Author: Pei Ling
Gift or bribe? Drawing a clear line on corruption
by Gan Pei Ling / 27 Dec 2014 © Focus Malaysia
Can my company still send hampers to customers during festive seasons? What about treating a potential client to a free dinner or spa to secure a business deal? What sort of gifts could be considered a bribe to solicit or retain business?
These are just some of the questions an upcoming amendment to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 will soon throw up, especially for companies without an explicit anti-corruption policy.
On Dec 9, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Paul Low had announced that the Corporate Liability Provision is expected to be tabled in Parliament in March. The provision allows the MACC and Attorney-General’s Chambers to investigate and prosecute not just staff accused of giving or accepting a bribe but also the company’s top executives for their failure to implement measures to prevent bribery.
The Performance and Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) says the draft amendment is not publicly available yet as the government is still finalising it.
However, Pemandu senior manager Lokman Affandy Yahya tells FocusM the Corporate Liability Provision is modelled after the UK’s Bribery Act. As such, companies’ management can safeguard themselves against legal liability as long as they have put in place adequate anti-corruption measures.
In other words, Malaysian companies would have to put in place corporate integrity system, which would include a clear gift policy, whistleblowing procedure and staff training, among others.
The Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) is one of the companies that began implementing a corporate integrity system in 2012.
The Selangor investment arm estimates it has saved more than RM400 mil over four years since it began practising an open tender system and prohibits direct negotiation.
PKNS integrity manager S Normalis Abdul Samad says the savings were calculated based on the Public Works Department estimation of project cost minus the price quotations of contractors that won the tenders.
“We need to get the best prices, the best value for money without compromising on quality. We’re very stringent now,” Normalis tells FocusM in a phone interview.
She adds that the state-owned company practises a no-gift policy.
“If a contractor sends a hamper to us, we will write a thank you letter but politely ask it to not do so anymore in future. We want to send out a clear signal that if you want to do business with PKNS, there is no need to give tips or hampers,” Normalis explains.
Transparency International Malaysia’s (TIM) consultancy TI BIP Malaysia Sdn Bhd director Mark Lovatt, who worked with PKNS to set up a corporate integrity system, says other government-linked companies such as Telekom Malaysia and Tenaga Nasional Bhd have also begun implementing such a system on their own.
“Telekom Malaysia, for example, no longer allows its staff to accept hampers. The first year it did not decline but directed the hampers to be collected on a stage at its lobby and sent to charity homes,” he says.
The next year, few contractors sent hampers to Telekom’s headquarters as they found out that the hampers would not reach their intended recipients.
Apart from state-linked companies, some private businesses have also started implementing clear integrity policies and procedures to deter corruption.
Home-grown printer Thumbprints United Sdn Bhd chairperson Tam Wah Fiong tells FocusM that 16 years ago, his company spent over RM100,000 in entertainment cost annually to secure business deals.
Now Tam, an executive committee member of TIM, strictly prohibits his staff from bribing authorities. In addition, his company spends only about RM5,000 in entertainment cost per year, yet his business has grown four-fold since then, recording a revenue of RM36 mil last year.
When asked if he lost businesses when his company cut down its entertainment cost, Tam admits he did lose some clients but gained new ones.
“We gained access to the export market, the US and Europe. Reducing entertainment cost means our company competes strictly on price and the quality of our product and service. It forces us to be more competitive internationally,” says Tam.
He adds that bribery among businesses creates an unhealthy culture where companies splurge on lavish dinners, karaoke sessions or spas to “entertain” potential clients to secure business deals.
“[Bribery] inflates the cost of doing business, and allows uncompetitive businesses to get away with providing sub-quality services or products,” Tam notes.
Tam adds that employers need to consider the implications of condoning bribery on their businesses: “If I can bribe my customers, won’t my vendors and suppliers try to do the same with my staff too?”
KPMG Malaysia Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Survey 2013 reported that 71% of respondents believed bribery and corruption was an inevitable cost of doing business.
However, if Malaysia wants to become a technologically-advanced and globally-competitive economy like Germany and the US, Tam believes local companies need to think long term and focus on improving their product or service quality, rather than relying on bribes to stay in business.
While enacting the Corporate Liability Provision is unlikely to completely wipe out corruption, it would perhaps send out the right signal that Malaysian top executives are increasingly intolerant of bribery and anti-competitive behaviour in business.
Green drive fizzles out for some developers
by Gan Pei Ling / 12 December 2014 © Focus Malaysia
It’s increasingly common for developers to market their commercial or residential properties as “green” by stating their green building certification rating on advertisements.
But what do these ratings mean to potential buyers? And what happens when developers fail to deliver on property with “green” elements as advertised?
