that are beyond the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts are brought before the High Court. The High Court consists of two Chief Judges (one in Peninsular Malaysia and one in Sabah and Sarawak) and more than fifty Judges and Judicial Commissioners.
3.2 Subordinate Courts The Subordinate Courts in Peninsular Malaysia are divided into the Sessions Court, Magistrate’s and Penghulu’s Court. In East Malaysia, the Subordinate Courts comprise the Sessions Court, Magistrate’s Court and Native Court. The Sessions Court is the highest of the subordinate courts and has the authority to hear all matters criminal in nature, except those that carry the death sentence. In civil cases, the Sessions Court can hear matters pertaining to tenancy agreements, motor vehicles, accidents and many more as long as the value disputed does not exceed RM250,000. In the case of the Magistrate’s Court, there are two, known as the First Class Magistrate’s Court and Second Class Magistrate’s Court. In either court, one magistrate presides. The first class magistrate has jurisdiction to hear offences which carry sentences not exceeding a prison term of 10 years, offences punishable with a fine and civil cases involving claims below RM25,000. The maximum sentence a magistrate can dish out is 5 years imprisonment, 12 strokes of the rotan, and a fine of RM10,000 or any combination of above The second class magistrate has the jurisdiction to hear offences of which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed a year or punishable with a fine only. The magistrate may sentence an offender to a maximum of 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding RM1,000 or both. The Penghulu’s Court is the lowest of the Subordinate courts in Peninsular Malaysia. This court has the jurisdiction to hear trials involving minor offences that carry a fine not exceeding RM25. In civil matters, the Penghulu’s Court may only hear disputes not exceeding RM50. In Sabah and Sarawak, the Native Courts have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to native laws and customs in which both parties are native and involve religious, matrimonial or sexual issues. For civil cases, this particular court can hear cases that involve disputes not exceeding RM50. It is under the scrutiny of the District Officer.
3.3 Other Courts The Juvenile Courts have similar jurisdiction with the Magistrate’s Court and hear cases involving offenders aged 18 and below. This court comprises a President and two lay assessors who advise him on the sentence. This Court is closed to the public and if an offender is found guilty, he or she is dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Act until the age 21. All appeals on decisions made by the Juvenile Court are heard by the High Court. The Syariah Court deals with matters pertaining to the religious laws of the Muslims and its jurisdiction is solely over Muslims. While this is true, it is also stated in Article 121 of the Federal Constitution that the secular courts of Malaysia do not have jurisdiction over matters that fall into the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. The Court-Martial has jurisdiction over any member of the various military forces in the country. It consists of a President and at least two officers who must be present during a trial. The Special Court was set up under Article 182(2) of the Federal Constitution which states that "any proceedings by or against the Yang Di-PertuanAgong or the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity shall be brought in a Special Court established under clause (1) of Article 182." This court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear all offences committed in the Federation by the Yang Di-PertuanAgongor the Ruler of a State.
4. Local Government Malaysia has 13 states with three components, which are the city of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan, and Putrajaya. Malaysia is governed by federalism system which is involving one or several states that having more autonomy than others. Although it has a highly centralized system of government, Malaysia has given the states of Sabah and Sarawak powers that normally fall under federal jurisdiction. These Bornean states have considerably more autonomy than the 11 other states in areas such as taxation (in particular customs and excise), immigration and citizenship, trade, transportation and communication, fisheries and several social affairs sectors. The aim of this approach is to protect the distinctive characteristics of the two states and their interests.
4.1 What is a Local Government?
Although there is no specific meaning of the local government, many experts and researchers who specialize in political science had been trying to form a theory which uses to identify the system of local government. There is an author whose name is William Hampton gave a basic definition and an interesting way to look at it. He looks into the root of the word ‘local government’ and from there he elaborates the nature of local government in his book ‘Local Government and Urban Politics’. The word ‘Local’ implies an area consecrated by long history and tradition, an environment that construct our spatial-awareness. And it is from such awareness that build the socio-economic. Knowledge of the local government which is able to scale the need of its locality by providing public services, While for the word ‘government’, it indicates that the local government is the ‘creature’ of the parliament, created with the characteristic and framework of the ruling government – be it the state or the federal government. Although its authorities are much lesser than the State and Federal government, it is still a stronger meaning than the word ‘administration’ because local politicians or the experts are expected to develop policies that appropriate for their localities within the framework of national legislation.
4.2 Local Government in Malaysia
The local government or local authority is the lowest level in the system of government in Malaysia, after federal and state. It has the power to collect taxes and to create laws and rules and to grant licenses and permits for any trade in its area of jurisdiction, in addition to providing basic advantages, collecting and managing waste and garbage as well as planning and developing the area under the jurisdiction. Local authorities in Malaysia are generally under control of exclusive purview of the state governments and headed by a civil servant with the title Yang Di-Pertua (President). Local government areas and the boundaries is usually consistent with district boundaries but there are some places where the boundaries are not consistent and may overlap with adjoining districts especially in urbanized areas. The Local government is a part of the three government structure – the federal government, the state government and the local government. Local government in Malaysia is essentially an urban phenomenon, which comes to say that the existence and functions of local government should be seen as an essential system of administration to diverse urban setting society. From the evidence in the history had shown that the establishment of the local government is basically to provide the necessities for the tax payers. Local Government has to respond for many services which related to housing, water supply, waste management, taxation, land assessment, and other matters. Ministry of Housing and Local Government respond for the Local Government in all states with the help of National Council for Local Government. By the year 1965, Malaysia has 5 types of local authorities: Table 1: Total Number of Local Authorities and Their Financial Status by Type, 1965 | Type of Local Authority | No. of Units | Financially Autonomous | Financially Non-autonomous | Municipalities | 3 | 3 | - | Town Councils | 37 | 27 | 10 | Town Boards | 37 | 5 | 31 | Local Councils | 289 | 289 | - | District Councils | 7 | 4 | 3 | Total | 373 | 329 | 44 | Source: Report of the Royal Commission (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1970), p.330 |

The responsibilities of a local government in Malaysia are basically: * City planning * Licensing and Control * City beautification * Health services * Cleanliness * Controlling contagious disease * Construction and regulating road system * Managing traffic system and Public Transportation * Regulating drainage system * Providing and maintaining Public advantages.
The local government should be seen as the easiest bureaucracy where can participate. According to a ministerial report, Local Government’s aim is “self-government through the medium popularly elected councils with a large measure of freedom of action and financial independence” (Ministry of Technology, Research, and Local Government) This statement comes to prove that the existence system of local government is a symbolic structure which indicates the trust of the federal government to the citizens by giving them the freedom to self-govern. By allowing the local government to be run by its citizens, it will not only educate the understanding of Local Government to the citizens, but alsobe able to reflect the democratic characteristic that Malaysia has been holding on. John Stuart Mill “Justifies Local Government political education such as it is the prime element in democracy, and has an intrinsic value regardless of the functions it may carry out.

High Court in Peninsula
High Court in Sabah
Legislative
Minister of Housing and Local Government
Election Commission
Judicial and Legal Sem. Commission
Police Force Commission
Public Service Commission
Education Service Commission
Town & Country Planning Department
Local Government Commission
Other Department
Minister Besar
(State Chief Minister)
Ministries
Commission
Sultan Yang Dipertuan Negeri (head of state)
Executive
Parliament
Cabinet
Prime Minister
House of Representative
Senate
Auditor-General
Judiciary
Supreme Court
Yang Dihpertuan Agong
Land and District Office
Branches of State Agencies
Branches of Federal Agencies
Peninsula’s Office
Village Headman
District Action Committee
District Security Committee
District Development Committee
State Security Committees
State Development Committees
Local Government Division in the State Land
State Secretary’s Office
State Agencies
Branches of Federal Agencies
Town & Country Planning Department of the State Land
Executive Council (EXCO)
Exco Committees
State Action Council
Kampung Development and Security Committee
Mukim Development and Security Committee
Local Authorities

5. The State and Civil Society
5.1 Ombudsperson The Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) of Malaysia has established an ombudsperson system (or Hisbah system) to monitor compliance with ethical standards. All leaders are required under this system to declare their assets and wealth, and there is a special committee to investigate violations. Members of the general public can submit a complaint about any member in the party.
