We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
The demise of elective local government in the State of Penang, Malaysia, is worth examining for several reasons. George Town, the state capital, was the first British settlement in the Far East; traces of elective local government appeared in the city early in the nineteenth century and the subsequent development of local government in the city followed British theory and practice to such a degree that at the time of Malayan Independence in 1957 the George Town City Council was a remarkable replica of a British town council. To study the George Town Council after Independence is thus to study a transplanted western institution which failed to survive within an Asian political system. Of more significance, however, is the light which a study of elective local government in Penang casts upon the fundamental transformations now underway in local government throughout Malaysia. Penang was the only state in the Federation to attain fully developed elective local government. Penang was one of the two states (the other was Malacca) in which all state territory and all state citizens were within the jurisdiction of local authorities. Penang however, was the only state in which every local authority consisted entirely of elected members and the only state in which every local authority was financially autonomous of the state government. Yet in 1966 the George Town Council was suspended and in 1971 the remaining local authorities were suspended as well. Penang became the first state in the federation to have no elective local government at all. It now seems likely that the other Malaysian states will follow Penang's lead (indeed, Malacca did so in early 1972), since it is now clear that the sanguine view of elective local government originally held by state and central officials has given way to one of pessimism and distrust. In July 1971 the Minister of Local Government indicated in Parliament that the central government believed that elective local government should be abolished. For these reasons, and for others which will become apparent in this paper, a study of the decline of elective local government in Penang provides an opportunity not only to test the hypotheses which have already been advanced to explain the demise of elective local government in the State itself, but also to test wider hypotheses advanced to explain the actions of national and state government towards elective local government throughout Malaysia.
1 In common usage, both locally and in the literature, the City of George Town is called Penang. To avoid confusion, I shall in this study use the word ‘Penang’ to refer exclusively to the State (or to the Settlement in the colonial period).
2 City of George Town, Penang: Past and Present, 1786–1963 (George Town: City Council, 1966), 15–19Google Scholar.
3 Malaysia, Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of Local Authorities in West Malaysia, Report (Kuala Lumpur: Penchetak Kerajaan, 1970), 21Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Nahappan Report. As of September 1972 a total of 20 town, district and municipal councils had been suspended in West Malaysia.
4 On July 7, 1971 the Minister stated in Parliament that the Government had “decided to consult with the State Governments to abolish the system of local government with elected members.” The Straits Times (Malaysian Edition), July 8, 1971.
5 More properly, throughout West Malaysia, for local government is less developed and s i regarded differently in East Malaysia.
6 Rabushka, Alvin, “The Manipulation of Ethnic Politics in Malaya,” Polity (Vol. II, 3), 352Google Scholar.
7 Ibid., 356.
8 Rabushka, Alvin and Shepske, Kenneth A., “Political Entrepreneurship and Patterns of Democratic Instability in Plural Societies,” Race, XII (04, 1970), 472Google Scholar.
9 Ibid., 473.
10 At this point it is appropriate to mention that the racial argument has serious factual weakness. Neither the Penang Assembly nor the Penang Executive Council has ever had a Malay majority, and at the time of its suspension the George Town Council was not controlled by the opposition Labour Party to which Rabushka refers. In his more general comments Rabushka confuses the 1965 suspension of local elections (which did not remove any incumbent councillors or affect the power of councils, and which was justified not in terms of maladministration but because of the Indonesian confrontation) with the subsequent suspensions of some local authorities. Furthermore, Parliament has never dealt with any item such as the one mentioned by Rabushka.
11 Malaysia, Jabatan Perangkan Malaysia, 1970 Population and Housing Census of Malaysia: Community Groups (Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkan Malaysia, 1972), 45Google Scholar, 248. Cited hereafter as 1970 Census: Community Groups.
12 Malaysia, Federal Department of Information, Malaysia Official Year Book, 1965 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1967), 48Google Scholar. No other state even approached having this proportion of urban population.
13 1970 Census: Community Groups, 45.
14 Ibid., 248.
15 Discounting local elections which were held in a few towns, including George Town, between 1848 and 1913. In the post World War II period local elections in the Straits Settlements occurred first in Singapore.
16 Nahappan Report, 22, 26. George Town Council, Administrative Reports (Annual; George Town Council, 1959–1966)Google Scholar.
17 Ibid., 1950–1954.
18 This view is based on a reading of the Council Minutes as well as upon an interview with Mr. J.S.H. Cunyngham-Brown, OBE, MCS (ret'd), September 20, 1971. Mr. Cunyngham-Brown was Council President from 1953 until Independence. Even after Independence and his retirement he remained in George Town as a prominent member of the local community.
19 Vasil, R.K., Politics in a Plural Society (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1971), 94–95Google Scholar.
20 Vasil erroneously states that the Labour Party controlled Council from Independence onwards as a result of the 1956 election. Ibid., 199. Possibly the confusion, which exists locally as well, (Cf. Town, George, Administrative Report 1963, 5Google Scholar.) arises from the fact that Mr. D.S. Ramanathan, the Labour-Socialist Front Mayor in 1958 and 1959, may be referred to, simply because of the title change, as the first Mayor of George Town.
21 George Town, Administrative Reports 1957–64. The proportion of Chinese elected to Council in 1963 (68 per cent) was similar to that in the city population.
