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.

PTMP models best practices - Response to Rosli Khan

Earlier this week I was in a working group organized by Penang Green Council on the topic on sustainable mobility and connectivity. The objective of the group is to prepare an official recommendation to the state authorities.

As part of the deliberation, we interacted consecutively with three experts on transportation. All three were academically qualified and experienced expert in the field. All three had different view on the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

The first one was of the view that Penang needed a good hierarchy of transport system, with the Light Rail Transit (LRT) given top priority. The second expert dismisses the LRT and recommended on-ground tram. The third expert promoted the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

This should not surprise anyone as it is common for experts to disagree among themselves. One just need to read enough doctoral theses to know that it is necessary for each expert to outsmart every other expert. This is not to deny scholarly consensus but pointing out the nature of the academia that is driven by the prestige of originality.

A recent comment by a transport consultant added another take on the PTMP, although not a new one. I will respond to some of the points he made.

The author questions PTMP for its multidimensional approach that includes the building of an inter-modal public transport system and the construction of a traffic dispersal network. With all his tirade against the latter, it seems that his alternative plan for PTMP is to stop building road.

This is very odd as not one city with good public transport system has stopped building roads. Hong Kong with more than 90 percent of public transport usage still continues to build roads to improve traffic dispersal network.

The author insists that PTMP should look to Singapore as model. Singapore spent more than RM502 million building roads in 2017, excluding the RM23 billion North-South Corridor. Yet, when Penang plans its own traffic dispersal network, the author condemns.

It is a pseudo-conflict to pit the building of public transport versus construction of traffic network. If we look at cities like Hong Kong and Singapore, it is not about ‘to build or not to build road?’, but ‘where to build roads to disperse the traffic?’

The suggestion for congestion charges in Penang is premature as such policy can only be implemented when there exists a good public transport system. When Singapore started their congestion charges, there was already a widely used public transport system in place (begun with all-bus system before transformed into bus-rail system from 1970s to 1980s). Besides, the author is wrong to say that Singapore’s Area Road Pricing Scheme was introduced in the late 1980s, as the actual year was 1975.

The author also questions the PTMP for its inter-modal public transport system that consists of LRT, monorail, tram, BRT and sky cab. This is odd as cities with high number of public transport usage have inter-modal system.

Hong Kong has MTR, tram, bus, taxi, boats and cable car. Singapore has MRT, LRT, bus, taxi, and cable car. Inter-modal public transport is common given the different traffic demand in various location. This is so common that in fact the consultancy firm the author has worked at provide consultation on multi-modal or inter-modal system. It therefore boggles the mind why when it comes to PTMP, there is such condemnation.

The author seems to imply that the PTMP is planned “relying solely on politicians” and hence lacks expertise. Again, if only the author had actually studied the PTMP documents during the public display, he would have known that the team of experts behind PTMP comprise of individuals with doctorate in relevant fields and technical consultancy with track record of hundreds of projects.

It is not surprising to see experts having different view on PTMP. What is surprising is for expert to condemn a plan without demonstrating detailed knowledge about it.

Sustainable development needs realism

"[Sustainable cities] must promote efficient economic activities, ensure that all citizens can benefit from them, and must do so in a way to preserve the biodiversity, safe air and water, and physical health and safety of the citizens..." (Jeffrey Sachs, Age of Sustainable Development, 366)

Hardly can one find fault with such utopian ideal. The problem is that it is talking about heavenly city and its angels, not earth and its humans.

How to promote efficient economy that all citizens can benefit?

Any market-influenced (efficient) economy will definitely have competition, which means not all citizens can benefit, not to mention the other elements in the sentence.

History has shown there is no such thing.

Simple case, if I only have enough money to buy one book from two books on sustainable development that I have shortlisted, I can only choose to buy one and contribute the book royalty to one of the authors and not both.

Unfortunately many undiscerning readers buy into such utopian ideal and lobby against government's policy which falls short of being utopian. This is not only non-constructive but also democratically disruptive for its lack of grasp of the social and human condition.

Therefore, a healthy dose of realism is needed in deliberating over sustainable development. Only realism able to provide a sure foundation to evaluate the sustainability of a policy.

