Time for policy transparency?

 

Government policies are often so peculiar that it leaves me asking where they came from and who designed them.

I often wonder whether the designers have any idea of the implications or unintended consequences of their extraordinary ideas and why they suggested them in the first place.

There should be greater transparency in who designs government policy and how they are chosen. We also need to know whether they are commercial consultants, think tanks, universities or civil servants to answer questions about their suitability, independence and experience.

Where policy designers are Malaysian, we need to understand their qualifications and where they are foreign we need to understand their knowledge of Malaysia and engagement with local stakeholders.

Of course a prime concern is their connection with people in power and how this influences their appointment. There are many policy organisations founded and financed by politicians.

As a matter of good governance the names, terms of appointments and most importantly the fees of policy advisors and consultants should be made public.

This is an issue that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim raised himself when in the opposition. In September 2021 he asked then economics minister Mustapa Mohamed whether it was true that RM2 billion had been spent on consultants to complete the delayed 12th Malaysia Plan (12MP).

In a very political reply Mustapa said that RM2 billion had not been spent “to complete the 12MP report” but did not reveal how much had been spent to conduct the background work. The 12MP has now been completely re-written.

In many cases it looks like the policies are specifically designed to create opportunities for middlemen or licences and permits from civil servants.

The Covid-19 stimulus packages had a slew of money-grabbing opportunities. Some RM7.2 billion worth of projects awarded to Jana Wibawa Programme contractors involving the rural and regional development ministry have been cancelled. Add in the wage subsidy programme, the retraining programmes, the foreign worker hiring schemes, the list goes on.

The Malaysia My Second Home (MM2H) and Premium Visa (PVIP) schemes were a disaster but someone, possibly many people, made money designing, implementing and closing-down the schemes.

While things are better under the unity government we still see many old-style policy approaches of the past.

The Menu Rahmah scheme has changed from a voluntary, self-funded industry initiative to help the poor into a government-subsidised system benefiting big companies.

Of the 30,000 outlets involved, 94% are multinational fast food chains. The small, local mamaks have been pushed out or closed altogether.

Typically the structure is like this: “key targets”, “catalytic enablers”, “strategy plans” and “action plans” which cascade patronage and projects down to anonymous recipients.

The “mission-based projects”, of the New Industrial Master Plan (NIMP) had already been allocated before the plan was launched.

This raises so many questions.

Should the designers of policies be held accountable if the policy fails? Should they repay the fees?

Should the designers explain and justify their policy designs to the public or even to parliament rather than leave the explanations to politicians who may have no knowledge of the details or underlying methodologies?

Should there be an independent review of policies by expert panels before they are implemented? (rather than just after the fact by the Auditor-General).

What happened to the PH commitment to create a parliamentary budget office to help MPs scrutinise policy independently?

How many minor policies sneak in behind the scenes unnoticed and unscrutinised?

It would be refreshing and consistent with good governance, credibility, accountability and transparency if the government, policy advisors, consultants and think tanks were candid about some of these questions. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.