5.2 Civil Society Malaysia’s Societies Act (1966) governs political parties, NGOs, associations, and charities in Malaysia, and all of these organizations must register with the Registrar of Societies, under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Parties have to submit financial accounts to the Registrar, but these accounts are not disclosed to the public and there is no requirement for parties to reveal the sources of their funds. The current law also does not prevent political parties from owning and managing financial enterprises, and there are no spending or contribution limits. The Election Offences Act includes specific campaign finance regulations for candidates. Several civil organizations have lobbied for stricter regulations, particularly with respect to party financing. There are also regular consultations between government ministries and departments and the private sector provided, which were established for fewer than two service circulars issued in 1984 and 1991 dealing with the implementation of the Malaysia Incorporated Policy. Among many directives for improving relations between the public and private sectors are the establishments of Consultative Panels, the holding of Annual Dialogue, formal interaction through participation in seminars, informal interaction through sports and social events and permission for government departments to receive tokens of appreciation (non-monetary) from the private sector.
6. Civil service
The Public Service Department, Malaysia is the foremost personnel agency. All aspects of human resource management policy come within the ambit of the Public Service Department. The Public Service Commission is responsible for appointment and recruitment of personnel. Appendix B represents the structure of the PSD. The functions of the PSD are as follows: (a) formulation of policies on recruitment, appointment, promotion, discipline and termination of service; (b) determining manpower requirements and organizational structure for all government agencies; (c) formulation of policies on remuneration and other facilities for public sector personnel; (d) negotiation with aggrieved parties on claims made by workers and representing the government in all proceedings of the Public Service Tribunal; (e) providing adequate trained manpower to all government agencies; and (f) administering and implementing all laws and regulations pertaining to pension and other retirement benefits.
6.1 Legal basis
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. To ensure the impartiality of the Public Service, and to protect it from political interference, a number of Service Commissions were established under the Constitution. The Head of The Service Commissions or Council are appointed by the Yang Di PertuanAgongThe Commissions/Council presently existing are (I) Judicial and Legal Service Commission; (ii) Public Service Commission; (iii) Public Commission; (iv) Education Service Commission; (v) Armed Forces Council; and (vi) The respective State Public Service Commissions.
6.2 Recruitment The Public Service Commission, an independent body, is responsible for recruitment of personnel in the Civil Service. Under Article 144(1) of the Federal Constitution, the main functions of the Commission are to appoint, confirm, emplace on the permanent or pensionable establishment, promote transfer and exercise disciplinary action over members of the service or services to which its jurisdiction extends. The main objective of the recruitment policy of the Civil Service of Malaysia is to attract and retain high caliber personnel in the public sector. The policy and procedure of recruitment is provided in the General Orders Chapter ‘A’ (Appointments and Promotions) 1973. Its legal status is to be formed in Article 132(2) of the Federal Constitution. The salient feature of the recruitment policy is that appointments whether on permanent and or temporary basis must be from Malaysian citizens, and be in accordance with the scheme.
6.3 Promotion The Performance Appraisal System is used in determining annual salary progression and promotion. This system introduces a more systematic, and reliable assessment because there are fewer subjective elements. It recognizes the need to give more weight to different aspects for different service groups. Aspects that are being evaluated includes: (a) work output based on knowledge, work quality, timeliness, ability to manage and make decisions; (b) good values such as trustworthiness and reliability; (c) potential for leadership; and (d) the annual targets as agreed upon by both the officer being evaluated and the reporting officer. Under the New Remuneration Systems (NRS), seniority in the civil service is no longer given a top priority. The selection process for officers to be promoted includes an assessment on qualities such as leadership, innovativeness and creativity in addition to their qualifications, experience, training, Performance Appraisal Report, performance at the mandatory Management Courses conducted in National Institute of Public Administration (INTAN) and on interview. The promotion from one grade to another is based on the availability of vacancies. However, for Research Officers, University Lecturers, and Medical and Dental Specialists, promotion exercises are carried out in accordance with the procedures as stipulated in the relevant schemes of service and subjected to: (a) considerations of a Panel that includes a representative from the Public Service Department; and (b) the use of a performance evaluation system as stated above.
6.4 Remuneration Public Service remuneration consists of salary; they pay by fixed allowances and variable payments such as housing and critical service allowance. Public Service personnel are also provided with various benefits such as medical treatment or hospitalization and quarters for certain essential service like the Fire Service and Police Force. The objective of such remuneration is to ensure that members of the Public Service receive fair and reasonable wages and compensation in carrying out their duties.
Pension: the mandatory retirement age for a public servant is 55. However, an employee may apply for optional retirement upon attaining 40 years of age. Public sector personnel appointed on or after 12 April 1991 can either opt to join the Pensions Scheme or the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme.
Retirement Benefits: the benefit after retirement are: (I) Gratuity; (ii) Lifelong monthly pension; (iii) Cash award in lieu of accumulated leave. These payments are given to a pensionable employee upon retirement. For those on optional retirement, only gratuity and cash award in lieu of accumulated leave are paid upon retirement whereas pension is only payable upon attaining the age of 45 for women and 55 for men. New appointees to the public service on or after 12 April 1991 will be paid their pensions at the age of 55. Upon the pensioner’s demise, the remaining pension is granted to the dependents, namely widow, or widower; and eligible children.
6.5 Training
The National Institute of Public Administration (INTAN) was established as the training arm of the Public Service Department to provide training for the public service. INTAN 's training programs emphasized the demands of planning and implementing successful development programs, training of administrators and staff as agents of change, financial and economic management skills, computer literacy as well as public policy and international relations (until the establishment of the Foreign Service Institute in 1992).
7. Ethics and Civil Service
7.1 Corruption In 2003 there is a test call “CPI score “that is relates to perception of the degree of corruption. It has seen by business people, country analysts and ranges between 10 is mean highly clean and 0 is mean highly corrupt. Survey Used: they use to assess a country’s performance. There are 17 surveys were used but at least 3 surveys were required for a country then included in CPI. Standard Deviation: there are different indicate that tell the value of the sources. First, values below 0.5 indicate agreement, values between 0.5 and 0.9 indicate some of agreement, and values equal and larger than 1 indicate disagreement. High-Low Range: Provides the highest and lowest values of the sources. Number Institutions: Refers to the number of independent institutions that assessed a country 's performance. Since some institutions provided more than one survey.90 percent confidence range: Provides a range of possible values of the CPI score. With 5 percent probability the score is above this range and with another 5 percent it is below. Malaysia 's Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was founded in 1967 by merging three earlier bodies. An Anti-Corruption Unit had been set up in the Prime Minister’s Department as early as 1959. The main functions of the ACA were (and are) to: (i) investigate and prosecute offences of corruption; (ii) prevent and curb corruption in the public service; (iii) investigate the conduct of civil servants. Corruption is defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 and Ordinance 22, 1971, to include bribery, false claims and the use of public position or office for pecuniary or other advantage. False expenses claims are dealt with by the Agency, but the police also deal with some cases of fraud. The Agency has power to investigate, interrogate, arrest and prosecute. Staff members were appointed initially by transfers from the police but are now recruited into a separate administration. They receive public sector pay, plus an incentive allowance. There are six divisions: Prosecutions; Investigations; Information; Prevention; Training; Administration. Legislation, regulation, operation and motivation are closely linked. For example, regulation allow Customs Officers at the checkpoint and police on the street to carry only a small amount of cash on their person, and investigation by random checks and searches of such officers provide evidence of corrupt cash payments and help motivate staff against the acceptance of bribes.
7.2 Ethics ACA is an institution that gives agencies to identify the top ten corruption prone agencies in Malaysia. They want to set up Ethics, Quality, and productivity committee at state and department level. Moreover the civil service has created “ the twelve Pillars” these are the value of time, the success of perseverance, the pleasure of working, the dignity of simplicity, the worth of character, the power of kindness, the influence of example, the obligation of duty, the wisdom of economy, the virtue of patience, the improvement of talent, preventing corruption receives more emphasis now than in the past with a three pronged strategy of information, education, and communication. These are created to appeal people to avoid corruption, which based on morality, social pressure with money, self – respect and loyalty.