PSR, PTMP keys to unlocking Penang’s sustainable future

The Penang South Reclamation (PSR) and Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) have received much attention in the past week.

Penangites, as well as those who are not from Penang, have voiced their concern as well as support for these two projects. Personally, I believe the PSR and PTMP hold the key to unlocking Penang’s sustainable future.

When I use the word “sustainable”, I don’t mean it as ecological or environmental preservation, as how it is used by some civil society bodies. I understand “sustainable development” as the progression from the interactions of the economy, society and physical environment (Jeffrey Sachs, The Age of Sustainable Development, 2015).

The key word is “interactions”. A meaningful interaction involves exchanges, not stagnation or status quo.

In other words, the economy, society and environment cannot remain the same in the process of achieving sustainable development. Sole focus on any of the three without the other two is not sustainable development.

If one only advocates for the preservation of present capital flow, that is mere capitalism and not sustainable development, as changes to capital flow are forbidden.

If one only advocates for the preservation of present society, that is traditionalism and not sustainable development, as changes are barred from society.

If one only advocates for the preservation of the natural environment, that is environmentalism and not sustainable development, as changes are not allowed on the environment.

Many civil society bodies that claim to champion sustainable development are actually advocating nothing more than environmentalism. Both are very different concepts.

Sustainable development necessarily involves the exchanges of impact on the economy, society and natural environment out of the interactions among the three. Environmentalism wants zero impact on the natural environment.

With the sustainable development framework in mind, we can now see that much of the criticism levelled at the PSR and PTMP has mistakenly assumed that the economy can develop sustainably without an impact on either society or the natural environment or both, and vice versa.

Seoul as a case study
Seoul was honoured by Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority and Centre for Liveable Cities in 2018 for having created a liveable, vibrant and sustainable urban environment.

One of Seoul’s landmark sustainable development project is the restoration of the Cheonggyecheon (Cheonggye stream), which is globally hailed as an outstanding urban rejuvenation undertaking for its demolition of an elevated expressway for the development of an artificial stream.

The Cheonggyecheon restoration has increased overall biodiversity by 639% (involving plants, fish, bird, insect, mammals, and amphibians), reduced surrounding temperature by 3°C to 5°C, increased wind speed by 2% to 7%, increased bus and subway ridership by 15% and 3% respectively, contributed up to US$1.9 million (RM8 million) in tourist spending, and increased business and economic activities.

This remarkable urban transformation would not have been achieved if the government gave in to pressure from vocal environmentalist and merchant groups when the proposal was tabled.

A coalition of civil society bodies called Citizens’ Coalition for Correct Cheonggyecheon Restoration comprising Green Korea United, Korea Environmental Federation and Green Transportation Movement opposed the project for its environmental impact. Some 800,000 workers and other street vendors along Cheonggyecheon also aggressively objected to the project. Together with other civil society groups, they called for its cancellation (Myung-Rae Cho, The politics of urban nature restoration, 2010).

This is not dissimilar to the current civil society groups in Penang that oppose the PSR and PTMP on the grounds of environmental and social impact.

The Cheonggyecheon restoration also would not have been feasible if the government did not take up the heavy financial burden to build a massive road network and expansive subway infrastructure.

Seoul’s coffers were emptied for the construction of various urban highways, bridges, tunnels and more than 100 underpasses in the 1960s to 1990s. More than 60% of the 877.1 billion won cost for the first two subway lines had to be paid through bond and bank loans. Currently, there are nine subway lines with more stations and tracks being constructed (Chang Yi, Chaewon Lee, Yoon-Joo Jung, Developing Transport Infrastructure in Seoul, 2017).

When the Cheonggye highway was demolished in 2003, there was already a good road network to disperse car movement and an extensive subway system to provide alternative to commuters. In fact, there are four subway stations along the Cheonggyecheon served by subway line 1, 2, 3 and 5 (Gwanghwamun, City Hall, Jonggak, and Jongno 3 sam-ga).

The availability of a comprehensive dispersal road network to divert cars away and a convenient subway system for pedestrians made the elevated expressway unnecessary and rendered the Cheonggyecheon restoration project feasible. 

