Higher standards demand better remuneration

THE important role played by our Ketua Masyarakat dan Ketua Kaum (KMKK), particularly village chiefs, in serving their communities deserves continued recognition and appreciation.

Over the years, I have written on several occasions about their growing responsibilities and the need to ensure that their remuneration reflects the duties and expectations placed upon them.

I have always believed that if we expect grassroots leaders to devote their time, energy and commitment to serving their communities, we must also ensure they are adequately supported and fairly compensated.

The Sarawak government’s decision to increase their monthly remuneration by RM400 beginning January this year was certainly a welcome move. 

It demonstrated recognition of their contributions and growing responsibilities. Nevertheless, I believe there is still room for improvement.

The recent announcement by Deputy Premier Datuk Amar Douglas Uggah Embas that the government is reviewing the eligibility criteria, selection process and tenure of KMKK is therefore timely and encouraging.

To me, this presents an opportunity to look beyond appointment procedures and consider how the institution can be further strengthened.

What kind of community leaders do we want for the future? And are we prepared to provide them with the remuneration, training and support needed to meet those expectations?

These questions, I believe, cannot be separated.

Uggah said the review would examine minimum qualifications, selection mechanisms, age requirements, retirement limits and whether those still employed should be eligible for appointment.

These are important considerations, especially as our communities become increasingly educated, informed and demanding.

However, I hope another equally important matter will receive due consideration: remuneration.

As things stand, I remain convinced that what many village chiefs receive does not adequately reflect their responsibilities.

A village chief today does much more than chairing village meetings, settling minor disputes or representing the community at official functions.

They have meetings to attend, government agencies and elected representatives to liaise with, documents to verify, complaints to address and community activities to coordinate.

Their responsibilities extend beyond official duties. In addition, they are expected at weddings, funerals, birthday celebrations, anniversaries and other community gatherings.

In many ways, their presence is not merely appreciated but expected. Such is the important place they occupy in the lives of the communities they serve.

Given the time, effort and personal sacrifices involved, one cannot help but ask: does their present remuneration truly reflect the responsibilities and expectations placed upon them?

Of course, community leadership has traditionally been rooted in voluntary service, personal sacrifice and a strong sense of duty.

But times have changed. Living costs have increased, administrative responsibilities have expanded and expectations have grown.

Many village chiefs continue working, farming or taking on part-time jobs to supplement their income. This is understandable. They, too, have families to support, bills to pay and financial commitments to fulfil.

Those receiving government pensions may be in a somewhat more comfortable financial position. But what about those without such security?

Can we reasonably expect someone to devote their fullest attention to community affairs while struggling to earn enough to support the family?

I am certainly not questioning their commitment. Far from it. Many continue serving diligently despite financial constraints, and that deserves recognition.

But we must also be realistic.

Financial pressure can affect how much time and attention a person can devote to the responsibilities entrusted to them.

That is why I believe remuneration deserves serious consideration in any effort to strengthen the KMKK institution.

At the same time, I believe appointment requirements should also be raised.

We need community leaders who communicate effectively, understand government policies and procedures, handle administrative matters competently and are comfortable using modern technology.

Even basic dealings with government departments increasingly involve smartphones, online applications, electronic documents and digital platforms.

Without these skills, a village chief may struggle to carry out certain responsibilities efficiently.

This does not mean those with limited formal education cannot become good leaders.

Indeed, we have many experienced and respected traditional leaders whose wisdom, customary knowledge and understanding of their communities are invaluable.

Academic qualifications should never be the sole measure of leadership ability.

Nevertheless, higher minimum educational requirements for future appointments deserve consideration, alongside relevant experience, customary knowledge and proven leadership ability.

Existing community leaders should also have opportunities to improve their skills through appropriate training.

After all, the objective is to raise standards, not unnecessarily exclude capable individuals.

I believe it would be beneficial to introduce structured training programmes for newly appointed KMKK to better equip them for their responsibilities.

Such programmes could cover leadership, administration, conflict resolution, community welfare, government procedures, digital literacy and, where relevant, customary laws and practices.

This is particularly important given Uggah’s reminder that community leaders must not merely preserve adat but understand its meaning and explain its relevance to younger generations.

That requires knowledge, patience and the ability to communicate across generations.

However, better qualifications and training must go hand in hand with better remuneration.

Otherwise, we risk imposing increasingly demanding requirements without providing sufficient incentives to attract capable individuals.

Why would a young professional or competent working-age individual consider taking up village leadership if the remuneration cannot adequately support basic household commitments?

We may eventually find these positions attracting mainly those who are financially secure or can afford to treat community leadership as a secondary responsibility.

There is certainly nothing wrong with appointing pensioners or individuals with other income sources. Many bring valuable experience, wisdom and maturity.

But the institution should also attract capable people from different backgrounds and age groups, ensuring continuity and nurturing future grassroots leaders.

Perhaps the government could also consider classifying certain KMKK positions, particularly those serving larger communities or carrying heavier responsibilities, as full-time roles with appropriate remuneration and benefits.

After all, villages differ in population, administrative demands and geographical challenges. A uniform arrangement may not always reflect the actual workload.

Naturally, better remuneration should come with clearer responsibilities and stronger accountability.

Community leaders must understand their responsibilities, while residents should have opportunities to assess their performance and provide feedback. Appointments should be based on suitability, integrity, competence and commitment.

The issue is not merely remuneration or academic qualifications, but the quality of grassroots leadership. Commitment alone cannot cover living costs, travel expenses and hours devoted to community service. Equally, higher pay without proper training and accountability will not guarantee better leadership.

The government’s review of the KMKK appointment framework should consider eligibility, tenure, retirement, training, support and fair compensation. Higher service standards require greater investment in those entrusted with serving communities.

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at [email protected].