Chapter 3: Challenges and Changes
New Public Management (NPM) In general, the NPM is the context of contemporary administrative changes driven for improving public sector efficiency and performance in the delivery of services. As mentioned earlier, the main of these changes is the application of private sector values and management tools in the public sector and the delivery of public services within market mechanisms. Regarding to the neo-liberal economic theory, the NPM ideology is based on the assumption that the existing structures and policies of the government has caused inefficiency and low performance standard. It further asserts that the problems of the government are so pervasive that they cannot be resolved easily by modifying the structures of public bureaucracies. Consequently, the proponents of the NPM propose several alternatives in the form of customer-driven management and market-based solutions. There is no any precise consensus and definition of what constitutes NPM. Put into another word, reforms activated or initiated in different parts of the world during the past two decades under the rubric of NPM are so varied that it is hard to capture them in a single definition. This explains why some analysts tend to view the NPM as a “menu” from which the countries may choose and apply depending on their specific situations. Therefore, the NPM represents a major shift in public sector administration – a shift that redefines and incorporates changes in its structures, processes and values. The structural changes entail organizational decentralization, reduction in hierarchies, streamlining organizational arrangements to eliminate unnecessary units/agencies. This also implies the creation of single purpose agencies, quasi-privatization and contracting out functions. The changes in the processes include, among others, the injection of management techniques and market values in the public sector. More specifically, the NPM suggests changes in the process of budgeting, human resource management, and quality initiatives that would enhance efficiency of public bureaucracy and force it to be more responsive to the needs of its customers. Clearly, the values NPM seeks to promote through such changes include efficiency, effectiveness, flexibility and dynamism. In short, the NPM calls for putting the customers first, making service organizations compete, using market mechanisms to solve problems, entrepreneurship and cost recovery initiatives, employee empowerment, downsizing and decentralization of decision making, streamlining the budget process and decentralization of personnel management. With all this, the NPM seeks to change the traditional rule-bound, process-oriented administrative culture into flexible, innovative, dynamic and result-oriented one. Obviously, the more these elements are present in a particular country the thorough its NPM reform is believed to be.
The development of Malaysia before the public administration reform As independence in 1957 Malaysia was an exporter of primary commodity to the international market, but with strong state patronage and drives for industrialization under the New Economic Policy (NEP) the nation began to export light manufacturing goods in the 1970s. By early 1980s, a major policy shift occurred when the new government opted for heavy industrialization and joint ventures with foreign partners. Within a short period of time Malaysia managed to increase its export substantially to emerge as a leading exporter of manufacturing and electronics goods in the world. The increasing reliance on exports means that the Malaysian economy has become integrated with the global economy. And after the global economy predominately influence on Malaysian economy, it also brought so many challenges to Malaysia in both directly and indirectly ways.
Challenges to Public Administration
First challenge: According to, integration with the global economy, when the global economic recession was occurring in 1980s, it also led Malaysia to rethink of economic principles and policies. Malaysia could neither remain unaffected nor could ignore the realities as they had serious implications for the domestic economy. Globally, the new economic philosophy not only questioned the size and capacity of the public sectors but also presented market mechanisms as a better alternative way to achieve greater efficiency and faster economic growth. Thus, there are so many worldwide movements towards privatization and commercialization. Such a situation demand concrete response on part of the Malaysian government in order to be tackled the challenges.
There are some examples of strategy that Malaysian government used to handle with economic recession at that time: 1. In 1983, Malaysian government decided to reduce its roles and involvement by applying the concept of privatization as a major strategy. 2. Regarding to direct response to economic challenges, the Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2) in 1991 or well known as National Development Policy (NDP) has specified the target in socio-economic spheres and the strategies to be pursue to achieve developmental goal. 3. The vision 2020 (a thirty years strategic plan), already outline Malaysia’s aspiration and policy implications to achieve the goal of a fully developed nation status. 4. Public and private cooperation as a mean to promote and fasten the process of economic growth, the public services was expected to play a vital role in achieving national development goal.
Second challenge: The second challenge came from the political and economic changes taking place in the international and domestic in 1990s. Events like the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and USSR, establishment of a single European market, formation of regional free-trade blocs and the opening up of the Chinese market for foreign investment have posed tremendous challenge for countries like Malaysia. This has been compounded further with the process of globalization and its consolidation. With world economy becoming increasing global and fierce competition among the states for market share and survival, globalization has posed huge challenge for the Malaysian economy.
Third challenge: This challenge has been compound further with the process of globalization and it consolidation, with world economy becoming increasing global and competition among states for market share and survival, globalization has posed huge challenge for Malaysian economy because it heavily dependent on external trade. Therefore, Malaysia required emphasizing on the future direction and strategies for its economic survival and strongly pace of socio-economic development.
Forth challenges: Since the early 1990s, good governance has increasingly come to be seen as a critical element for sustainable development as it gets a lot supports from major international and regional organizations like United Nations and World Bank. And after the Asian financial crisis in 1990s, the governance issue has been serious concerned because the crisis has exposed the imperfection of the public management and the lack of transparency as well.
Public Management reforms in Malaysia 1. The “Malaysia incorporated” policy During that time, the economic and developmental imperatives had activated the Malaysian leadership to look for policy choices followed other countries. In 1981 the “Look East Policy” was first introduced seeking to learn and benefit from the experiences of Japan and South Korea. The highlight assumption was that Malaysia had much to learn from and emulate the experiences of these countries, which were able to tackle the global uncertainties. A direct outcome of the Look East Policy was the introduction of the Malaysia Inc. policy in 1983. Based on the Japanese notion of “coordinated interdependence” the Malaysia Inc. represents a new way of approaching the task of national development whereby a new relationship between the public and private sector has been deeply conceived. The element of this approach is that it is necessary for the public and the private sectors to intimately work, support, facilitate and supplement each other for increased socio-economic development. Under the policy the entire country is seen as a business corporation with the private sector fuelling its growth and expansion and the public sector providing the support vital for the success of the corporation. Hence, the Malaysia Inc. not only calls for an end to the traditional antagonistic relationship between the public and private sectors but also underscores the need for establishing a symbiotic relationship between them for realizing national developmental goals. This is justified in terms of mutuality of benefits: the private sector is likely to benefit from higher profits and growth and the government will benefit in terms of higher revenue and increased employment. While initially it took the form of a slogan and efforts were focused mainly on promoting the understanding of the concept and its philosophy, subsequently emphasis was laid on the actualization of the concept through concrete programs and schemes. Since its inception in 1983, a series of mechanisms have been developed to foster collaboration between the government and the private sector. The Malaysian Business Council (MBC), the Malaysia Inc. Officials Committee and consultative panels have held regular dialogue sessions at different levels/ministries thus facilitating the exchange of ideas and information, (which later paved the way for administrative improvements in different areas. It is also claimed that Malaysia Inc. has had a major impact on the mind-set of public officials who have begun to see themselves as facilitators and partners with the private entrepreneurs in the process of national development. 2. Downsizing the civil service The worldwide economic recession of the 1980s and its consequent effects on domestic economy left the Malaysian government with little choice but to reduce the size of its public sector. The civil service became the primary target of downsizing programs. Measures initiated by a high powered committee formed for the purpose under the leadership of the Chief Secretary to the government included the following: curbing the creation of new posts, abolition of vacant posts in non-critical areas, review of positions in statutory bodies, the merger of state administrative services into federal civil services, the restructuring of public sector agencies, and the privatization of government enterprises. However, the last two measures i.e. organizational restructuring and privatization have contributed significantly towards downsizing goals. Initiated in the mid-1980s, the organizational restructuring was aimed at ensuring that the size of the public service was consistent with its new roles and functions in the society. Between 1992 and 1997 a total of 570 agencies have been reviewed and restructured with a considerable reduction in the number of posts. The New Remuneration Scheme (NRS) introduced in 1992 has also supported such objectives as it led to the elimination of several levels through the amalgamation of various salary and service groups/grades.