Therefore, the demolition of the Cheonggye highway is not a precedent applicable to object against the building of expressway on Penang island that lacks good road network and public transport infrastructure to begin with.

The exchanges of impact between the economy, society and the natural environment constitute Cheonggyecheon’s sustainable development.

If the Seoul government had abandoned its plans and adhered to the demand to preserve the natural environment and the then existing trade, the city wouldn’t have the now famous Cheonggyecheon.

There wouldn’t even be water flowing down the Cheonggye stream for most part of the year. This is why every day, 120,000 tonnes of treated water are electrically pumped from subway stations and the Han River into the stream. The maintenance cost is 8 billion won per year.

The environment was not preserved but developed upon. This is how sustainable development actually works.

I’m not saying that the PSR and PTMP are like the Cheonggyecheon restoration. Each city and project is unique. What I’m highlighting is to give an actual example of what sustainable development is.

Sustainable development is not the preservation of the natural environment. It is the overall progression effected by the exchanges of impact between the economy, the society and the environment.

Penang’s future

Unlike Seoul, Penang Island doesn’t have an expressway. The nearest major road that resembles one is Lebuhraya Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu, but it has too many intersections to make it an actual expressway.

Penang needs better a road network and this is why the PTMP consists of plans for new roads, besides proposals for public transport. The present Penang government is taking a major step to transform the state into a smart urban city with new land space, a comprehensive road network and public transport infrastructure.

This is the reason for the PSR and PTMP. The former provides the required funds and multipurpose land space; the latter with the road network and public transport. These are the keys to unlocking Penang’s sustainable future.

Being a sustainable development project, there will be exchanges of impact between the economy, the society and the natural environment. After all, this is what sustainable development entails.

Unfortunately, like the Cheonggyecheon restoration initiative, the objections raised by civil society has created much confusion in the public, with some being led to believe that sustainable development is environmentalism.

New departure levy is strategic to boost local economy

There are two ways to look at the new departure levy. One is to see it as a burden for our own personal overseas trip, which is the cause of complaints about the levy. The other way is to see it as a strategic policy.

Currently, our airport taxes (now known as passenger service charges - PSC) are RM11 per pax travelling domestic, RM35 per pax travelling Asean countries, and RM73 per pax travelling other countries.

The new departure levy will see additional charges of RM20 per pax traveling to Asean countries, and RM40 per pax traveling to other countries.

The purpose of the new departure levy is to promote domestic tourism, that is to boost the local economy by keeping the circulation of capital within the country instead of flowing out to other countries.

The fact is that capital is limited - do we want it to stay within the country or flow out?

Those who want to have overseas trip can still do so while at the same time contribute back to the country via the new levy.

Each country has its own type of levy for its own reason. For example, Hong Kong airport charges HK$120 Air Passenger Departure Tax, HK$45 security fees, and HK$70 to HK$180 Airport Construction Fee. That is about RM123 to RM181.

In Malaysia, even when we include the new departure levy and PSC of RM6 for international departure, it will be RM119, which is lower than Hong Kong's lowest charges by 3.3 percent or highest charges by 52 percent.

Will the new departure levy affect tourist arrivals to Malaysia? The focus of a country should be on giving good reasons and attraction to the international community to come to our country. If we don't have those, then no one would want to come even if there is no airport tax.

Again, let's study Hong Kong. Even though the Airport Construction Fee began in August 2016, the tourist arrivals didn't decrease but increased by 3.2 percent to 58.5 million in 2017.

Of course, Hong Kong is a very different place from Malaysia, but the gist of what I'm getting at is not about the levy per se but this: The focus of a country is to make itself attractive (be it for tourism or businesses) to the international community. When we are attractive, people will come. When we are lousy, people won't come even if free.

So, the new levy is strategic in reviving domestic economy while remain less burdensome than charges at other places. Many who can afford to travel overseas probably don't mind paying a little bit more for a government that is trying to build up the country again?

Response to SCMP article on Penang Transport Master Plan

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) has published the article ‘Penang wants to be like Hong Kong and Singapore. Problem: its fishermen don’t’ (31 March 2019) that contains misleading statements that may confuse readers.