A check by FocusM with Green Building Index (GBI) Sdn Bhd reveals developers are free to advertise their GBI rating as soon as their projects have secured provisional certification.
However, the catch is there is no guarantee a property will be able to maintain its provisional rating after having gone through a completion and verification assessment (CVA) to receive the full award valid for three years.
Indeed, GBI general manager Herman Teo confirms there are cases in which “developers have dropped the rating [after the] CVA” though he declined to specify the number of such incidences.
For the full story, subscribe to Focus Malaysia.
Reimagining the Anthropocene
Can we reimagine humanity’s relationship with nature?
By Pei Ling Gan
We are constantly bombarded by media reports about how humanity is wreaking havoc on the Earth’s ecosystems these days. From industrial pollution, deforestation to species extinction, the common narrative is often one of doom and gloom.
Are humans really a bane to Earth? Some 40 scholars and activists passionate about the environment came together to discuss alternative narratives at the University of Oxfordon 3 May 2014.
Yadvinder Malhi, Professor of Ecosystem Science at Oxford University, said humans have either been portrayed as rational, noble agents or something akin to a destructive virus in environmental narratives.
He believes a more realistic alternative could lay between the two extremes – that of a trickster.
“It’s a character that’s smart, often too smart for it’s own good, not evil or ill-intentioned but always getting into trouble, but also capable of [doing] extraordinary, creative [stuff],” said the scientist at the one-day conference titled “Reimagining the Anthropocene”.
The Anthropocene, coined by ecologist Eugene Stoermer, refers to an era humans began to exert pervasive influence on Earth’s ecosystems including the climate.
If we adopt the trickster narrative as Malhi suggested, then humans could be reimagine as mischievous, vain creatures who sometimes mess up ecosystems big time. Yet, we are also capable of adapting our civilisations to live in harmony with nature again.
Malhi’s colleague, Thomas Thornton, also believes it is possible to reconceptualise the Anthropocene, particularly across different spaces and time.
While Western societies have came to perceive humans as separate from nature over the centuries, Thornton pointed out that many other cultures do not distinguish the two.
“Many have phrases that refer to ‘deep time’, when the earth’s elements including humans and non-humans were less differentiated, or in a different order altogether,” he said.
The myths and stories indigenous peoples pass down to their children may well provide more nuanced narratives of human beings’ place in nature.
“Indigenous peoples have a lot to share: their unique cultures, local knowledge about their environments,” said Ishmeal Hope, an Alaskan native storyteller.
Hope told the audience indigenous oral histories of environmental change might even correlate with geological records, such as the story of raven he has learnt from his Tlingit elders.
Joji Carino, a native from the Philippines, believes it’s about time for Western environmental narratives that overwhelmingly view humanity as a negative force on nature to be contested.
Indigenous peoples who have been exploited by colonisers and corporations for the wealth of their forests, rivers or oceans worldwide have often been excluded from global environmental narratives.
“The historical legacies of colonialism on indigenous peoples [as well as their environments] must be re-embedded in discussions on the Anthropocene,” said the director of the Forest Peoples Programme.
Andre Reichel, a sustainability researcher from Germany, shocked the audience when he told them he believes the Anthropocene is ending, if not already over.
He said the three pillars of modernity: high-energy sources, industrialisation and economic growth are eroding as we speak.
The process of extracting energy is increasingly costlier, industrialisation is reaching an impasse with globalisation while economic growth is slowing and would eventually come to an end, he predicts.
Regardless if you buy Reichel’s prediction, the world does need a new “development” paradigm – one that takes into account ecological sustainability and social justice.
The dialogue was followed by an engaging question and answer session with the audience, made up mostly of Oxford University’s Geography Department postgraduate students and Chevening students.
One of them highlighted that middle and low-income countries still need economic growth to reduce poverty and raise the standard of living of their populations. Thus, the environmental narratives of developing countries will be tied to yet distinct from those of industrialised countries.
As Thornton said earlier: “The Anthropocene is about places-made, unmade and remade in novels ways, according to the unique exigencies of human life [on Earth].”
We need diverse narratives – from indigenous peoples, industrialised societies, developing nations, people of different gender and class – to enrich the understanding of our complex relationships with nature. Perhaps there is where we will find hope.
After the lunch break, the participants attended a storytelling workshop hosted by Hope and had a fun time re-enacting scenes from a Tlingit myth.
“Reimagining the Anthropocene” is a scholar-led event organised by Chevening scholar June Rubis, who is reading MSc Environmental Change and Management at OxfordUniversity.
The event is sponsored by the Chevening secretariat and the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.