The drive that has had the most dramatic impact on the structure of the public sector is the program of privatization. Aimed at relieving the financial and administrative burden of the government in undertaking expanding network of services, and reducing the size and presence of the public sector with its monopolistic tendencies, the privatization program has been extensive in its scope and coverage. During 1983-1995 a total of 210 projects were privatized (in different sectors of the economy using a variety of modes. Though comprehensive assessment on the overall impacts of privatization is lacking, evidence shows that it has been effective in trimming Malaysia’s bloated bureaucracy significantly. It has had major impact on the public payroll as a total of 105,000 public sector employees have been transferred to the private sector. It has also succeeded in alleviating the financial burden of the government through savings in huge operating costs and capital expenditure of RM 130 billion. This, along with the proceeds of the sale of assets and equity and the revenue from corporate tax and other taxes imposed on these entities, enabled the government to reduce its borrowings as well as reallocate resources to more critical sectors. Though privatization is not the panacea and its critics may find many flaws and adverse effects in other areas, in this case the policy appears to be effective so far downsizing of the public sector is concerned.

Appendix: Decentralization and Local Governance in Malaysia
These articles are extracted from “Public Administration in Southeast Asia”. Accidentally, found in 5th floor photocopy shop on May 1, 2012. We want to include these articles of discussion in class to enhance our understanding.
Introduction
Throughout Malaysia 's administrative reforms and institution-building process, local government and decentralization have seldom been issues of priority. Indeed, the history of Malaysia 's administrative reforms has always evolved around modernizing its civil service and laying the foundation for political stability and economic development of the nation. Decentralization, local autonomy, and local self-government were presumed inherent in the administrative structure, but were seldom the highlight of Malaysia 's institution building and public administration reform strategies.
The government 's quest for economic and administrative development has to be carried Out mindful that the nation is multi-ethnic, multi religious, and multi-cultural. Logically, any development undertaken should therefore be based on democratic notions of good governance decision conflict regarding the kind of governance to use; whether to adopt good governance, which can be interpreted as the global "desired" objective, or effective governance, which seems to be the "feasible" mode for practical implementation. Again, the country 's composition of "multi-ism~ ' is a perpetual reminder of the necessity of maintaining peace in the nation rather than individual liberty within the confines of its unique democratic institution.
The theory and practice of development administration in Malaysia has thus far been based on the premise that "effective governance" should have priority over "good governance" as the intensity of plural and communal politics may get in the way of national development. The key to Malaysia 's economic development and growth propensity is very much dependent on racial harmony and the government will not be willing to compromise this just to achieve some of the objectives ofgood governance. Some examples ofrecent events that occurred in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, attest to this rationale.
From September to December 2007, street demonstrations and rallies were organized for three different concerns in various locations. The first was staged by the lawyers ' march to highlight their concerns about the erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Malaysia. The second protest, organized by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, known by its acronym Bersih, on November 10, 2007, was against the conduct of elections and seeking electoral reforms; and the third was a single-cause demonstration to highlight the plight of the ethnic Indians, organized by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) on November 25, 2007.2 The use ofwater cannons and teargas by police co immediately disperse these street demonstrations and rallies exemplifies the government 's intolerance ofsuch behavioral expressions and public actions. The government 's retaliation was phenomenal as some of these protesters were arrested on the spot. In the case of Hindraf, some of i,ts members were not only arrested, but also charged under the feared internal security act.
Due to the continual internalization for harmony by the government, the majority of the Malaysian community has developed a sense of not insisting too much on democratic issues and practices. In fact, it seems to have become acceptable to have limitations on democratic freedoms and to abide by the policies of the government. The process has become so complete that the community seldom if ever questions the political statements or actions of political leaders, and the distinction between government administration and politics has become fused over time. It is therefore not surprising in Malaysia that governance based on the mode of effectiveness and feasibility is "desired" and accepted as "good" for promoting socio-economic development and growth. It is clear that "multi-ism" has become an essential concept in the administration of the central government. This perspective has also transcended to local government with consequences on its political and administrative relations with the higher tier governments, including the local community.
British Colonial Legacy The British colonial legacy in Malaysia and Hong Kong continues to be evident in three ways: (I) the molding of civil service culture that is based on merit; (II) a reluctant but nonetheless certain provision of infrastructure (transportation, school, sanitation); and (III) population policies for economic advantage that have racial element and which, in the case of Malaysia, lead to enduring racial tension and conflict. As regard the first aspect, the British legacy in civil culture is undoubtedly strong. In both Hong Kong and Malaysia, the white, British senior manager upheld high values of ethics and professionalism. Chin states; “many of the white officers who served in Malaya were high experienced, some having served in British colonies in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Some were recruited directly from directly from British universities. The Malay Administrative Service (MAS) were generally corrupt-free and there was a strong respect for administrative law.” The legacy or professionalism and merit continues at lower levels of the service where Manaf notes that “for some posts, applicants are required to sit for tests relevant to the skills and capacity required to perform the job effectively. Thus the emphasis… is based on merit, rather than political considerations or nepotism.” However, as described further, political neutrality is no longer a feature at the higher echelons. The culture of professionalism in Hong Kong’s administrative culture continues today. Burns states that today’s administrative values in Hong Kong in clued “hierarchical loyalty, efficiency, meritocracy, and political neutrality,” although the letter has recently begun to change at the higher levels. He notes that, “compliance is reinforcing by strict adherence to bureaucratic rules and regulations and an incentive system that highly values promotion.” Efficiency, meritocracy, and timeliness continue to be strong features in these cultures. The strength of commitment to these values set them apart from the bureaucracies of other cultures in Asia. Such values may also be found in other former British colonies like Singapore and even the United States. Second, infrastructure investments were made. Chin states: “the MAS believed in developing the Malayan economy, thus school (mostly manned by missionaries), hospital, roads, airports and other infrastructure, were built. The belief was that a strong Malayan economy will contribute to the home country and the British Empire.” Likewise, Lee notes that for Hong Kong, “while the indigenous population numbered only in the thousands in 1841 before British takeover, by 1911, the population had grown to over 450,000. Such a rapid increase in population naturally brought about demand for public services… and problems such as public sanitation required the modern management science required. In comparison with the Anglo-Saxon administrative culture, the Latin style represents intimate personal relations, lax working attitude, and to some extent, easy to induce corruption… From a Weberian perspective, Macao’s bureaucracy arguably remains underdeveloped and backward.” Despite several civil service reforms since handover to Mainland China in 1999, the culture remains largely intact, and Yu notes that the Portuguese legacy of patronage and nepotism continues today in some aspects of personal appointments. The challenge of public administration in the Philippines and Macao is to overcome these cultures of difference, self-enrichment, and inefficiency. The same might be said of most public administration systems in South America today, which share these legacies. It might also be noted that, in comparison to former British colonies, race relations are not such an issue in many former Portuguese and Spanish colonies that are often characterized by race mixing and assimilation. Brazil is a celebrated and well-known example for this, but it is no exception.
