Chapter 4

Transition and Transformation: Local Government in Penang (1969-1976)

Koay Su Lyn

Ever since the formation of the Committee of Assessors in 1800, local authorities have played a crucial role in Penang’s administration. This third tier of governance ripened as George Town evolved from a municipality to become the first state in the nation elevated to a city. Civic elections were similarly contested on a party basis after its revival in 1951, only to be suspended in 1965.

A Commission of Enquiry was established in July 1966 to investigate the City Council’s management affairs and the passing of the City Council of George Town (Transfer of Functions) Order 1966 effectively transferred all functions of the City Council to the Chief Minister of Penang.

Another wave of change occurred in the May 1969 elections when the Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan) defeated the Alliance, making Dr Lim Chong Eu the second Chief Minister of Penang. On assuming the position of Officer Administering the Council, Dr Lim was confronted with the challenge of revamping local government in the state.

This chapter highlights the transformation of local authorities upon Dr Lim’s takeover in the early years of 1969 until the implementation of the Local Government Act of 1976. While Dr Lim envisaged a system of improved efficiency and a smooth compliance with state decisions and policies upon the implementation of the 1976 Act, he did not expect the Act to alter the landscape of local government in Penang altogether.

The George Town Enquiry and the Suspension of Local Elections

The rattling of the George Town Council began in June 1963 when D.S. Ramanathan, once elected Socialist Front Mayor of George Town, rocked the council at a meeting with accusations of malpractices and improprieties.¹¹⁵ These allegations effectively tarnished the council’s public integrity, and a month later, the State Secretary announced the setting up of a Commission of Enquiry, known as the George Town Enquiry to investigate Ramanathan’s accusations. What was obvious was that the council’s affairs were being sensationalised under a charged political climate.

By March 1965, following the outbreak of the Indonesian Confrontation, local elections nationwide were suspended under the Proclamation of Emergency. In the case of the Seremban Council, suspension followed corruption charges. A year later, Johor became the first state to abolish local governments (Tennant 1973:79). These events inevitably hurt public perception of local councils, and they were viewed as a stumbling block on the path to the attainment of national unity. In Penang, for instance, the Socialist Front-controlled council’s constant rebellion against the Alliance-led state government heightened existing doubts about the effectiveness of the three-tier governance.¹¹⁶ Ties were further strained when the Council deliberately boycotted Malaysia Day celebrations in 1963 by refusing to decorate the streets.¹¹⁷ The State Secretary had to intervene to ensure that the streets were subsequently decked up. Tensions increased when the demolition of a squatter village under existing state plans was thwarted by the Council, which instead supplied the villagers with piped water (Tennant 1973:78-79).

This string of events together provided solid reasons for the general public to doubt the council’s effectiveness and was soon suspended to give way to the George Town Enquiry.¹¹⁸ The council’s suspension was meant to be temporary under the Municipal (Amendment) (Penang) Enactment 1966¹¹⁹. The City Council of George Town (Transfer of Functions) Order 1966 transferred all council functions were effectively transferred to the Chief Minister on the same temporal basis. The council boldly took the state to court by challenging the 1966 Order as an ‘ultra vires’ since, according to the Federal Government’s Local Government Elections Act, “every municipality is to be administered by councillors selected according to the constitution of that municipality”. Its actions were nullified when the Act was subsequently amended. Wong Pow Nee, Penang’s first Chief Minister became the first official to administer the city within this new jurisdiction.

The Enquiry found “no case of corruption sufficiently verifiable for prosecution” as alleged by Ramanathan, however, and similarly did not favour the continued suspension of the Council. It did however, ‘condemn the form of local government which had developed in George Town’ (Tennant 1973:83). However, by the time the stipulated period of suspension ended, the State Executive Council contrarily decided in favour of a continued indefinite suspension. Among the reasons cited was that the Enquiry report would turn out to be damning to remove the legitimacy of the City Council, composed at the time of suspension and that the State authority too did not have the power to hold fresh elections in light of the continued suspension of elections by the Federal government (Tennant 1973:84). The George Town Council’s indefinite suspension, strengthened by the suspension of local elections nationwide marked the end of the golden era of elective councils in Penang.