Lynas: An unsolved conundrum
by Gan Pei Ling / 29 July 2013 © The Nut Graph
IT’S been more than two years since The New York Times first broke the story on the construction of the Lynas rare earth refinery in Malaysia. Groups like Himpunan Hijau and Save Malaysia Stop Lynas have since organised several rallies and even taken the government and company to court. In response to public uproar, the Malaysian government invited international experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2011 and set up a parliamentary select committee in 2012 to review the plant.
(© cumi&ciki | Flickr)
After many road bumps, Lynas Corp finally secured a temporary operating license and began operations in November 2012. The company is also monitoring radioactivity levels at Gebeng which it periodically publicises.
However, there are still many questions about what will happen to the low-level radioactive waste that the plant produces. How will the hazardous by-products of a rare earth refinery be dealt with? And how are the government and anti-Lynas groups responding to these developments?
Recycle? Ship abroad?
Lynas Corp is confident that it can recycle the low-level radioactive residue into commercial products. The company intends to dilute its radioactive water leach purification residue into road base material and recycle its neutralisation underflow residue into fertilisers.
But as The Wall Street Journal pointed out in an 11 Dec 2012 report, such technology has yet to be tested. Additionally, it remains to be seen whether Lynas can find buyers to make its recycling proposal commercially viable.
The Atomic Energy Licensing Board and the Department of Environment are also still reviewing the recycling proposal. And even if the proposal is approved, Science, Technology and Innovation Deputy Minister Datuk Dr Abu Bakar Mohamad Diah told Parliament on 19 July 2013 that “these products must leave the country”.
In other words, Lynas must find international buyers for its recycled products. And should the recycling plan fail, the waste must be shipped abroad. But where to?
Permanent dumpsite
Australia is unlikely to take back the waste. And one wonders which other country would willingly import such waste and risk its citizen’s ire? At this stage, I think we should be prepared for the worst-case scenario where the waste is stored locally.
Indeed, on 2 July 2013, the Australian company submitted its plan for a permanent disposal facility. However, Dr Abu Bakar has declared that Lynas has no plans to permanently store the waste in Malaysia but that international procedures require the building of a permanent disposal facility. In the meantime, ministers have refused to disclose the plan and the potential locations for such a facility, likely fearing more protests from communities in any of these locations.
The Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Dr Ewon Ebin said on 5 July 2013 that the government could not reveal identified locations as it was “not finalised”. Six days later, the Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili was reported to have said the government need not disclose the plan since Lynas might be able to recycle the waste.
What is apparent is that there is no guarantee Lynas will be able to recycle the waste or to ship it out. Indeed, it’s clear that no matter what our political leaders say publicly, the company in consultation with the government seems to have prepared a contingency plan for the waste to be stored in Malaysia permanently.
(© existangst | Flickr)
Learning from past mistakes
It appears that the government has yet to learn from its past mistakes. The Lynas controversy stemmed from the government’s foolish move to approve the construction of the rare earth refinery without public consultation. Most Malaysians were only aware of the plant after the The New York Times report. If the government wants to restore public confidence, it must be transparent in all its future dealings with Lynas and the public.
Even if the final location of the permanent disposal facility has yet to be determined, the government must guarantee that it will consult the relevant state governments and local communities before a location is finalised. The government must assure local communities that they will be treated and included as legitimate stakeholders when the time comes. This is especially so since there are real fears that the community’s livelihood and environment could be affected by a permanent disposal facility in their midst.
Compared to the government, Lynas Corp seems to be doing a better public relations job. On 10 July 2013, it dropped the defamation suit against Save Malaysia Stop Lynas. Apart from that, it’s clear Lynas has a business to run. Hence, it must manage its relationship with stakeholders carefully if it’s to continue running its business.
(© existangst | Flickr)
Continued protests
To keep public attention on Lynas, Himpunan Hijau is running a campaign to collect one million Malaysian signatures to shut down the plant. The petition will start on 24 Aug 2013 and the signatures will be presented to among others, Parliament and the financial institutions that back Lynas. Himpunan Hijau chairperson Wong Tack has also announced that the coalition might take to the streets again in October.
Meanwhile, Save Malaysia Stop Lynas lead campaigner Tan Bun Teet has vowed to continue its international campaign against Lynas. The group has also mobilised local residents to file for judicial reviews in an attempt to revoke Lynas’s temporary operating license. Clearly, the parliamentary select committee and the approval of international experts has not been sufficient to convince skeptics of Lynas’s safety.
What needs to happen next? The government needs to be honest with the public. How feasible is Lynas’s recycling plan? Should it fail, is it really possible for Lynas to ship the waste abroad? If no, will Lynas store the waste locally? Or will it close down the plant after the temporary operating license expires in September 2014?