Decentralization
Decentralization had developed in the last 20 years as a major force for development. The development of effective regional and local governments allows to for increased services and initiatives that can spur and support new economic activity. Yet, all three countries (Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines) have a strong tradition of centralization, which often led in past development efforts. Decentralization involves a loss of control by the central government, which has an obvious political element. Bidhya notes that Thailand has had a long and strong tradition of authoritative rule, centralization, and bid government. Achakorn and Chandra explain that, “the extremely tight traditional central-provincial- local relations were patterned on British colonial public administration regimes. This strong central state was designed to secure control over outlying rural areas… Only since the 1990s, and despite strong opposition from the Ministry of interior, have Thai governments consistently supported decentralization.” Possibly, this reflects in some measure a growing influence of politicians elected from rural areas. Likewise, Brillantes and Ilago note that, “a leading argument on why decentralization was pursued in the Philippines was to correct the inherent centralism of the administrative system. The Local government code of 1991 is a landmark piece of decentralization legislation because of its unprecedented transfer of powers, functions and resources of the central government to the historically weak or politically insignificant local government units.” Of concern has been the relatively weak competency of many local governments, of course. “Most local government in Thailand feature weak financial management, insufficient resources, inefficient planning and service delivery, and deficient public infrastructure. These major problems, in turn, result from inadequate revenue resources, poor mobilization of existing revenues, lack of technical capabilities and personal and unclear responsibilities.” Still, progress is being made and Brillantes and Ilogo state that, “the relatively small size of municipalities makes it more difficult to deliver extension services or hire the needed expertise… In spite of these constraints, devolution has yielded some positive results such as the increasing cooperation between local government unit and the private sector and NGOs in agriculture extension, an increased focus on training and extension for farm systems rather than only a single commodity, and local government focus on training and entrepreneurship for agricultural development.” Some innovation is also present. According to Achakorn and Chandra, “critics of decentralize in Thailand have worried… that local power brokers would boost their influence. In 1998, the Ministry of Interior issued an order to all local government to encourage, organize, recognize and support Cooperative Community Groups (CCGs) in local area. CCGs are local groups of residents formally recognized by the local government as representative of their communities. CCGs can be organized at local governments’ behest or at the request of the groups themselves. (An proximate number of members is from 200 to 2000). The main objective of the CCGs is to no encourage community groups to be strong and depend on themselves as much as they possibly can in solving their own problem.” Brillantes and Sonco describe how the Philippines has made earnest headway in decentralization. In 1991, the Local Government Code was enacted, which is considered “ a landmark, far-reaching and the most radical piece of legislation in the history of Philipine politicoadministrative system. It devolved significant functions, powers, and responsibilities to the thousands of local governments in the country that have long been operating under a highly centralizaed regime”. They describe the development of new initiatives and increased respondsiveness as a result of decentralization. Its implementation has shown progress and desirable results, but they also note that, “strong familial ties and strong political change of the Filipinos threaten the degree of democratization, electoral participation, and political accountability at the local government level.” They also note that capacity building for local governance is much needed. For example, “professionalizing the local bureaucracy requires establishing the competency needs of civil servants at the local level, their career path and development in the local bureaucracy.” They call for a comprehensive capacity-building program. Centralization is also strong in Malaysia, but the demand for local governance has been weak, coupled with a perceived need to maintain a strong central structure. Phang states: “The theory and practice of development administration in Malaysia has this far been based upon the premise that ‘effective governance’ should have priority over ‘good governance’ as the intensity of plural and communal politics may get in the way of national development upon racial harmony and the government will not be willing to compromise this.” Thus, maintaining racial harmony (or, peace) is the order of the day. Moreoverm the capacity of local government has long been limited. Local governments must seek state approval over most matters in finance, appointment of its councilors and staffing, and local elections were abolished in the 1970s. The local government capacity is very weak. The cases of Macao and Hong Kong are unique and a matter of decentralization only in the sense of Mainland China providing far-reaching autonomy to these former colonies and now special regions. Both Hong Kong and Macao are under the direct authority of the central government of China, and the highest level of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), namely, [be central leadership under Hu }intao, decides on the policy toward Hong Kong. TIle top cenual body that takes charge is the Hong Kong and Macao Work Coordination Group of the CCP. Under the One Country Two Systems (OCTS) policy, Mainland China agrees to give substantial autonomy, though it appoints and removes the chiefexecutive (who is chosen to be a political ally ofBeijing), and China has responsibility for diplomacy and defense. A key to OCTS is the agrtt 'mentthat no offices or local authorities ofthe Mainland may interfere in the affairs ofHong Kong or Macao SAR. Peter Cheung writes that, "the OCTS policy reveals that the relationship between the central government and the SAR is hardly smooth. While most observers would agree that the first decade of OCTS has been largely successful, Hong Kong 's enjoyment of a 'high degree of autonomy ' is first and foremost dependent upon Beijing 's restraint." Similarly, Choi writes. "Macao is repeatedly reminded that autonomy is based on a grant from the centre, and that it is not an inherent right, suggesting that deliverance from central involvement is tenuous."
Cheung writes that demonstrations in Hong Kong against the Tung administration on July 1, 2003, shocked the Chinese leadership, and caused it to become more active in shaping Hong Kong politics. China revamped its agencies and policy coordination group responsible for Hong Kong affairs, stepped up the monitoring ofHong Kong political developments, intensified irs work with political, business, and community leaders, and offered economic policy support measures to boost the Hong Kong economy. Similarly, Choi notes that by supporting pro-China social groups in Macao, China maintains its unchallenged control on Macao politics, "the local elite, no matter old or new rich, sing in unison ofthe caring and kindness ofthe motherland." Popu lar concern in Maco continue to focus on the ineffectiveness of its government and on-going corruption cases, and the chapters on Mocao voice widespread concern about this. The cases may be different, but they all show themes of central government control over local government, and the effectiveness of local government to provide governance and services. With the exception of Malaysia, they show dynamic developments occurring in these three countries and two special administrative regions in Southeast Asia.
Defining Local Government in the Context of Malaysia
Throughout Malaysia 's history, there have been attempts to define local government and also efforts to restructure its local government system to give it precision and body. As stated in the Report ofthe Royal Commission ofEnquiry to Investigate into the Workings ofLocal Authorities in West Malaysia, "There is no precise definition of the term 'local government ' though many of us do know what it means and portends In. ' ' Basically, this sums up the knowledge and level of understanding oflocal government. Ultimately, the Report of the Royal Commission had to refer to John J. Clarke 's definition in explaining local government in this country . Briefly, the concepts oflocal government according to Clarke mean: (1) A government confined to local affairs assigned to it by a superior government to which it is subordinate and subject to its control and supervision (2) It is autonomous to the extent to what is granted by the superior government (3) It is representative or non-representative in character (4) It is a separate legal entity with powers to sue and be sued (5) It functions in a defined area to which it provides services
However, as events begin to unfold in this country, such as independence, Sabah and Sarawak joining Malaya form the nation-state Malaysia, and suspension of local elections, these influence Malaysia 's system ofgovernment and administration, thereby warranting local government to be defined accordingly and what is understood based on a definition appear a misnomer for Malaysia; it lacked a precise definition. Yet, there were no immediate attempts to justifY local government 's position and the Royal Commission that recommended a restructuring ofMalaysia 's local government was unable to provide a definitive concept. It merely referred to general guidelines of local government used in democratic countries, such as Clarke 's definition. Later, a committee formed by the government to study the implications of the Report of the Royal Commission was also unable to express clear meanings except to state that "local government in Malaysia is a subsystem operating within or among a number of other sub-systems."
The inability to express a precise definition has continued indefinitely. The Ministry ofHousing and Local Government states that, "local government are infra-sovereign geographic sub-divisions of a sovereign nation or quasi-sovereign state, exercising the power of jurisdiction in a particular area. Many ofthem are legal entities, which means they can sue and be sued, and enter into contract."
Malcolm W. Norris states that, "local government in Malaysia is concerned with those authorities established as municipalities, district councils, local councils and autonomous town boards. All these bodies are created by law and set apart from the central or state administration... They are subordinate units to the state and Federal Governments in law."
Phang S. N. states that local government is, "a State-created (after consultation with the Minister in charge of local government) political entity thereby representing the third tier in a Federal structure, administered by state-nominated Councillors, geographically encompassing a portion of the country. It is infra-sovereign, subordinate and subject to the control of the State Government; yet is a separate legal unit being a body corporate having a common seal, with powers to sue and to be sued, mainly providing obligatory municipal services."
The process of local government becoming less autonomous is accentuated by the relationship between the three levels of government, i.e., federal/central, state, and local. This relationship is based on a type of decentralization that accords power sharing and demonstrates democratic practice.3 Each level of government has autonomy over certain areas of jurisdiction, such as land matters, religion, tax assessment, scholarship, vector services, and state laws. In reality, however, with the balance ofpower arrangements that maintain control at the central government, local government and decentralization have been weakened. In the past, what would have been identified as local self-government no longer applies. Instead, local government autonomy has been slowly eroded through further reassertion of federal and state government controls. Such a situation that leads to erosion of local autonomy and reasserrion of central powers has been termed recentralization. At present, Malaysia 's local government seems to be experiencing this process.