A New Dawn: The Restructuring Process

Despite some initial resistance, civil servants appeared to welcome the change. In fact, direct administration by the Chief Minister made their lives easier. The absence of the various council committees permitted them to proceed with projects subjected to the sole approval of the Chief Minister without much bureaucracy and time wastage. This provided them with heightened flexibility, and the absence of elected councillors saw fewer public complaints being raised (Tennant 1973:84) and minimal to zero rancour between the state and the council. Given the new ‘partnership’, state policies could be implemented with little conflict.

However, an era of change was about to take shape in Penang. The newly formed Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan) led by Dr Lim had emerged as a formidable opposition party. Established a year before the 1969 elections by English-educated, moderate intellectuals such as Professor Syed Hussain Alatas and Dr Tan Chee Khoon, the Gerakan sought public appeal on the grounds of non-communalism, moderate socialism and democracy. It emerged victoriously in Penang in the May 1969 elections. Dr Lim became the state’s second chief minister and by virtue of this office, he also became the new Officer Administering the Council. This signalled a new dawn for local government in Penang as Dr Lim took a more direct interest in civic administration and sought “a greater understanding and appreciation of the practical problems faced by the system” (Tennant 1973:95).

Despite its campaign promise to restore local elections, the Gerakan, once in power, soon realised the impossibility of doing this single-handedly without federal support. Instead, Dr Lim embarked on a process of revamping and restructuring the entire system of local authorities within the state. The council’s potential for providing employment was considered and in August 1969, Dr Lim initiated two job-creating schemes, including a parking attendant scheme, through the George Town council.¹²⁰ He was eager to equip the council with further roles in the state’s administration. Various discussions on this were even conducted in the Chief Minister’s own home outside of formal meetings (Tennant 1973:85).¹²¹

The system of local government in Penang had been comprised of five local authorities—the George Town City Council and the Rural District Council on the island, and the District Councils of North, South and Central on the mainland. Dr Lim and the State Executive Council decided to suspend the remaining Rural District Councils. Suspension orders were issued on 20 December 1970 and came into effect on 1 January 1971 with a transfer of functions of these District Councils to the Chief Minister.¹²² This transfer sought to continue the council’s normal activities as effectively as possible and to provide basic services and amenities for the ratepayers (Phang 1978:46).

The rural districts were not viewed as “viable units” (Phang 1978:45). Instead, it was thought that direct state rule would ensure administrative efficiency. It is worth a mention that the findings by an Advisory Mission to Penang in May 1971 had even suggested that administratively, Penang ought to have two city administration, each with its own development targets and its own developmental corporation. Each of the two cities should include a cross-section of the population and strenuous efforts should be made to forestall development which would make one inferior to the other (Phang 1978:46). This report appeared only in early 1974, however, and the process of restructuring in Penang had begun already in late 1971.

A New Relationship: The Integration

In November 1971, a decision was undertaken by the National Council for Local Government, ‘to restructure local authorities in the country so as to provide better services, amenities and a more efficient administration’. This led to the passing of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act 1973, which allowed for areal changes that are considered necessary for reorganisation to be made (Norris 1980:80).

More importantly, this Act brought about three important changes in relation to the local authorities. Firstly, a management board in the local authorities replaced the elected or appointed councils. Secondly, local authorities were granted financial autonomy and lastly, state governments could now reconstitute local authorities to form more viable units (Norris 1980:81). A concurrent and coherent implementation of the Act in all states throughout the nation was impossible given the individual differences of each state. In any case, Penang was one of these new powers. Dr Lim had after all already decided that a new structure for local government was needed in Penang.

