An ongoing ‘little Napoleon’ drama

“LITTLE Napoleons” have been in the news in Malaysia for close to two decades now, and their blatant abuse of power still goes unchecked.

In 2006, then prime minister Datuk Seri (later Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi famously rebuked these civil servants who misuse their powers while hiding behind bureaucratic red tape.

He slammed them for having forgotten the meaning of “civil” and reminded them that they were actually “servants” of the people.

But little has changed. These mostly middle-category officers continue to snidely browbeat ordinary citizens and small business people.

And many of the decisions they make in utter contempt of democratic governance remain unreported in the media.

Over the past two months, I have been following one such case involving little Napoleons from a local council in Selangor and food stall owners operating in a 27-year-old food court.

I am not naming the place nor the local authority to protect the affected stallholders.

The licensed operators of the highly popular food court, comprising Malays, Chinese and Indians, are now suffering a significant drop in their incomes as a result of bizarre decisions made by the council’s officers.

Since 1998, the 21 stalls were licensed by the council to sell food and drinks. Most of the operators sold both. A wide range of fare – from rice dishes, noodles and nasi lemak to thosai and roti canai.

The place is usually packed during breakfast and lunch, with patrons comprising locals and workers from nearby offices.

Some of the stalls were also popular because they also served speciality drinks, such as the juice of the kedondong fruit (spondias dulcis, known as ambarella), a barley-based beverage, and an assortment of fresh fruit juices as well as desserts like cendol besides the standard teh tarik.

Inexplicably, they were issued with notices under the Local Government Act 1976 on Nov 8, 2024, stating that based on an inspection of the stalls, the health condition of the premises was unsatisfactory and did not meet requirements.

The operators were ordered to meet “the following requirements” within three days, failing which legal action would be taken.

The operators were shocked that the stipulated “requirements” had nothing to do with health-related matters. It simply stated that the licensee’s business must now be based on what is decided by the council.

They later found out the real reason for this: the council had imperiously ruled to give one stall the monopoly of selling drinks with the rest only allowed to sell food. No reason was given for the peremptory decision.

Following outrage from the stallholders and allegations of cronyism and political interference, another stall was also allowed to sell drinks.

But the damage was already done. One operator quoted a regular customer: “Why can’t I have my roti canai and teh tarik here, like I have been doing for years? Why should I have to order from one stall across the other side?”

Within days, business at the stalls dropped so badly that a few claimed that they could not even cover their costs of buying supplies.

Sixteen of the operators decided to appeal to Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Amirudin Shari and sent him a letter explaining their predicament. Copies were sent to the mayor, and the assembly representative of the constituency where the food court is located.

The council then called for a meeting on Jan 16, during which the angry operators questioned the decision. An assistant director told them that it was the law and that they had to abide by it.

Based on a voice recording made by one stallholder, the officer was heard saying arrogantly that anyone who disagreed could leave, adding that many were waiting in line to take their place.

She also warned them not to share their dissatisfaction over social media, warning them of “consequences”.

In response to another operator who highlighted his losses from the sales of his popular drinks at his stall, another officer present at the meeting said patrons could bring their own drinks, such as mineral water or canned beverages if they preferred not to buy from the two designated stalls.

“Which customer will bring his own drink to eat at my stall? They seem to be totally unreasonable and unconcerned over our plight. This is my only livelihood and I am afraid to lose my licence,” a long-time stallholder told me.

The drama is not quite over. There have been some overtures by one politically-connected person to organise another dialogue session with the stallholders.

They are not keen to do so, pending responses from the Mentri Besar or the mayor.

The operators recalled that two years ago, Amirudin called for the formation of a local government service commission to address the perennial issue of power abuse by little Napoleons.

Some of them also intend to extend their appeal to Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming.

Although most fear the repercussions of opposing these officers, there is also a plan to make a video with the recordings of the meeting and text messages to expose the officers if the status quo is not restored.

Four months ago, Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar listed little Napoleons as one of three significant obstacles standing in the way of improving the administration.

Stating that there are serious concerns about the integrity of public servants, he acknowledged that such people are still present in government organisations.

The other challenges he named was the entrenched mentality of public servants working in silos, the pervasive bureaucracy in some agencies, and the use of outdated, inefficient, and non-competitive methods in service delivery.

According to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), 408 civil servants were arrested for graft in 2024, compared with 318 in 2023.

Were little Napoleons among them? Alas, we can only wonder.

Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this view of Edmund Burke’s: The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.

The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.