Inter-Governmental Relationships
In the area of inter-governmental relationships, the structure of government in Malaysia tends to be heavily biased toward the central government. This relationship is influenced by Malaysia 's federal structure of government, which essentially allows the central government to have more powers over the state and local governments. In other words, state and local governmems operate within a framework where they accede to the decisions of the central governmenr if ever a conflict of opinion arises among them. This is further aided by the federal constitution that provides for federal laws to supersede those of the states when conflict exists between these laws. The division of powers between central and state governments reveals a central bias. "... in practice the states have little real autonomy. Although some federal functions have been decentralized, most decision-making remains at national level."This situation is further reinforced by the central government 's control over major resources and wealth of the country.
Whereas the states still have some semblance of autonomy in their relationship with the federal government, the local government 's position is a paradox as it is under the jurisdiction of the state government yet, it also yields to federal control. The process of decentralization that was supposed to delegate a degree of autonomy and independence to local government when it was restructured in the early 1970s became instead the route to recentralization. Through the enactment of a series of by-laws and regulations, many traditional functions have been removed or privatized. For instance, the election of local representatives has been removed and traditional functions such as providing for water, electricity, sewerage, and bus services have been privatized. The outcome is a local government that resembles another government department carrying out administrative functions. The position of local government in a federal system is shown in Figure 1
Figure 1 Local Governments Position in the Federal Government of Malaysia
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
State Governments
City Council
Municipal Council
District Council
Citizen/Community
Ministry of Federal Territories
The King
Parliament
The Cabinet
NCLG
Other Ministries
City Hall
Power/Control
Advisory
National Council for Local Government
NCLG

At the local level, although local government is a state responsibility, however, through the NCLG, local government is made to feel the powers of the central government. Under the provision of the federal constitution Article 95(A), the decisions of the NCLG are binding on all state governess. The NCLG can formulate policies and advise on matters pertaining to local government, and all states, with the exception of Sabah and Sarawak, need to comply with these regulations. The NCLG has almost equal federal and state representation composed of all state chief ministers, the minister of housing and local government, and senior ministry officials from the said ministry as well as other central ministries; and observers from the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak. However, it is ironic that this committee, which essentially deals with local government matters, is not represented by any of the chiefs and presidents of the local authorities or their secretaries. This situation weakens local government and reaffirms the process of recentralization. The policy decisions made by the NCLG bind both the federal and state governments. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, a central ministry in charge of local governed, can advice, a role that is only as strong as the expertise and financial resources at its disposal. Through the various federal laws concerning local government, such as the Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171), the Town and Country Planning Act (Act 172), and the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133), central control is further reinforced and imensified. The raison d 'etre for perpetuating this type of federal-local relations is to ensure uniformity of law and order, policy implementation, advice, and provision of technical and financial assistance, which states have long been unable to provide their local governmellt. It is rather unfortunate that for these reasons, local government has to endure the loss of its autonomy and certain powers.
Historically, state-local relations in Malaysia had been eventful, leading to the reform of local government in the early 19705 with subsequent federal interventions whenever the occasion demands especially in financial and political matters. Consequently, local government in Malaysia is left to fend for itself as most times, states are seldom in a position to assist the local authorities, they themselves relying on the federal government for financial and political support. Under such circumstances, there are concerns regarding the status of local government, its diminishing local autonomy and decentralization. There is, of course, the uncertainty of local government 's ability to sustain the chaJlenges of a community that demands more transparency and accountability; a reflection of loss of powers felt by the community at the local level. In essence, the local community senses the erosion of local autonomy and central government further imposing its authority over local government. This concept of recentralization appears to be the trend in local govefI1ment 's relationship with the upper tier governments. As the process continues, it also influences local government 's relationship with its local community. In Malaysia, the traditional "top-down" process in communicating with the local community has in fact further entrenched, in contrast to the "bottom-up" approach.
Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization
There exists a contradictory situation in Malaysian local government where the principles of good governance are endorsed and strongly encouraged by the central government, but seldom carried out and if so, reluctantly. This is because existing capacities of local government 's administrative and institutional systems are inadequate for operationalizing good governance on the ground. Thus far, the practice by Malaysian local government in managing their community is exclusively an exercise in centralized administration. The dilemma of local government is the need for it to acquiesce to community demands in the face of global change and increasing awareness of the right to participate, but not being prepared to confront the consequences of sharing in decision making, increasing community participation, being more transparent and accountable.
While the traditional relevance and position of local government in Malaysia remains, its approach vis-a-vis the community requires re-orientation in line with global demands for greater decentralization, emerging localism, devolution, and empowerment. Generally, there is a need to narrow the continuing distance between state and society with changing perception and growing demands for empowerment. This is one of the intriguing paradoxes of globalization generating a new interest in the relationship between civil society and government; and as civil society flourishes, there is a weakening of state institutions especially at the national level. Driven by the pressures of society 's changing norms and values and increasing liberalization, local government in Malaysia faces the daunting challenge of responding to public participation and engaging the community in its decision-making process.
Political changes and power transformation that are unfurling within the region has also caught the attention of the Malaysian community. The dramatic but successful struggle for independence in East Timor and the flourishing of democracy and decentralization that transformed every region in Indonesia through the era of reform, referred to as era reformasi (22), to a certain extent captured the imagination of the Malaysian public. In addition, globalization gave rise to the concept of empowerment that was embraced by the local community, and citizens have tried to participate in political and social issues that affect them. Perhaps the recent public rallies and street marches, as mentioned earlier, are conspicuous indicators of the community 's desire to be actively engaged and involved in the process of governance. Inevitably, this brings attention to the issue of local administration and local government 's ability to work with and for the citizens. In enabling local government in Malaysia to meet the demands of the community for transparency, accountability, and participation, it too has to have the power to control its own affairs. However, Malaysian central-local relations reRect the importance of the federal government rather than those of the lower tier governments. While nations around the region subscribe to the process of decentralization and a shift of power from the center to local or district, by contrast, there is a resurgence toward greater central control and dilution oflocal autonomy in Malaysia.
Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening Decentralization
Recentralization or, in other words, the process of reversing powers from lower tier governments to the federal central government, began in the 1960s when erosion of local government autonomy gathered momentum with the suspension of local elections in 1965. Local elections were subsequently abolished and the "take-over" process oflocal government administration by the respective state governments continued, fueled by allegations of maladministration and mismanagement [23]. Meanwhile, the federal government proceeded with the setting up of a royal commission to look into these allegations in local government, which led to it being subsumed into state administration. But the balance of power arrangement was such that the federal government still managed to maintain its control over local government via its powers over state governments.
The implementation of the Local Government Act 1976 by the federal government set the framework for the restructuring of all local authorities in Peninsular Malaysia, beginning with the Penang Municipal Council. The main reasons for the restructuring were to achieve the objectives of socio-economic development, national unity, democracy, freedom, and efficiency in local government; in fact, the bases of decentralization as characterized by A. F. Leemans. This instrument was used by many state governments [0 actually diffuse the powers of those local authorities that had posed problems for them in the past. This was the case of the Penang state government that quickly seized the opportunity to implement and use the Local Government Act 1976 toward this end.
However, as events unfolded, decentralization through a restructured local government did not occur but instead became a process for recentralization, as the Royal Commission Report again reiterated that, "In promoting decentralized local government not all central or state governments are fully cognizant of the objectives of decentralization [25]." Thus far, the policy of promoting decentralization has been reluctantly exercised. Using this act, the state government dissolved the Board of Management managing the Penang local council and set up the Penang Island Municipal Council. The state government dismissed all the uncooperative members of the old board and established in its place a new council with councilors appointed by the chief minister that were beholden to the state government. In this manner, the Penang local council became the first restructured local authority in Malaysia that had in place a council that would almost certainly give no opposition. By this example, it was clear then that although the Local Government Act was intended t 'o establish the process of decentralization and to give powers to the restructured local authorities, the immediate effect faced by the Penang council was the reality that the process had made it yet more subservient to the state government, which had effectively assumed overall control. This event demonstrates how an act of the federal government has been used to reduce the powers and autonomy of a local authority. A further contribution to the erosion of local autonomy was when one of the recommendations for local elections to be resumed was not accepted by the federal government.
Reinforcing Centralization
Advocates of decentralization have pointed out that governments tend to emphasize deconcentration at the expense of devolution when facing challenges from local governments; and Malaysia is no exception [26J. The cut back on local self-government in Malaysia was based primarily on the premise that centralization would hasten socio-economic development and achievement of national unity in a country that is made up ofdifferent ethnic groups and largely dissected between the urban and rural areas.