As early as in December 1971, a separate six-member state committee was formed under the chairmanship of Tan Sri Teh Ewe Lim to ‘examine the feasibility of integrating the district councils into two bodies’. This committee met four times and finally suggested that there should be two integrated municipalities (Norris 1980:63). The main reasons given for this were: to make administration more practical; to minimise conflicting criteria in building and planning, health controls and approvals; and to standardize the level of professionalism and administration throughout the state.¹²³ The timely passing of the new 1973 Act¹²⁴ permitted Dr Lim to proceed with this plan.¹²⁵

Dr Lim was motivated by another compelling reason—the amalgamation would clearly be beneficial in terms of redistribution of state resources, specialisation in staffing, and uniformity of by-laws.

In fact, most local authorities in Penang faced severe financial troubles in the late 1960s. By the mid-seventies, their sustainability was compromised further by several new developments.

For instance, the supply of water was a crucial local authority function which had provided average gross profits of approximately 55% in the past.¹²⁶ Similarly, the provision of electricity had also benefited the authorities.¹²⁷ By the mid-seventies, the authority not only had to handle insufficient water supply on the island but also escalating costs due to the international oil crisis (Phang 1978:48-49).¹²⁸ In fact, their situation was so serious that the Penang City Electricity Service, which was incurring a monthly loss of $350,000, had to hand over its management to the National Electricity Board (Norris 1980:87). Given the difficult situation, effective maintenance of health clinics and transport provision proved almost impossible.¹²⁹ This position of the mainland districts was equally bad, and they had to be assisted by the national agency, the Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR).¹³⁰ The lack of external financial support and rising inflation made matters worse.

The newly established Penang Development Corporation (PDC), the state’s developmental arm, had now assumed many of the functions once managed by the local authorities.¹³¹ The latter’s functions were now reduced and directed towards sewerage extension schemes, setting up of stalls, installation of traffic signals and street signs, paving of roads and other basic civil services (Phang 1978:49). It was in such light that the amalgamation was viewed a positive move for sustaining these local authorities, within which experienced professionals and staff still worked.¹³²

The amalgamation also permitted professionals in both Butterworth and George Town to develop social services and later extend them to rural areas. Most local authorities in Penang were in fact far richer than most local authorities in Malaysia in spite of their declining state. In fact, considerable progress¹³³ was made during the restructuring period through the retaining of existing staff and through stability in revenue sources (Norris 1980:86).

In April 1974, the integration of the two local authorities on Penang Island and the three on the mainland was announced (Phang 1978:47). By l July, the state government had formed a single, integrated local authority for the whole island of Penang and Seberang Perai, the first in the country, in fact, following the suspension of local authorities in 1965. Dr Lim described it as ‘one of the most important milestone in the history of local government in Malaysia’. It was not only an achievement in terms of the areal objectives laid down in the Athi Nahappan Royal Commission Report but was also dubbed the most rapid and comprehensive of all the state reforms (Norris 1980:84,86).

To be sure, the state government was blessed with a relatively favourable position for implementing the changes.¹³⁴ Dr Lim as Officer Administering the Council had direct control over all the authorities. In his absence, his deputy together with two state executive councillors continued to direct matters (Norris 1980:83). More importantly, the centralisation of policy making gained further support through the establishment of a State Planning Development Committee in 1972 to oversee and coordinate the planning functions of local authorities and overall state planning and development. This ensured uniformity and standardisation of decisions at the state-local level. Last but not least, the retaining of experienced professionals ensured the smooth implementation of these vast changes.¹³⁵ Thus, while the integration process marked a bold innovation, it was nevertheless a smooth one, favoured by certain conditions and strengthened by an effective management.¹³⁶

A new system followed. In accordance with the 1973 Act, two boards consisting of 34 members were appointed with representation from mainly the component parties of the National Front, followed by professionals of standing, women members and independent intellectuals such as Professor KJ Ratnam. Both boards were chaired by experienced public servants—Toh Ah Bah, an M.A.D.S officer on the island and Noh bin Haji Abdullah, the former State Financial Advisor, on the mainland. Their appointments signified the beginning of the new state-local government relationship.

