NGOs, experts free from accountability?

We are pleased that our article that raises critical questions about Penang’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has elicited responses from members of the public, including a transport expert from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).

We wish to offer a response in view of the interest from the public, especially among the NGOs.

Our previous article affirms that the society needs constructive contribution from good NGOs to grow. NGOs play a big role in society. As one of us (Timothy Tye) is a spoke person of the civil group AnakPinang, we certainly encourage NGOs to be constructive.

Therefore, the allegation that our article “attacks” NGOs in general or belittles the role of NGOs in society is a gross misreading.

The gist of our article remains that NGOs, given the role they play in society and their capability to sway public opinion over policies such as the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP), should be held accountable for their action. This, alas, is presently absent.

Instead of suggesting ways to make the NGOs more accountable, responders sidestepped the matter, and switched to making allegation that the PTMP lacks accountability. We are then accused of double-standard for raising questions about the NGOs’ own accountability while not doing the same on PTMP.

We are reluctant to dwell on this irrelevant allegation as it deviates from the subject matter. Nonetheless, as a matter of courtesy, we shall just briefly touch on PTMP.

As far as we are concerned, the PTMP was chosen through open Request-for-Proposal procurement method, a form of open tender employed by reputable institutions such as the World Bank and United Nations. The selection of the proposal is based on the recommendation by KPMG, an objective independent reviewer.

Besides using a widely recognized open procurement method, the State Government leaders championing PTMP are also held accountable through every election cycle.  The public is free to eject them from office if they fail to perform.

The same, however, cannot be said of the NGOs that continue to remain free from accountability. As it is, the public is unable to take action when NGOs act for their own self-interest.

Actually, the PTMP bidding process can serve as a model to instill an accountable mechanism to check the autonomy of NGOs.

Open selection of NGOs

AnakPinang recommends that NGOs appointed into public institutions such as the local councils and various public-interest committees be subjected to open selection.

Instead of reserving places for specific NGOs, the authorities should introduce an open selection process where NGOs wishing to be appointed have to register to be considered. The NGOs have to submit their proposal and bid for the place.

An expert objective reviewer will then make recommendation to the authorities which NGOs should be appointed. At the end of each term or a specific duration, the reviewer and the authorities will review the appointed NGOs to decide either to remove them or ban them, or to allow them to be considered for reappointment.

Specifically on local council, while local election cannot be decided at the state level, an open selection method is possible. Unlike party-appointed councilors, which is tied to the accountability of the party through general election, NGOs are accountability-free. The open selection method will hold the appointed NGOs accountable for their action.

Uninformed disagreement

We also noticed that the disagreement over our article is caused by the responders’ lack of information. Or, at least we hope not, caused by willful ignorance.

The two responders to our article alleged that the PTMP is inferior and has deviated from the earlier proposal recommended by the Halcrow’s study. NGOs and individuals objecting the PTMP have been insisting on this point.

For instance, the USM transport expert states that, “the PTMP, as it stands, is a developer-modified version of the original Halcrow study and recommendations which for all intents and purposes deviates entirely in form and functions,” and he went on to criticize the plan to build PIL1 expressway (which is one component of PTMP). He has argued the same point earlier in an article co-authored with Lim Mah Hui from anti-PTMP NGOs.

The other responder agrees with the USM expert, stating that the comments made by anti-PTMP NGOs “are well founded and backed by other experts, such as those from Universiti Sains Malaysia.”

Last week, a transport consultant with 30 years experiences condemned PTMP without understanding. This week, we have a USM transport expert doing the same.

To say that PTMP “deviates entirely in form and functions” from Halcrow is incredible.

PTMP is not a deviation but an improvisation based on Halcrow’s study. As in all improvisations, some components are retained, some improved upon, and some removed.

Take for instance, the PIL1. The plan to build this road was proposed by Halcrow’s study, where it is known as “George Town Outer Bypass”.

As stated in Halcrow’s study, “The George Town Outer Bypass is being promoted as a high-quality highway link joining the Jelutong Expressway (now known as Lebuhraya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu) on the east coast of Penang Island to Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah on the north coast. As such it is envisioned to be a limited-access highway providing intermediate connections to Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah, Jalan Bukit Gambir, Jalan Thean Teik and the Gurney Drive area… Construction of the George Town Outer Bypass will require some 30 percent of the scheme to be constructed within tunnel beneath the Penang Hills.” (Halcrow's Report: The Highway Improvement Plan, May 2013, page 9, 15).

Those who have seen the PIL1 alignment would know that it is in essence the alignment proposed as “George Town Outer Bypass” by Halcrow. Therefore, we found it odd for people of claimed academic expertise to make a bold and generalized statement that PTMP “deviates entirely” from Halcrow.

Are we supposed to believe these “experts” just because they have doctorates? In the same way that NGOs are spared from accountability, should these “experts” be likewise spared accountability when they make statements that demonstrate a lack of homework?