Manya time this is carried out through various policies initiated by the federal government and implemented through its de-concentrated agencies and departments at the state and local levels. It is an on-going process that has helped the federal government to recentralize its powers over the lower tier governments. Indeed, using reasons such as maintaining national unity, achieving uniform growth, and spreading development in the country, central policies rather than state or local policies are initiated and implemented for the nation. In 2006, the federal government initiated the National Physical Plan (NPP) with the cooperation of the state governments in Peninsular Malaysia. This plan together with the National Urbanization Policy (NUP) 2006-2020, further reinforces the powers of the federal government. This is so because the set-up allows the central government to meet the challenges arising from rapid urbanization on a nationwide level and provide uniform physical and town planning development. The NPP facilitates and coordinates all urban activities and services such as the development of urban transportation, infrastructure and utility, integrated economy, and a sustainable living environment. Similarly, the drafting of the New Villages Master Plan will allow the Ministry of Housing and Local Government of the federal ministry to integrate all new villages and suburban areas in Peninsular Malaysia into the mainstream towns and cities. The integration physically, economically, and socially will bring the rural areas under the ambit of the federal government in conjunction with the NUP; planning development of the nation will be regularized and streamlined according to the NPP [28]. It is only natural that the powers of the federal government will once again be maximized through the utilization of such central policies and plans.
On the issue of abolition of local government elections, the argument in favor of this action appears to be based on the notion of too much autonomy for local government. It was simply a political decision based on power sharing between the states and local government with political implications for all concerned. Certainly. decentralization and the strengthening of local government as envisaged by the recommendations of the Royal Commission did not materialize. Instead, the reason given for the abolition of local elections was based on the federal view that since there are elections at the state and central levels, these should be sufficient to reflect democracy in the country and the people should be contented. In a parliamentary statement on July 7, 1971, the minister of technology, research and local government said, "the Government has come to this conclusion considering the small size of the country, (and) that we have representative Governments at national and state levels. And considering certain functions of the local authorities can be taken over by state governments, it is considered unnecessary and indeed redundant to have another tier of representative governments at local authority level. It has therefore decided to consult with the state governments to abolish the system of local government with elected members."
Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization
The local government restructuring process was implemented in stages as it depended on the state governments and involved complex procedures.4 Toward the end of it, local authorities were amalgamated, created, and reclassified; their roles and functions were redefined to provide extended services to larger areas that encompassed outlying rural areas and to act as development and planning agents. Local government has to seek state approval over most matters, especially in finance, the appointment of its councilors, and staffing. Through the provisions assigned to federal government via the NCLG and the Local Government Act 1976, federal influence and domination are entrenched. At the same rime, the role of the community and its in Ruence on the local authority has diminished with the abolition of local elections and with it their right to elect their local representatives. With the right to local elections taken away. representation is now through the appointment of local councilors. At present, all local councilors in Malaysia are appointed by their respective state chief ministers with biasness toward the ruling party. Thus far, nominating and appointing members of the component panies of the ruling National Front Party to become councilors in local government has become the usual practice. Inevitably, the local councilors become subservient to the state and adherence to its directives is to be expected.
Today, there are 144 local authorities in Malaysia, made up of city halls, city, municipal, and district councils, and a town board (see Table 8.2). In effect, these local authorities provide services to about 84.4% of the population, yet these people do not have the right to vote and are not directly involved in the decision-making process of their local authorities [31]. In the future, with the process of change and globalization, increasing literacy and regional movement toward decentralization, this large population mass and its impact on local government cannot be ignored. Resuming local elections would mean that the citizens will have the right to elect their local councilors, which presently total around 3456 (there are approximately 24 councilors in each of the 144 local authorities as provided for in the Local Government Act). Indeed, the representation by these councilors of the local citizens would be more meaningful if they were duly elected, unfortunately because they are appointed, the word "representative" appears a misnomer in the Malaysian context.
Through prolonged absence of local government elections, it is inevitable that the community now regard the state appointment of councilors as the accepted norm of local representation. They only express that the councilors should be appointed from among the local citizens, but who do not represent any political party. Local autonomy and democracy, which are the basic tenets for local government and decentralization, have been relegated to objectives of least importance as central government is reluctant to relinquish powers.
Where to Decentralization?
Decentralization is invariably complex and the term can be used and understood quite differently depending on the experience of the particular country. For instance, in parts ofAfrica, depending on whether they have been influenced by the British or French traditions, decentralization will be interpreted and used quite differently. Until its independence in 1957, Malaysia was under British rule and, consequently, subscribes to the British understanding of decentralization. In this context, decentralization refers to the delegation of government responsibilities from a higher level of government to a lower level of government. De-concentration refers to the delegation of higher level government duties to lower level units while authority remains with central government. Devolution presumes the assignment of powers and resources to autonomous local government where the use of resources is decided locally and management is accountable to the local leadership. Table 2 Malaysia: Number of Local Authorities by Type, 2008 | Type of Local Authority | Peninsular Malaysia | Sarawak | Sabah | Total | City Hall | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | City Council | 7 | 2 | - | 9 | Municipal Council | 27 | 2 | 2 | 31 | District Council | 61 | 21 | 18 | 100 | Town Board | - | - | 1 | 1 | Total | 96 | 26 | 22 | 144 |

In Malaysia, the administrative structure attempts a combined approach of decentralization, devolution, and de-concentration, but leaning toward the central powers of the federal government although seemingly encouraging administrative decentralization. In a sense, decentralization of this nature seeks to improve governance and service delivery by reducing delays and bureaucratic processes at different tiers of governments. However, one would also expect that a significant effect of decentralization would similarly be experienced by the community, whereby the process of delegation of powers to citizens is expected to follow. A relationship between government and the people in a democratic environment provides the condition for delegation of powers through participation in public sector activities including electing the local leadership.
In this country, the interpretation and exercise of decentralization is apparently based and justified on the existing relationship between states and between states and the public, as well as due to events that took place when local government reformed. Seemingly, despite these fundamental reforms, there is an alarming lack of concerted and coordinated initiatives to delegate further autonomy to local government. Instead, there is a growing trend toward strengthening centralism and weakening decentralization. In an effort to harmonize relationships between states and local government and between local government and the community, the idea ofdecentralization has become the link for formal harmony. Formal harmony is perceived through institutionalized policies, rules, regulations, and basically the law. This mechanism weakens considerably when exercised at the third tier of government, i.e., between local government and the community where, as a consequence of institutionalized regulations, formal representation of the community via the process of voting in local government elections is completely absent. It is obvious that implementing administrative decentralization without adequate political reforms and devoid of political decentralization will result in informal discord in society. This supports the notion that the concept of centralization is further reinforced at the expense of decentralization. On the other hand, the implementation of Local Agenda 21 (LA 21) in 2000 by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and its characteristic "bottom-up" approach actually acknowledges that a relationship exists between local government and its community. Unfortunately, in Malaysia, LA 21 did not achieve political decentralization via formal delegation of powers from local government to the community. The manner in which some local authorities operationalize LA 21 is not dissimilar to a form of guided participation where significant control still remains with local government. Arising from the absence of a formal and legitimate transfer of powers and accountability to the community, local officials instead, become primarily accountable to themselves and local influential elites. Apparently, Africa experiences a similar condition and it appears to be a recurring trend among some of the African nations.
Invariably, the absence of direct civic involvement, such as community participation in local government decision making, has created a discord between local government and the public. For instance, the communities ' participation at full council meetings is not encouraged and attendance is by invitation of the local authorities. Criticisms and expressions of dissatisfaction with local government are constantly made through the local media rather than through councilors, as they are not viewed as the people 's legitimate representatives. The emergence of a range of non-governmental organizations, neighborhood and residents associations is also evident of Malaysian citizens ' desire to be engaged and directly involved in the process of local decision making, which is obviously lacking. It can be recognized that the reform in local government set the tone for centralization with further changes after that being more ad hoc and "muddling through" rather than incremental and purposeful. Since then, community participation has been viewed more as an exercise in public relations rather than political decentralization with direct citizen engagement in local government activities. It is still reminiscent of a "top-down" approach in public administration.