Conflict: PDC versus Management Board of the Council

In the light of the new structure, the impression that the council had become a subordinated authority was inevitable. The viability of local government’s relationship to the state was soon put to the test, following the state government’s decision to revive the Penang Urban Centre project.¹³⁷

The plan for an urban centre for George Town was first mooted as early as 1963 in the council then dominated by the Socialist Front.¹³⁸ It was not until the 1969 elections were approaching that the Alliance state government demonstrated some interest in the project.¹³⁹ After taking power, Dr Lim revived the old plan (Phang 1978:92-94). In fact, after a series of discussions between Dr Lim and the council, it was agreed that the entire central portion of George Town should be revitalised. Dr Lim stated:

Just as we are providing two growth centres in Bayan Lepas and Bagan Serai, we must also develop in the existing city of George Town, an area that can act as an epi-centre for the future development of the City of George Town. This epi-centre will evolve into the Urban Centre of Penang with the growth of the integrated urban development in our State… It was out of these needs to preserve the city, to rationalise its new role as a dynamic epi-centre for the state that the concept of the Penang Urban Centre was born… It initiates our decision firstly, to preserve the beauty of George Town; secondly, to provide a dynamic role for the city as the capital city of Penang and the major urban centres of North Malaysia; thirdly, to demonstrate progressive planning where the needs of the public and the community are put as first priority; fourth, to give effect to the new economic policy where Malaysians of all races will have a share in urban development and urban living. And indeed, the Urban Centre will symbolise our determination to build a united Malaysian nation and to achieve a just and equitable Malaysian Society¹⁴⁰.

The project was equally aimed at easier dispersal of traffic and population while expanding the base of the state’s economy by increasing the aggregate opportunities of the people to improve their living standard (Phang 1978: 99). Furthermore, government services would be centralised under one roof.

We are, therefore, incorporating in our concept a major bus station that can act as a centre for city buses and for regional routes. Our next objective is to see that Government services like payment of electricity and water bills, assessment bills and similar activities are centralised and made convenient for the public. We wish to locate Government offices and services together so that Government functions can be integrated and made more efficient… It will also be a major entertainment complex. There will be parks and recreational centres. There will be courts for badminton, basketball and sepak raga. There will be areas for hawkers. There will be open air theatres where our boria groups and street operas can undertake regular performances. Most important of all, housing will be for mixed income and mixed communal groups.¹⁴¹

To this effect, the council proceeded to appoint Architects Team 3 as the planning and architectural consultants to serve within a bigger team consisting of staff from both the council and state government known as the Central Area Planning Unit (CAPU).¹⁴² According to Dr Lim:

It was necessary for the state to have a carefully guided and responsible action planning at the very outset. It was on these considerations that the Comprehensive Development Areas were identified in the 1970s so that these areas can be developed as part of the state government’s strategy of urban renewal and development which is concomitant to the rural industrialisation and rural urbanisation and agro-horticultural extension programmes of the state¹⁴³.

Conflicts between the state government and the council emerged, however, when what was originally a council project became an object of interest and concern for the newly established PDC. PDC was instructed to take over the project, including CAPU, from the council, already in January 1973.¹⁴⁴ Dr Lim justified the takeover with good political reasons. The urban centre project had been a major controversial issue with many questioning the council’s involvement in it.¹⁴⁵ It was in such light that Dr Lim decided to relieve the council of its participation in the project. The decision was reluctantly accepted by the council.¹⁴⁶

The submission of building plans gave rise to further indirect tension.¹⁴⁷ The state had directed that the PDC would not be submitting plans to the council for approval.¹⁴⁸ However, the council asserted that since the units upon completion would be sold to the public, the PDC was obliged by law to submit its plans for the council’s approval (Phang 1978:137).

