Umno-owned national daily Utusan Malaysia, through its Sunday editorial Bisik-bisik, has claimed that my recent article, “Review our federalism contract,”[1] which calls for decentralisation of powers is seditious.
According to the editorial, “whatever reasons … be it economic or administrative, the call for decentralisation or power-sharing should not be entertained at all by the federal government.” Furthermore, my article is said to be “a seditious call against the Federal Constitution.”
Decentralisation is entirely constitutional
It is unsurprising for Utusan to take this line, as decentralisation would effectively reduce the powers of their masters, the current ruling party at the federal government. However, before simply labelling my proposal as seditious or against the Federal Constitution, they should first get acquainted with our country’s highest law.
More particularly, attention should be given to the first two clauses of Article 76A of the Federal Constitution, which states:
76A. (1) It is hereby declared that the power of Parliament to make laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Federal List includes power to authorize the Legislatures of the States or any of them, subject to such conditions or restrictions (if any) as Parliament may impose, to make laws with respect to the whole or any part of that matter.
(2) Notwithstanding Article 75, a State law made under authority conferred by Act of Parliament as mentioned in Clause (1) may, if and to the extent that the Act so provides, amend or repeal (as regards the State in question) any federal law passed before that Act.
In other words, Parliament may, through the provisions of Article 76A, delegate power to state authorities to legislate on matters that typically fall under federal purview. For example, this has been done in the case of the Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962, which allows state legislatures to create state corporations such as PKNS (Selangor State Development Corporation), PDC (Penang Development Corporation) or MBI (Menteri Besar Incorporated), even though the power of incorporation clearly falls under the federal list of the Federal Constitution’s ninth schedule.
Therefore, decentralisation of powers from the federal government to the state government is not only constitutional, it is explicitly provided for by the Federal Constitution.
Why is it not seditious when power is snatched away from the states?
The other allegation that makes no sense is that my suggestions amount to sedition. This greatly perplexes me, because if it is seditious to devolve power from the federal government to the states, why then is it not seditious the other way around?
Over the years, the federal government has been wresting power away from the states and local governments. For example, the administration of sewerage was taken away from local authorities in 1993, while the management of solid waste and public cleansing was usurped by the federal government in 2007. These were done via amendments to the Local Government Act 1976.
This trend is set to continue, as Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan recently announced that even the cleaning of public toilets will be taken over by Putrajaya come 2016.[2]
Meanwhile, a 1976 amendment to Article 111 of the Federal Constitution prevents states not only from taking loans but also even from providing loan guarantees for state corporations, except with federal approval. This effectively curtails the states’ ability to raise funds, and even more significantly puts them at the mercy of the federal government where large-scale infrastructure investment is required.
Decentralisation is bad for BN
Clearly, the BN government has most to lose if powers are decentralised. The fact is that the more power the federal government has, the more patronage it is able to dispense. Hence, the BN government’s inclination to centralise areas of governance that involve management contracts, licensing or infrastructure construction.
In this context, the attempt to brand me as seditious is nothing more than an act of desperation by those who are not only ignorant of the provisions of the Federal Constitution, but also oblivious to the true functions of a federation.