In recent years, the concepts of public participation and local autonomy have been seen as prerequisites for sustainable development especially with rapid urbanization. With the emergence of non-governmental organizations, associations, and pressure groups, there is a demand for involvement in matters pertaining to the local environment. Many international agencies and bodies have also contributed to awareness in community development and the importance of decentralization. At present, the general trend is recognition of decentralization as an important element of good governance and elected local councilors as empowerment of the civil society. Indeed, there is a profound shift in the manner and system of how local government should perform and its relationships with the public and supra level governments.
Conclusion
With so much that have transpired, it is apt that local government is assessed as to its worthiness and functionality now as Malaysia moves toward a developed status in 2020 and with high expectations from the general public. For the moment, the lack of direct public participation, transparency, and accountability makes the practice of good governance a mere rhetoric rather than reality. 1hus far, local self-government appears a misnomer as local elections have been abolished and with it local autonomy, which is so closely associated with decentralization. Local government in Malaysia may be more appropriately termed local administration with political powers consolidated at the center. Local government powers are limited to within what the Local Government Act 1976 allows with most decisions needing the approval of state and federal governments. Compounded is the fact that local government also lacks finances and has to be financially supported by central and to some extent state treasury. With limited resources, local government needs to have professional staff seconded from federal government, which debilitates its organizational powers resulting in weak control over staff matters.
Centralization is further reinforced by the argument for national unity in a country that is divided along different ethnic groups with diverse religious and cultural beliefs. Under such fragile conditions, national stability is of utmost importance and central intervention is inevitable. Since the restructuring of local government in the 19705, the central government has never veered from this stance. During this period, a committee that was formed to examine integration of the district councils stated that, "modern economics and technology clearly indicate that centralization of local government functions is both essential and necessary... The committee believes that centralization of local government functions will gradually remove the existing barrier between the urban and rural people, pave the way for unity and thus help hasten the process ofachieving the primary objective of national unity."
The existing barrier between the rural-urban sectors also requires strong policies to bridge the economic disparity between them. In any case, further widening of the urban-rural gap may threaten the future growth and political stability of the country. As such, any possibility of political chaos and disunity arising from such divergence has to be immediately addressed and obviously central control is favored. Certainly, the central government does adhere the theory of decentralizing powers through devolution and de-concentration, but the federal system based on the existing constitution ensures that formal control and power belongs with central government. In a sense, what is displayed can be termed as "token decentralization" as local government and the community are not involved in the decision-making process that takes place between state and federal government over local government matters.
By contrast, political, administrative, and fiscal decentralization have been happening in other developing countries augmenting the authority of local government and increasing community participation. However, in Malaysia, it will be overly simplistic to assume that such events occurring outside the country may influence the transformation of its local government in the immediate future. Bur hope prevails and in this respect, the federal government should bring about change where necessary and the community itself should understand and consent to the changes where relevant and possible. For the moment, much work needs to be done to put a system in place that truly reflects decentralization and avoid the danger off further intrusion by the process of recentralization.
References
Malaysia, Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Primers, Kuala Lumpur, 1970, 29.
Clarke, J.J., The Local Government of the United Kingdom, Pitman, London, 1955.
Malaysia, Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Primers, Kuala Lumpur, 1970, 30.
Malaysia, Report of the Committee to Study the Implications of Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1971.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Modernization of the local Government System in Malaysia, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, nd, 3.
Norris, M.W., Local Government in Peninsular Malaysia, Gower, London, 1980,4.
Phang, S.N., Financing Local Government in Malaysia, University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1997,5.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Modernization of the Local Government System in Malaysia, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, nd, 3.
Wunsch, J .5., Decentralisation, Local governance and "recemralization" in Africa, Public Administration and Development, 21, 277, 2001.
Morrison, W., Spatial planning procedures in Malaysia, Final draft prepared for the meeting of the steering committee for the national spatial planning project, Kuala Lumpur, 1994, 80.
II. Malaysia, Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171), Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1976.
Malaysia, Town and Country Planning Act, 1976(Act 172), Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1976.
Malaysia, Street, Drainage and Building Act, 1974 (Act 133), Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1974.
Malaysia, Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1970.
Norris, M.W., Local Government in Peninsular Malaysia, Gower, London, 1980; Phang, S.N., Financing local Government in Malaysia, University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1997; Garzia-Jansen, B., Town planning legislation and land use in Malaysia: A case study of PetalingJaya, PhD thesis, University of Malaya, 2002.
Phang, S.N., Financing Local Government in Malaysia, University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1997; Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Annual Equalization Grant for Local Authorities in Peninsular Malaysia Report, Kuala Lumpur, 2003.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Local Agenda 21, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 2002.
Johari, M.Y and Chong, S.Y, Eds., Principles and Practices of Good Governance: The Way Forward for Sabah, Institute for Development Studies, KotaKinabalu, 2004.

Reference
Ali, A.H. (2001), “Serving in the knowledge age: realigning the public service for the knowledge advantage”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 273-85.
Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) (2003), Public Perception of Corruption in Malaysia, 2003 (Final Report), Anti Corruption Agency, Malaysia.
Awang, Z.H. (1995), “Response of public administration system of Malaysia to global challenges”, in Salleh, S. and Carino, L.V. (Eds), Globalization and the Asian Public Sector, Asian and Pacific Development Centre, Kuala Lumpur.
Bahari, M. and Balan, S. (1999), “Malaysia incorporated”, in Karim, M.R.A. (Ed.), Re-engineering the Public Service: Leadership and Change in an Electronic Age, Pelanduk Publications, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, pp. 273-92.
Cheung, A.B.L. and Scott, I. (Eds.) (2003), Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia, Routledge, London.
Common, R. (2001), Public Management and Policy Transfer in Southeast Asia, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Further reading
Karim, M.R.A. (Ed.) (1999), Reengineering the Public Service: Leadership and Change in an Electronic Age, Pelanduk Publications, Kuala Lumpur.

References: Malaysia, Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Primers, Kuala Lumpur, 1970, 29. Clarke, J.J., The Local Government of the United Kingdom, Pitman, London, 1955. Malaysia, Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Primers, Kuala Lumpur, 1970, 30. Malaysia, Report of the Committee to Study the Implications of Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1971. Norris, M.W., Local Government in Peninsular Malaysia, Gower, London, 1980,4. Phang, S.N., Financing Local Government in Malaysia, University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1997,5. Wunsch, J .5., Decentralisation, Local governance and "recemralization" in Africa, Public Administration and Development, 21, 277, 2001. Morrison, W., Spatial planning procedures in Malaysia, Final draft prepared for the meeting of the steering committee for the national spatial planning project, Kuala Lumpur, 1994, 80. II. Malaysia, Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171), Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1976. Malaysia, Town and Country Planning Act, 1976(Act 172), Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1976. Malaysia, Street, Drainage and Building Act, 1974 (Act 133), Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1974. Malaysia, Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of local Authorities in West Malaysia, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 1970. Phang, S.N., Financing Local Government in Malaysia, University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1997; Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Annual Equalization Grant for Local Authorities in Peninsular Malaysia Report, Kuala Lumpur, 2003. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Local Agenda 21, Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, 2002. Johari, M.Y and Chong, S.Y, Eds., Principles and Practices of Good Governance: The Way Forward for Sabah, Institute for Development Studies, KotaKinabalu, 2004. Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) (2003), Public Perception of Corruption in Malaysia, 2003 (Final Report), Anti Corruption Agency, Malaysia. Awang, Z.H. (1995), “Response of public administration system of Malaysia to global challenges”, in Salleh, S. and Carino, L.V. (Eds), Globalization and the Asian Public Sector, Asian and Pacific Development Centre, Kuala Lumpur. Bahari, M. and Balan, S. (1999), “Malaysia incorporated”, in Karim, M.R.A. (Ed.), Re-engineering the Public Service: Leadership and Change in an Electronic Age, Pelanduk Publications, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, pp. 273-92. Cheung, A.B.L. and Scott, I. (Eds.) (2003), Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia, Routledge, London. Common, R. (2001), Public Management and Policy Transfer in Southeast Asia, Ashgate, Aldershot.