NOV 21 — Walk into a crowded Bangsar coffee shop on a Sunday. Read out these names:

Maimunah Mohd Sharif, Kamarulzaman Mat Salleh, Mahadi Che Ngah, Nor Hisham Ahmad Dahlan and Mohd Amin Nordin Abdul Aziz.

Then ask, who are they?

A miracle if anyone chimes in, "So obvious, dude, it’s the last five Kuala Lumpur mayors.”

Verily, you can hand the keys to the city to the genius who offers the answer.

My impudence extends as far as to suggest these coffee drinkers through this exercise are shocked to learn the city has a mayor.

After all, it’s probably the only major city in the world inside a democracy without an elected mayor, ever. Put that in the Malaysian Book of Records.

Nothing particular against the five names, they are probably high-functioning civil-servants to have risen through the ranks. But that’s exactly it, they are civil servants. They report to politicians and not Kuala Lumpur residents — from Kampung Pandan to Keramat.

KL needs an elected mayor, through a direct vote by residents. It’s 70 years overdue.

What’s its history?

The city is new. A British trade outpost since the 1870s turned into a city.

City municipality did invite community representatives but as part and not to govern (executive). The 1952 Local Council Elections, a precursor to independence, elected councillors but not the mayor.

Post-May 13, the city of Kuala Lumpur was removed from Selangor and became our first federal territory governed by the federal government directly. Representatives were nominated since local council elections were already nixed in 1965.

Kuala Lumpur, in summary, graduated to elected legislators only to relegate back to appointees, while civil servants always acted as executives.

Kuala Lumpur, my city, thrived despite never holding its own destiny. It has, as always, worked around the absence of democratic representation in decision making.

Objections, forever

Whenever talk is about voting a mayor directly, two incredulous counter-arguments are laid as barriers.

Elections cost money, it is better to spend the money in other ways. Yes, surely, of course, but the residents are not involved in the spending of the money in all the other fabulous ways since it is done behind closed doors involving a federal territory minister, civil servants and token city representatives unknown to all and sundry.

Done in secret, done bureaucratically.

To alter that, to stop decisions in the shadows, Kuala Lumpur folks should be thrilled to pay a pittance to ensure they have control over the rest of the city’s coffers.

The other, why have elections if those in charge are already excellent?

First, many likely contest the claim, but more importantly opposing local councils on the principle of bureaucratic splendour is consistent to argue against all elections. Arguments which extended logically arrive at the proposition to end democracy all together in Malaysia.

Priorities

The dangers of appointee mayors are myriad.

Appointed Kuala Lumpur mayors serve at the pleasure of the federal territories minister. If the minister is displeased then the mayor is dispatched to another government job. Which then forces each mayor to think of the minister before Kuala Lumpur residents.

One minister can ship him out. Meanwhile, two million residents at best can only make faces at the mayor, really ugly faces on street corners. Then go home and suck it up.

Imagine that.

With meetings and decision-making processes opaque, residents are considerably at a disadvantage compared to businessmen like developers who have the incentive to leverage their commercial resources to navigate their engagements.

One more mall right next to the last almost empty one. Replace mall with condominium or gated community and it is still reads the same.

Parks and playing fields are more about actual residents rather than bureaucrats and businesses, therefore they fall behind in the queue. What’s the revenue stream of a park, they ask?

Cities around the world are constrained by income. Whether New York City with 51 councillors, or Seoul Metropolitan Council with 112 councillors, they decide what is best for them. Good decisions along with bad decisions, but all decisions through the say of the people.

The constraints force cities to choose what is best for them, according to their values, their priorities. Also, according to its economic priorities.

Pressing time

As with the loss of various subsidies, a time where people pay for services rather than expect federal grants to cover costs is upon Malaysians. KL pays more than its share and aids states like Kedah, Kelantan and Perlis. It will continue to do so, perhaps to its own detriment.

Putrajaya probably asks KL residents to cough up more than reroute monies to the capital. At a time, costs like waste management are set to rise.

Further on the horizon, a huge quantum for long term expenditure on city flood adaptation.

As in any society, taxation without representation is cruel, on top of being untenable.

The Unity Government can lead on the matter rather than wait for the change to be forced upon them. To schedule stage by stage democratisation of the capital, so when it has to pay for itself more it has the autonomy to go along with the burden.

The wrong game

While debates of whether Sutan Puasa or Yap Ah Loy founded Kuala Lumpur continue in affluent cafes till the end of days, it is impossible to separate the growth of Kuala Lumpur and its current vibrancy from the Chinese community.

Even while the city’s ethnic Chinese population dwindled to below half, there is more than a good chance a lot of KL people might prefer a Malaysian with the wrong name to be mayor, in a direct election.

And there lies the most divisive of issues in the maturing of Malaysian society. For all Malaysian names by now should be just names. It’s their actions which determine whether they are wrong or right, the name purely coincidental.

It’s almost like all the possible benefits of not a civil servant running the capital are squashed by the existential fear of a Chinese surname.

By KLCC’s fountains

Every holiday, city dwellers — of all colours — gripe about migrant workers picnicking in the city. Enjoying the sunlight and the good times.

The locals shout aloud in social media about how their city is taken over by outsiders. I hate to shatter the illusion but the city has never been owned by its residents.

Outsiders are the only ones who have ever run it. Except the outsiders in this instance have Malaysian passports.

By the way, remember any of the mayors’ names – the ones read out at the start of this column?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.