Changing Patterns of Administration in the Field
| Date | 01 March 1979 |
| Published date | 01 March 1979 |
| Author | G. Shabbir Cheema |
| DOI | 10.1177/002085237904500109 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Changing
Patterns
of
Administration
in
the
Field :
The
Malaysian
Case
by
G.
SHABBIR
CHEEMA,
Lecturer,
Universiti
Sains,
Malaysia
The
decentralization
of
governmental
powers
and
functions
is
designed
to
decongest
govern-
ment
at
the
centre
and
subsequently
to
reduce
the
involvement
of national
leaders
in local
issues;
to
increase
the
people’s
understanding
and
support
of
national
developmental
activi-
ties ;
to
train
people
in
the
art
of
self-govern-
ment ;
to
strengthen
national
unity,
and
to
formulate
and
implement
development
pro-
grams
taking
into
consideration
the
peculiarities
of
the
local
situation
(1).
The
process
of
decentralization
takes
place
either
by
decon-
centration
to
area
offices
of
administration
or
by
devolution
to
state
and
local
authorities.
There
are
substantial
variations
among
the
Third
World
countries
regarding
the
relative
role
of
area
administration
and
local
govern-
ment
institutions
in
the
provision
of
govern-
ment
services
at
the
grass-roots
level.
Wherever
local
governments
are
fully
elected
and
have
a
certain
degree
of
autonomy
they
are
likely
to
play a
predominant
role
in
local
planning
and
program
implementation.
Con-
versely,
weak
local
government
institutions
lead
to
increased
involvement
on
the
part
of
the
administrative
agencies
of
the
national
and
state
governments
in
the
provision
of
local
services.
The
form
of
decentralization
to
be
introduced
in
a
country
is
a
national
policy
issue,
which
depends
upon
factors
such
as
the
means
of
communication,
the
tradition
of
decentralization,
the
type
of
national
political
institutions,
and
the
homogeneity
of
the
population
(2).
District
Administration :
Historical
Legacy
The
largest
unit
in
the
indigenous
political
system
of
Malaya
was
the
State
(Negeri).
Each
state
was
under
a
ruler
who
bore
the
title
of
Yang
DiPertuan
(he
who
is
made
lord).
The
Ruler,
who
symbolized
the
unity
and
welfare
of
his
people,
was
to-- exercise
the
powers
of
his
kingdom
including
foreign
relations
(3).
The
unit
below
the
State
was
called
the
District
(Daerah).
Each
district
had
a
chief
who
belonged
to
the
ruling
class
and
was
appointed
by
the
Ruler.
His
responsibi-
lities
included
local
administration,
revenue
collection,
defence,
and
justice.
He
also
provided
leadership
in
the
area
of
his
control.
He
was
assisted
by
his
close
kinsmen
in
the
performance
of
his
tasks.
Below
the
district
was
the
smallest
unit,
the
village
(Kampong).
The
head
of the
village
(Penghulu)
served
as
a
communication
link
between
the
villagers
and
the
district
chief.
He
usually
belonged
to
the
subject
class
(the
rakyat).
The
village
was
primarily
a
social
and
economic
unit
based
on
close
kinship
and
economic
cooperation.
The
British
colonial
rulers
did
not
abolish
the
indigenous
political
system.
Instead,
they
superimposed
an
administrative
structure
which
was
designed
to
meet
the
needs
of
a
colonial
economy.
At
the
state
level,
a
Resident
or
Advisor
was
appointed
whose
responsibilities
included
advising
the
Sultan.
The
assumption
of
an
advisory
role
by
the
British
initiated
the
process
which
subsequently
led
to
administra-
tive
centralization.
As
was
the
case
in
the
other
British
colonies,
the
District
Officer
(D.O.)
was
appointed
at
the
district
level.
The
D.O.
under
the
British
was
responsible
for
the
performance
of
many
tasks
such
as
the
maintenance
of
law
and
order,
collection
of
revenue,
and
administration
of
justice.
For
the
purpose
of
extraction
of
natural
resources
and,
subsequently,
economic
develop-
ment
in
Malay
states,
the
British
embarked
upon
the
&dquo;
development
of
communication
and
transportation
networks,
the
creation
of
the
(1)
Emil
J.
Sady,
"
Improvement
of
Local
Govern-
ment
and
Administration
for
Development
Purposes
",
Journal
of
Local
Administration
Overseas,
Vol.
I
(July
1962),
p.
138.
(2)
Frank
P.
Sherwood,
"
Devolution
As
A
Problem
of
Organization
Strategy
"
in
Robert
T.
Dolland
(ed.),
Comparative
Urban
Research
(Beverly
Hills :
Sage
Publications,
1969),
pp.
60-87.
(3)
J.M.
Gullick,
Indigenous
Political
Systems
of
Western
Malaysia
(London :
Athlone
Press,
1969),
pp.
44-51.
To continue reading
Request your trial