A FEW days ago, Seputeh MP Teresa Kok raised a rather pertinent issue regarding the administration of the biggest city in Malaysia – whether we should do away with a federal territories (FT) minister for Kuala Lumpur?

It is good that one of the senior most MPs in KL has the wisdom to raise this matter and invite a debate to argue if there is a need for a FT minister for Kuala Lumpur.

As a native of this city, I find some of her reasons compelling enough to be discussed and reviewed particularly by the denizens of the city of KL and Putrajaya.

I do think there is much food for thought for the new cabinet to ponder over whether KL needs a FT minister when, in fact, we already have a mayor.

As an observer and a fairly active participant in the affairs of the city of KL, I have to say that experiences in the past have shown that there have been many instances of overlapping duties between both the FT minister and the mayor of Kuala Lumpur.

We must be mindful of the fact that statutorily, the mayor of Kuala Lumpur is the most important person in the city. He is the sole authority who signs off on cheques, to approve or disapprove all official documents pertaining to affairs in the city of KL.

The mayor implements the policies of the federal government and the FT minister’s role, representing the federal government, is primarily to oversee the role of the mayor.

He is there to ensure that the latter perform his duties diligently and to implement the policies that have been agreed upon.

Regrettably, in the past, the previous government had found it fit to appoint a FT minister based on political patronage, convenience and gratification.

Let me say that it is reasonably acceptable to have a FT minister so long as there is a distinct separation of powers and duties between the FT minister and the mayor. Sadly, this did not happen as it should.

The reality is that on the one hand you have a senior civil servant serve as the mayor while on the other hand you have an elected politician as the minister.

In the context of our culture, it is understandable if we find civil servants defer, as a matter of respect and rank, to the minister.

Perhaps, mindful of this, we have seen in the past that ministers appointed to the key ministerial post of FT minister have taken advantage of this courtesy and go beyond their ministerial boundaries and interfered in the administration of the city council.

And we can understand why; the power and temptations that go with this key office are difficult to ignore.

The natural thing to do for any politician appointed to this position is to treat this position like a sinecure, to enjoy the prestige and perks that goes with this position while distancing themselves from the actual running of the city’s administration.

Running the city should be the prerequisite of the office of the mayor. This arrangement also provides for good checks and balances.

The Seputeh MP also pointedly said she has seen that the appointment of a FT minister can also lead to the former working to undermine the mayor.

We have, indeed, seen in the past many instances when the mayor could not perform effectively because of interference.

This is ideally why the respective roles of the mayor and the FT minister should be distinct; the minister as the policy maker while the mayor is the implementer.

As Kok had said, there have also been a few instances of disputes between the minister and the mayor; most times, the minister insists in wanting his way.

If the mayor was to object or stand up to the minister, he would incur not only the wrath of the minister but face the bigger consequence of having a short stay – his extension would not be renewed.

So, any mayor would find it difficult to function effectively if the minister were to take more than a pro-active position in the administration of the city of KL.

It would be difficult for the poor mayor to function – just as many of us citizens witnessed the plight of the mayor working for the last FT minister from BN. I guess this is why many a time we note that the mayor of KL is a lame duck!

The fact is that there cannot be two masters running the city of Kuala Lumpur. It was a sad reflection of the previous BN administration that had led it to merrily install its own favourites for this very important position. The FT ministership is considered a plum job.

Now that we have witnessed the historic change of a federal government after 61 years, let us hope this new government may want to take note of this messy administrative dichotomy which the citizens of KL have had to endure for so many years.

There should only be one person in charge of KL, not two persons. It is, therefore, easy to understand why KL has been in a mess all these years and perhaps this is why till now, we are still anxiously waiting for the KL master plan to kick off.

Not many are aware that the city of KL has probably the largest operational budget in the country, even bigger than the bigger states in Malaysia.

While other states have their menteri besar or chief minister, the position of Kuala Lumpur mayor is akin to a chief executive of a state, except that Kuala Lumpur has a mayor who is answerable to Putrajaya and not to the people of KL.

A suggestion

In the absence of local council elections for the moment, it would not be a bad idea for the federal government to consider this option.

Since all of the 10 parliamentary constituencies in KL are now in the hands of Pakatan Harapan, all the MPs be similarly appointed to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall advisory board.

With the support of Putrajaya, this advisory board will set up the policies and new guidelines for Kuala Lumpur, and it would be the role of the mayor to implement these policies in a smart and diligent manner.

The mayor will be given objectives and targets to achieve and shall submit a monthly progress report to the advisory board.

The mayor shall be judged by his performance. Without interference from a minister, we are confident the mayor can perform much more effectively for the benefit for the people of KL.

An ‘elected’ mayor for KL

Another possibility would be for the federal government to do away with the traditional practice of a civil servant becoming the mayor of Kuala Lumpur; if the constitution allows it, the government can appoint from one of its MPs to be the mayor while the advisory board will comprise of all elected MPs.

After all, the FT MPs are elected by the people of KL and we should allow them to serve the very people who elected them. This would be democracy at work, by the people and for the people.

Finally, I commend Kok for raising this issue that it may not be a bad idea to do away with the FT minister, and for the moment just allow the mayor to carry on with his work and manage the city of Kuala Lumpur in an unencumbered manner. – June 7, 2018.

* Ronald Quay is Bangsar Baru Business Council president.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.