Timothy Tye is a spokesperson of civil group AnakPinang and a former council member of Penang Heritage Trust. Joshua Woo is a former councillor of the Seberang Perai Municipal Council.

Penang NGOs – an opposition force without accountability?

Our society needs constructive contribution from good NGOs (non-governmental organisations) to grow. Unfortunately in Penang, NGOs have descended to rally unwholesome causes that are discriminative, destructive and divisive.

There are more than 5,000 NGOs in Penang, according to Penang2030 Guide. Some of these are actually NGI (non-governmental individual). NGI is a civil group that claims to be representative yet led and managed only by one individual. These NGIs often issue statement under the individual’s name, conduct press conference by the individual alone, and do social media Live video in selfie-mode.

Certain NGOs are at the forefront of criticising Penang State Government’s projects. We want to be clear that we support critical questioning of government’s projects, regardless they are at State or Federal level, as long as those questions are constructive and proposals are subjected to accountability.

However, more often than not, we find that these NGOs have failed in these two aspects. Their questions are not constructive and their proposals lack accountability.

When State Government wanted to redevelop the Penang International Sports Arena (PISA) in 2010, the NGOs objected against it. The State Government went ahead and transformed PISA into the present Subterranean Penang International Convention and Exhibition Centre (SPICE).

SPICE is currently the largest convention centre in the northern region of West Malaysia.  It certified as a Green Building, and has become the first hybrid solar-powered convention centre in the world.

SPICE has contributed to Penang’s business events industry that has an estimated economic value of RM1.3 billion in 2018. This is a 31 percent increase from 2017, since the opening of SPICE. Local restaurants, hotels, local suppliers, and other commercial businesses have benefited from this multiplying effect.

The construction of the Second Bridge, the upgrading of Penang Hill funicular train, the widening of Jalan Masjid Negeri, and other projects were similarly met with NGOs’ objections, though these projects, now completed, are benefiting Penangites and the state.

We were fortunate that the Bayan Lepas Free Industrial Zone could be developed on former paddy fields before the NGOs came around to voice their opposition. Yes, farmers were affected. Yet, without this development, Penang would have remained a farming state today, and the majority of this present generation would remain farmers. If the NGOs have had their way, would they be held accountable for the loss of jobs, business opportunities and benefits?

No. They will be let off without any consequence while Penangites are deprived of these developments and their benefits.

Bayan Lepas industrial zone. Photo taken from Google Earth.

The NGOs claim to be neutral and conflict-free, yet we find that those NGOs that object against certain development are often driven by their own interest.

For instance, NGOs opposing the construction of certain road are composed of resident associations of property owners who are afraid that the new road will lower their property prices. Similarly, NGIs claiming to preserve old buildings for their historical values are actually in the business of publication and tourism that are based in these structures.

This is what Peter Gourevitch, David Lake, and Janice Stein warned us about: “NGOs may develop specific organizational interests and cultures, sometimes referred to as pathologies, which can lead them away from their ethical principles.” (The Credibility of Transnational NGOs, Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Politicians are held accountable by election. If politicians do not perform well, they will be voted out.

NGOs are spared from such accountability. For instance, NGOs are not answerable to anyone when job opportunity is lost and economic growth stagnated due to their objection against certain projects. They can go on with their lives without risking any consequences for their action.

In other words, the NGOs are not subjected to external verification. They can say anything they want and criticise anything they like, while still remain as NGOs.

A good example is the NGOs’ allegation that the construction of the Pan Island Link 1 will affect precision manufacturing factories in Bayan Lepas area, despite the fact that daily high-frequency flights and the construction and high usage of the Bayan Lepas expressway have not resulted in any complaint from the nearby factories.

Politicians put their career at risk through their campaign. The cost for accountability is extremely high for them. But not so for the NGOs. They are sheltered from the consequences of their action, with zero cost of accountability.

NGOs stir public opinion yet deny that they have political influence. At times, NGOs and political party share common cause, like Penang Barisan Nasional GE14 manifesto that was said to be in line with some of Penang’s most vocal NGOs.

NGOs would naturally deny that they have any political power. Nevertheless, the fact that they have the capability to sway public opinion to side with one or another political party shows that this is a lie which they want the world to believe in so that their political power can remain masked.  These NGOs would want everyone to think that their objection against the present government is without political agenda.

If there is a difference between NGOs and politicians, it is that the latter is subjected to election as their cost for accountability, while NGOs has no such cost. NGOs are accountability-free.

While we appreciate the role played by NGOs within a democratic context, we should remain mindful and conscious that the appearance of impartiality projected by them could well be a deceiving camouflage of any hidden agendas. Therefore, NGOs must be held accountable too.

Timothy Tye is a spokesperson of civil group AnakPinang and a former council member of Penang Heritage Trust. Joshua Woo is a former councillor of the Seberang Perai Municipal Council.