I would like to respond to those errors by providing facts about the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) and the state.

Penang South Reclamation: Not land swap

The SCMP article reports that, “The reclamation is part of a proposed land swap deal with the project delivery partner of the PTMP, SRS Consortium…”

Penang state government has clarified many times that the reclamation is not a land swap deal. The most recent was the Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow’s statement published in February 2019.

The reclaimed islands will be owned by the state government and it is in the authority’s plan to develop the land for various purposes such as providing public spaces, affordable housing, commercial and industrial opportunity. And the rationale why the choice of that location instead of the mainland is due to the near proximity to the airport and the Free Industrial Zone.

Multidimensional transport plan

The SCMP article states that “Proponents of the PTMP defend the state’s decision to spend nearly 40 times its annual budget to build more highways in a state where people face long commutes due to traffic congestion.”

This is a misleading statement for two reasons. First, the PTMP is not a highway project but consists of various public transport infrastructures such as the Light Rail Transit, Bus Rapid Transit, monorail, and tram, along with several road construction plans.

Second, the estimated cost of RM46 billion is for a “holistic and integrated transport plan,” as stated by the Chief Minister Chow, “that outlines Penang’s public transport and road networks to cater for travel demands over the next 50 years.”

Assuming Penang’s annual budget is consistently RM1 billion, that means the estimated cost of PTMP when spread out for 50 years would be less than the five decades’ collective figure. 

One wonders why the SCMP article compares the estimated cost of a project with 50-year relevance to one year’s budget to exaggerate the cost?

Fisherman engagement

The SCMP article reports that a spokeperson for the fishermen claims that the state government has not engaged the fishermen community for the PTMP. This is outright wrong.

The project has built not one but two engagement centres at the southern coast, known as Pusat Perkhidmatan Setempat Nelayan. The centre at Permatang Damar Laut began its service in May 2016 while the one at Gertak Sanggul started a year later.

The centres have full-time staffs who are stationed there during working days to provide information and to engage all the stakeholders along the southern coast, including the fishermen communities.

The article also reports that “the reclamation project would decimate fish breeding grounds and hurt the livelihoods of the state’s 6,000 fishermen.”

The total registered fishermen in Penang is less than 3,000, according to the data from Department of Fisheries. The fishermen living in the Barat Daya district, in the reclamation site, number 912.

Regarding the impact on breeding ground, the PTMP requires Fishery Impact Assessment that studies and provides mitigation measures.

Some fishermen are known to make astounding allegations. Just recently, some fishermen claimed that their fishing ground in the northern part of the Penang island is filled with mud drifted from the reclamation work at Gurney coast.

This is despite the strict compliance followed in the project and the coastal current that actually drifts opposite direction from the fishing site. 

Actually, the fishermen had the same muddy situation three years ago before the reclamation started. Yet this time around, they blamed the reclamation.

Penang’s economy

The SCMP article states that Penang’s “economy has slowed in recent years and the state is now largely a tourist attraction, best known for its street food and Unesco World Heritage Site George Town.”

This is contrary to the economic achievement and performance of the Penang state in the recent years. Penang is the state with the second highest investment and the highest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2017.

The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Penang was RM47,322 in 2016, the second highest in the country after Kuala Lumpur (RM101,420). From 2014 to 2016, Penang and Selangor are the only two states to achieve real GDP growth among the top five states.

Overall, the SCMP article has not only given a wrong impression of the PTMP but also of the state of Penang.

Cent-GPS study: Racial discrimination or social stereotype?

The recent study by Cent-GPS on racial discrimination in private sector recruitment have provoked many responses.

I bet many are angered by such discrimination and have many brilliant ideas of how to fix it. I just wanna highlight two things about that study by Cent-GPS:

First, the report states on page 12 that it is based on an earlier study done by Lee Hwok Aun and Muhammed Abdul Khalid, which was published in 2016, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy.

Guess what? While the earlier study was prepared by 2 researchers, the Cent-GPS report only highlighted the Malay researcher in the sub-headline, "The Work by University Malaya's Dr Muhammad Abdul Khalid" (see attached photo). The Chinese researcher's name, Lee Hwok Aun was dismissed.