In a special meeting of the State Works Advisory Committee on the Urban Centre, the City Secretary insisted that the plans be duly submitted to the council for approval.¹⁴⁹ This would help protect the interests of the state government, the PDC, the council as well as the general public and would increase the saleability of the units (Phang 1978:137). The Committee agreed on the matter but tension arose once again when the PDC unilaterally decided to submit the plans to the council only for their information but not for approval on the grounds that the council was known on occasion to delay plans for as long as a period of 2 years (Phang 1978:138). This refusal was of great concern to the council, which felt that if it did not approve the plans, then it should not be held responsible in the event of fire or collapse of the buildings. At the same time, the PDC should not expect the council to issue Occupational Certificates to them automatically. This indirect level of tension was finally put to rest after the matter was referred to Dr Lim.

The Chairman of the Council, in a letter to the Chief Minister, stated that contrary to the state’s decision, PDC as an authority was not exempted from the planning control of the council. He equally appealed to the state to reconsider its decision and persuade the PDC to submit plans for approval in which “the consideration and approval of the PDC plans by the council is in line with the opinion expressed by Messrs. Presgrave and Matthews and we in the council will only be too happy to consider these plans if they are submitted to use for approval” (Phang 1978:139). It was similarly suggested that if the main reason for PDC’s reluctance to submit the plans was due to the long duration taken to study and approve them, then the PDC should coordinate their planning and design activities with the council officers every week. Thus, when the plans were officially submitted, it would only take a good two weeks instead of two years for approval.¹⁵⁰

With this understanding, the PDC agreed to a new arrangement and submitted its plans for approval by the end of 1976 (Phang 1978:139).

Implementing the Local Government Act 1976

Despite the concessions made, Dr Lim’s newly formed relationship with the council remained rocky. Although local elections have been abolished and the Management Board of the Council was now filled with appointed and not elected members, the situation remained tense between appointees from Gerakan and those from the rest of the Barisan Nasional (BN, Nationla Front).¹⁵¹ For instance, a situation emerged where all other BN appointees were directly opposed to the Gerakan appointees over every issue discussed by the Board. This was especially so when it concerned state government plan (Phang 1978:144). Conflicts worsened during the period of the urban centre project.

Dr Lim’s opponents in the council management board were against what they saw as a solely “Gerakan idea”, and he was further accused of nepotism since his brother, Lim Chong Keat, was one of the key architects involved in the project.¹⁵²

Similar hostility was demonstrated in discussions over whether the Board should relocate its offices to the Urban Centre. The Gerakan-ruled state had already informed all heads of department and statutory body that ‘it was the clear intention of the state government to encourage every department to move into the new premises at the Urban Centre.¹⁵³ While the majority did agree with this move, the other BN appointees voted against it.¹⁵⁴ Similarly, the proposal to have the Board participate in the urban centre project was also rejected.¹⁵⁵

It was not until the end of 1976 that Dr Lim boldly implemented the Local Government Act of 1976. Stressing the necessity of the Act, the Chief Minister stated: ‘We can only assume that the restructuring of local authorities has encouraged a certain degree of political awareness of local government affairs and personally I am a little bit perturbed because the political awareness does not indicate very much political maturity’ (Norris 1980:104).

By virtue of the Act, the Board previously formed under the Temporary Provisions Act was dissolved and the Penang Island Municipal Council was established, with eight councillors and a President in place of the former 34 Board members.¹⁵⁶ The composition and political background of this council is particularly noteworthy. Only two of the eight appointed members were from the former Board.¹⁵⁷ The other six were fresh faces with four from Gerakan followed by one independent and one sole UMNO member, who declined in protest over the unfair representation given other members of the BN (Phang 1978:147).¹⁵⁸

By virtue of this manoeuvre, the problematic Board that was often a stumbling block to state plans was converted into a council that provided no opposition to the state. Dr Lim justified the appointment of the new councillors by arguing that ‘the Authorities believed they could serve the interests of the people well’ (Phang 1978: 147:148). The Chief Minister similarly brushed off criticism of his haste in implementing the new Act by stating that that matter could be dealt with should it be brought up at a BN meeting and stressed that ‘we cannot please everybody’ (Phang 1978:148).