22 The increase in the proportion of Chinese on Council was, in general, at the expense not of Malays, but of Indians and Eurasians.
23 Penang Past and Present, 96–97.
24 Ibid., 94.
25 Interview with D.S. Ramanathan, September 14, 1971. Penang, Commission of Enquiry to Enquire into the Affairs of the City Council of George Town, , Penang, Notes of Evidence of Witnesses (George Town: Pejabat Setia Usaha Negeri, 1967), 160Google Scholar. The Commission is referred to hereafter as George Town Enquiry.
26 George Town Enquiry, Evidence, 146.
27 George Town, City Council, Minutes, June 11, 1963.
28 Ibid. The Mayor, Ooi Thiatn Siew, later stated that Mr. Ramanathan “was waiting for the [Socialist Front] party to nominate him and it was only on 3rd June, 1963 when he saw in the Straits Echo that he was not to b e nominated by the party that… he resigned from the party and moved a motion in Council.” George Town Enquiry, Evidence, 1275.
29 Straits Echo (George Town), July 4, 1963 and March 19, 1966.
30 George Town Enquiry, Report, 3–4. In this report the Enquiry Chairman rather pointedly refrains from endorsing the explanation.
31 Interview with D.S. Ramanathan, September 14, 1971. Conceivably the state politicians may have feared that they themselves would be compromised in an Enquiry.
32 Paradoxically, racial reasoning supports this interpretation. Since the state government was not Malay-dominated, it would have to be concluded that the state desire would be to protect the City Council. However, it must be emphasized that this reasoning is no t part of die present study.
33 George Town Enquiry, Exhibits, 70–78.
34 Interview with D.S. Ramanathan, September 14, 1971.
35 Nahappan Report, 27.
36 Ibid., 92, 152–53.
37 Straits Echo (George Town), February 23, 24, 1966.
38 Ibid., March 23, 1966. Eventually, however, this belief proved false, for the Nahappan Report strongly endorsed reinstatement of elective local government.
39 Cf. , Rabushka, Polity (Vol. 11, 3), 356Google Scholar.
40 Straits Echo (George Town), January - July, 1966.
41 , Penang, Report of the Proceedings of the Second Legislative Assembly (Second Session, 1965–1966), 03 23, 1966, pp: 467–68Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Penang, Assembly Proceedings.
42 Nahappan Report, 27–28.
43 Malaysia, Penerangan, Jabatan, Pilehan Raya Parliamen dan Negeri 1964 (Kuala Lumpur: 1964; mimeographed), 46Google Scholar. The figures given take account of a by-election after the 1964 election.
44 Information obtained from the Clerk of the Penang State Assembly, February 2, 1972.
45 Several interviewees suggested that such a combination of religious, occupational, and residential factors would in the Malaysian context normally be associated with strong hostility towards a city-centred, left-wing party.
46 , Penang, Assembly Proceedings, 03 23, 1966, p. 451Google Scholar.
47 Ibid., 457.
48 Ibid., 463.
49 Straits Echo, March 18, 1966. Also in March 1966, another U.D.P. member, Ooh Chooi Cheng, a member of one of the councils in Province Wellesley, had said before the Nahappan Inquiry that council chairmen (i.e., mayors) should be elected directly by the electorate and that having state appointed chairmen was unwise because “the Government Officer appointed by the State Government could not be impartial to the State Government.” Ibid., March 2, 1966.
50 Ibid., March 18, 1966.
51 Penang, Assembly Proceedings, March 23, 1966, p. 466.
52 Ibid., 467.
33 Straits Echo, August 30,1966. Th e non-Alliance councillors attempte d to hold a Council meeting in the city hall on August 2 but were prevented from doing so by police and the City Secretary acting under instructions from the Chief Minister. Ibid., August 3, 1966.
54 Commonly called the George Town Enquiry, its full title was Penang, Commission of Enquir y to Enquire into the Affairs of the City Council of George Town, Penang. Its Notes of Evidence of Witnesses and Exhibits were reproduced and circulated by the Penang State Secretary, but have not been made publicly available. Its Report was printed and published by the federal Government Printer.
55 George Town Enquiry, Report, 1.
56 Ibid., 5.
57 Ibid., 4.
58 George Town Enquiry, Report, 10. For the Chairman's discussion of th e organization and procedures of the Council see Ibid., 10–12.
59 Ibid., 12.
60 Ibid., 70.
61 Ibid.
62 Penang, Order-in-Council (P.U. 46), June 1, 1966.
63 Penang, Order in Council (P.U. 40), November 6, 1967.
64 Between the Gerakan and its opponents there is some difference of opinion over the degree to which compaign statements accord with subsequent action. This difference, however, i s not of analytical significance in the present study.
65 Mail, Malay, Malaysia Year Book 1971 (Kuala Lumpur: Straits Times Press, 1971), 428Google Scholar.
66 Interview with the Honourable Ooh Chooi Cheng, Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, February 5, 1972. In November 1971 control over each of the five local governments was transferred from Dr. Lim to five committees, each under the Chairmanship of Ooh Chooi Cheng, and each consisting of Executive Council members. For George Town the other two members were Teh Ewe Lim and Khoo Kay Por.
67 Ibid.