Not only that, the sub-headline stated that Muhammed Abdul Khalid was from University Malaya. This is wrong. Lee Hwok Aun was the researcher from University Malaya, while Muhammed Abdul Khalid was from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

UM ranked 87 and UKM at 184, according to QS Global World Ranking. If Cent-GPS wanted to give prestige to the earlier study that their own study was based on by attaching a UM researcher to it, then it should be Lee Hwok Aun who was from UM.

So, the Cent-GPS's study decries racial discrimination but attributed a bi-authored study to only the Malay researcher and deleted the Chinese researcher's name from the sub-headline ???

Second, one of the most significant findings from the earlier study by Lee Hwok Aun and Muhammed Abdul Khalid was that the Malay-controlled private companies also preferred Chinese jobseekers than Malays. They profiled the company to find out the race factor involved.

As cited in Cent-GPS's own study, page 12: "Even companies that were Malay-controlled called Chinese applicants 1.6 times more than they called Malay applicants."

Even though the companies' ethnic profile is important, yet Cent-GPS's own study did not include this aspect. Its reason, stated on page 42, is to ensure randomness in company selection.

Their reason does not make sense for a study on ethnic bias. Company's ethnic profile will shed light on whether is the private sector recruitment really practicing racial discrimination or some other unobserved factors at play?

If even Malay-controlled companies prefer to hire Chinese rather than Malay, as discovered by the earlier study by Lee and Mohammed, then this is not simply a racial prejudice but involved other social stereotypical biases.

Therefore, the Cent-GPS's study is a missed opportunity to further explore the very important question, if Malay-controlled companies also prefer to recruit non-Malays, then what other factors at play and what kind of resolution is needed?

Besides, without including company's profile, and given that the general (mis)perception in Malaysia society that the private sector is controlled by the Chinese, then the Cent-GPS's conclusion may have inculcated further inter-racial suspicion and animosity among the different races. If true, this would be very ironic for the study that aims to highlight and close the racial gap ended up widening it.

We must address the issue of racial discrimination in recruitment not only in private sector but at all sectors. Meanwhile, addressing ethnic prejudice cannot only be confined to the race factor and ignore other social stereotypical biases.

Incomplete diagnosis does not fix the problem but often produces consequences which may make the matter worse.

Cent-GPS should come clean with their study. There are so many flaws in it, as highlighted by Suah Jing Lian and DAP Parliamentary Research Office.

Moreover, the two researchers, Lee Hwok Aun and Muhammed Abdul Khalid, whose earlier study inspired Cent-GPS’s own work have remarked that the latter’s study has went off track.

When the initial resume-drafts used by Cent-GPS were studied closely, one would realised that the resume were deliberately designed for employer to favour one race than another. (See attached photo).

Those who have evaluated resume can surely identify with the effect of first impression from the initial contact. Employers are looking at dozens if not hundreds of resume in a recruitment drive. Anyone who has done so before would know that the layout of the resume, not merely the information contained within it, influences the likelihood of the jobseeker's callback rate.

How the resume is designed does tell how familiar the jobseeker is with the software used to write the resume (computer skill) and the amount of effort used in crafting the resume (diligence).

In fact, the photograph of the jobseeker is as important. Some jobseekers provide nicely shot photograph while others attached a regular picture used for passport. All these affect the callback likelihood, which Cent-GPS seems to have ignored -- if not manipulated -- based on the first drafts they showed to the reporters.

Looking at those first drafts, it is obvious why employers are more likely to call the Chinese because the design of the resume was more appealing and convincing.

When asked for the final drafts that were sent to the companies, Cent-GPS said they cannot reveal those as they would have implication to the higher institutions listed in the drafts.

If that is the case, they can just delete or cover the institutions' name. But this also raises another question, that is the fact that higher institution does have a role in influencing the callback rate.

We all know that higher institution, whether public or private, comes with various degree of prestige and areas of expertise. So, by Cent-GPS’s own admission that the higher institution may be affected has shown that it is not ethnic biases alone that influence the callback rate. By Cent-GPS’s own admission, they have failed to control this variable.

One left to wonder if Cent-GPS’s study was designed to be racially divisive?