Nonetheless, the urgency and manner in which the 1976 Act was implemented clearly indicated the anxiety of the state government in ensuring the smooth implementation of the Urban Centre project. Penang early implementation of the tightened the state’s grip over local government. In fact, the state now became both the creator and supervisor of the local authorities.¹⁵⁹ And so it remains until today.

The establishment of the new council entailed the unfortunate effect of altering Penang’s city status to that of a municipality.¹⁶⁰ While it took Penang thirty odd years to have its city status officially reinstated, the implementation of the 1976 Act signalled the end of the era of local elections and of an independent third tier. A hindrance no more, the new fully-appointed council was bound to secure the smooth implementation of policies and decisions of Dr Lim’s state government. Today, in the light of Penang’s failed legal bid to have local elections restored,¹⁶¹ this legacy as determined hastily under Dr Lim’s regime remains one that lives on.

References

Address of Y.A.B Ketua Menteri on the occasion of the Pile Driving Ceremony to launch the Penang Urban Centre Project on 1^st January 1974.

‘City Council moves to create more jobs – Work-cum-study opportunities for about 500 youths’, Straits Echo, 27 August 1969.

City Council of George Town Administration Report for the year 1963, p.6.

‘Federal Court: Penang can’t hold local government elections’ – The Star, 14 August 2014.

‘Hold referendum on Council takeover challenge by Kadir’, Straits Echo, 1 January 1971.

M.W. Norris, ‘Local Government in Peninsular Malaysia’, Gower Pub Co; First Edition edition (June 1, 1980)

Paul Tennant, ‘The Abolition of Elective Local Government in Penang’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 72-87

Paul Tennant, ‘The Decline of Elective Local Government in Malaysia’, Asian Survey, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Apr. 1973), pp. 347-365

Penang Today 1969: ‘Economic Prospects of the 70s – A Bright Future’, Penang State Government Publication

Phang Siew Nooi, 1978, ‘Administration of Urban Development in Penang: The Case of the Penang Urban Centre’, Master of Economics, University of Malaya

Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of Local Authorities in West Malaysia, 1970

‘Restructuring of Local Authorities next year – Dr Lim’, Straits Echo, 6 December 1972

Speech by the Hon. Chief Minister, Penang, Dr Lim Chong Eu, at the launching of the Comprehensive Development Area of Macallum Street Ghaut by Y.A.B Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Dato’ Musa Hitam on 15^th April 1982

115He alleged fraud in the renovation of Chowrasta Market and several malpractices among the Town Planning and Building Development Committees. He also raised the impropriety of the whip’s legal firm, Lim Kean Siew & Co., in representing clients in their dealings with the council.

116The City Council of George Town was almost twice as rich as the State Government of Penang, which had irked the latter (Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of Local Authorities in West Malaysia, 1970, p.34)

117The Socialist Front-dominated Council considered the formation of Malaysia as a neo-colonialist concept, and argued that the United Nation’s Cobbold Commission’s survey was inadequate.

118According to Paul Tennant, the delay of three years in the establishment of the Commission of Enquiry showed that the state government did not wish to embarrass or suspend the Council. He opines that it was the exacerbated state-council ties post-1964 civic elections which led to the setting up of the said Enquiry.

119An agreement was reached between the Penang Chief Minister, the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser that the council should be suspended temporarily while the enquiry was ongoing in order to protect witnesses from criminal intimidation.

120‘City Council moves to create more jobs – Work-cum-study opportunities for about 500 youths’, Straits Echo, 27 August 1969.

121Interview with former city council secretary, Dato Khoo Heng Choon.