These are legitimate questions that the public deserve answers to. Will they be forthcoming? Past experience suggests the answer will be “No”. And if past experience is anything to go by, then the government will have to brace itself for more protests and bad press over Lynas.
Gan Pei Ling is going abroad to pursue a one-year master’s degree on the environment. She hopes the government will sort out Lynas’s waste management plan before she returns in September 2014.
Who cares about green lungs?
by Gan Pei Ling / 24 June 2013 © The Nut Graph
A fight to defend one of the last remaining green lungs in Istanbul sparked nationwide protests in Turkey recently. Despite that, the Turkish government has yet to reconsider its plan to turn Gezi Park into a shopping centre.
The same story occurs in most cities worldwide. When land becomes limited in urban areas, forests and parks are razed to make way for condominiums, malls and offices.
Looking at the Klang Valley, are we not losing our green spaces to commercial development as well? What are the benefits of retaining such spaces, and what can be done to preserve them?
(Source: wwf.org)
Documented benefits
One of the reasons green spaces tend to be undervalued by town planners may be because scientists have not been able to prove its connection with our well-being until recently.
A study published in the Psychological Science journal in April 2013 found that city dwellers who live near green spaces tend to be happier than those who don’t. Tracking 5,000 households over 17 years, researchers from the University of Exeter Medical School found that respondents living in greener areas reported “less mental distress and higher life satisfaction”. The positive impact is equivalent to about a third of the impact of being married and a tenth of the impact of being employed.
“These kinds of comparisons are important for policymakers when trying to decide how to invest scarce public resources, such as for park development or upkeep, and figuring out what bang they’ll get for their buck,” lead researcher Dr Mathew White said in a press release.
Another new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in March 2013 confirmed that taking a stroll through a park helps to ease brain fatigue far better than walking through shopping or commercial districts.
If those studies weren’t enough, older research has discovered that children with attention deficit problems tend to focus better after walks in a park. “The researchers found that ‘a dose of nature’ worked as well or better than a dose of medication on the child’s ability to concentrate,” The New York Times reported in its health blog in 2008.
Defending green spaces
Kota Damansara forest (Wiki commons)
A new government under the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in Selangor after 2008 saw the Kota Damansara forest and the Ayer Hitam forest in Puchong gazetted as permanent forest reserves in 2010. A plan to develop the Subang Ria Recreational Park – the only open space left in Subang Jaya – was also defeated in 2011.
However, the people of Selangor should not take it for granted that the PR government will always defend green spaces. In the dispute over the Kelana Jaya sports centre, the state administration chose to ignore the Petaling Jaya Local Plan Two, in which the field was classified as an open space. It has refused to direct its state subsidiary to scrap its redevelopment plan.
In our capital city, Kuala Lumpur City Hall has yet to gazette Bukit Kiara as a forest reserve. While the Petaling Jaya side of Bukit Gasing is protected, the Kuala Lumpur side of the forest has been making way for housing projects.
Bukit Gasing residents who protested against a hill slope development project over safety concerns lost their legal battle in October 2012. To add insult to injury, the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 2 May 2013 allowed the developer to seek damages from the residents.
Participatory local governance
It is heartening that there are still citizens who would speak up, join forces and campaign hard to preserve the shrinking forests and parks in the Klang Valley. However, I think citizens need to be more proactive. Get to know your local councillors, state and federal legislator. Ask them about your area’s local plan. Find out what development plans are in store that would affect your neighbourhood.
In other words, build a relationship with your local council’s officers and your elected representatives. Don’t scream at them only when you discover the playground facilities near your taman have been vandalised, or when another high-rise building is coming up in your already congested town centre.
(Brisa/sxc.hu)
Keep an eye out for public briefings or dialogues held by your local council on development projects that would affect your area. Attend the budget dialogues held by local governments under the PR. Ask them how much they are spending on parks and playgrounds.
Hold political parties accountable. Make sure they appoint development experts, lawyers, economists, environmental experts and NGO representatives as local councillors to provide sound advice to your local government.
For far too long, citizens have left the responsibility of town planning to local councils. What sort of development do you want for your area? How many green spaces do you think should be preserved? What other facilities does your area need?
If our citizens do not invest time and effort to organise themselves and engage with local councils, the policymakers will implement development plans according to what they think the people need and want. But by building an active, working relationship with local governments, the people can keep the politicians and civil servants on their toes. Their voices against controversial projects will also carry more weight in time.
Gan Pei Ling believes an idle citizenry in a democracy breeds authoritarianism and irresponsible governments.