122‘Hold referendum on Council takeover challenge by Kadir’, Straits Echo, 1 January 1971

123Interview with former city council secretary, Dato Khoo Heng Choon.

124This statute is often cited as the Local Government (Merger of City Council of George Town and Rural District Council, Penang Island) Order, 1974. It declared that “the City Council of George Town and the Rural District Council, Penang Island shall with effect from the 1st day of July, 1974 be merged and shall thenceforth be referred to as one local authority…”.

125‘Restructuring of Local Authorities next year – Dr Lim’, Straits Echo, 6 December 1972

126For the years 1957 to 1967.

127The highest being 4.4% in 1957 and 29.8% in 1966.

128Both these Departments subsequently became part of the State Government’s Water Authority and National Electricity Board respectively.

129It should be noted that the council’s transport department was a non-subsidized one, running at a loss towards the mid-seventies.

130Interview with former general manager of PDC, Dato’ Seri Chet Singh.

131The idea of having a state development corporation was first considered by the previous Alliance government in 1968. However, as the Gerakan Party took control of the state government in 1969, it undertook to implement and establish a development corporation for the state of Penang. As the state of Emergency existed at that point of time, the PDC was constituted by the Emergency (Penang) Enactment No. 3, 1969 under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 8, 1969. In April 1971, a retrospective bill was passed in the Legislative Assembly when Parliament was restored. The Enactment to ‘establish a body corporate to be called the Penang Development Corporation’ was deemed to have come into force on 17th November, 1969 (Penang (Penang Development Corporation) Enactment No. 10 of 1971, Part I (1)).

132According to City Council of George Town’s Annual Report 1970, most of its staff had by this time acquired long working experience. The City Engineer for instance had joined the council in 1960 while the Deputy Engineer had joined since 1947. The City Architect and Building Surveyor on the other hand had been in service since 1959. This indicates the experienced talent that the council owned till then.

133It should be noted that at the point of integration, the financial assets of the three districts in Province Wellesley alone were $6.8 million (North), $1.4 million (Central) and $0.4 million (South) (Norris 1980: 95).

134Other states like Malacca for instance, had recognised that there was no urgent need for any change since all authorities were already under the direction of the state. Kelantan on the other hand, had no clear plans apart from increasing state control of administration by filling the council with nominative and appointed members. Johor, Pahang, Selangor and Terengganu however, were anxious in reducing the autonomy of local councils through the process of dissolution and amalgamation, to significantly increase the boundary of town boards (Norris 1980: 84).

135The two authorities on Penang Island were strongly manned. The city council had experienced staff while the RDCs had qualified administrative staff, an engineer, a health officer and a chief public health inspector (Norris 1980: 86).

136In fact, joint meetings involving key staff members were held well in advance. Even the financial staff of the RDCs moved into the city to ease adjustments to the integrated system and chief officers participated in committee meetings of other authorities to facilitate the integration process.

137Interview with former city council secretary, Dato Khoo Heng Choon

138As thousands of town dwellers in George Town then lived in slums and under unhygienic conditions with density as high as 400 persons per acre, the then City Council of George Town appointed Malayan Architects Co-Partnership to look into a proposal to develop the area located around Penang Road, Prangin Road, Maxwell Road and Magazine Road into a new urban centre (City Council of George Town Administration Report for the year 1963, p.6).

139Penang Today 1969: Economic Prospects of the 70s – A Bright Future

140Address of Y.A.B Ketua Menteri on the occasion of the Pile Driving Ceremony to launch the Penang Urban Centre Project on 1^st January 1974

141Ibid

142Following its establishment, various plans, surveys and studies on traffic, land use, urbanisation trends and housing were carried out. By this time, concepts of the new urban centre were already in place followed by zoning plans (Phang 1978: 98).

143Speech by the Hon. Chief Minister, Penang, Dr Lim Chong Eu, at the launching of the Comprehensive Development Area of Macallum Street Ghaut by Y.A.B Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Dato’ Musa Hitam on 15^th April 1982

144In a meeting held at the Chief Minister’s Residence on 23^rd January 1973, Dr Lim himself posed the question as to how the PDC, as a government agency could control the Urban Centre Project (Council File P3573/1 on Notes of Meeting concerning implementation of urban renewal project in Penang). The trend of the meeting was also highly indicative of the state government’s intention of using the PDC as the main instrument to implement the urban centre project (Phang 1978: 120-121).

145The Council’s functions were limited now to those only of civic maintenance and not commercial development of buildings with the aim of making profits through the sales of these buildings as aimed for by the urban centre project (Phang 1978: 121-122). This was unlike the PDC, established in the first place with the sole commitment with regards to commercial development and if it were to take over the implementation of the said project, no controversy would arise over the profits through the sale of the buildings.

146Since the Council had been responsible for the initial stages of the project’s development, several senior officers had by now deemed that the Council had the capacity to bear such responsibility. Furthermore, the PDC was still a newly established agency as compared to the Council and many felt that the takeover should happen at a time and stage where the PDC was more equipped and experienced to handle it (Phang 1978: 118-119).

147Based on the decision of the State, the Council was requested to note that the PDC, which was the main body implementing the said project, would not be submitting plans of the urban centre for the council’s approval. However, as the project would be sold to the public when completed (thereby becoming private property), the council counter argued that the PDC was still required to submit the building plans for its approval.

148This could be understood in the light that the state government wanted the project to be implemented in the soonest time possible and therefore, a hassle-free route was most desirable to ensure that the project can be launched on time.

149Interview with former city council secretary, Dato Khoo Heng Choon.

150Ibid.

151There were 18 members from the old Alliance, 8 Gerakan members and 8 others coming from non-political organisations. The others were the two District Officers from the District Councils, two general managers from the PDC and Water Authority respectively, two directors from the Public Works Department and Town and Country Planning Department respectively and two others appointed in their personal capacity (Phang 1978: 143).

152Dr Lim defended his stance by citing the fact that his brother was merely one of the partners of the firm of Architects Team Three, and this firm, which was previously known as Malayan Architects Co-Partnership, was the original firm selected by the City Council of George Town for the urban renewal project.

153Accordingly, “it is the policy of the Government to put all Departments in this complex. To achieve this, the PDC is making a study with respect of office space requirements of Government Departments and also that of the Department in Statutory Bodies. This is very important from the planning point of this Project. As such, it is hoped that all Heads of Departments and also Heads of Statutory Bodies will complete the details regarding their office space requirement” (Phang 1978:144-145).

154It was not so much a vote against the proposal as against the state government (Phang 1978: 145). As the new urban centre was designed to accommodate the three levels of government within the same structure, the council’s moving in was certainly rational.

155Through participation in the project, the Board was expected to give up its lands at the site to the PDC for development and be compensated with a certain amount of office space at the Urban Centre. The board was reluctant to vacate its existing premises (Phang 1978: 145).

156Although the 1976 Act permitted the maximum appointment of 24, the reduction was based on the reason that Penang was after all, a small place and thus, it does not require the appointment of too many councillors. The state appointed only 8 councillors as a result, the minimum number required by the new Act.

157These two members managed to retain their positions by virtue of their respective posts – being the District Officers from the South West and North East Districts.

158Previously, there were 18 members from the Alliance which comprised of the MCA, UMNO and MIC, eight members from Gerakan and eight more members from non-political organisations.

159The state controls the boundaries followed by the incorporation of new areas and the award of municipal status. It also appoints the councillors, the mayor or president, approves budgets, loans, establishments and has the discretion over the dismissal of departmental heads and deputies while confirming bye laws and holds the authority to delay revaluation (Norris 1980: 100).

160Penang’s capital, George Town, was already given city status by way of royal charter from Queen Elizabeth II on January 1, 1957.

161‘Federal Court: Penang can’t hold local government elections’ – The Star, 14 August 2014