Can Malaysia, as a nation-state, both have integrity and lose integrity, at one and the same time? And does that simply mean losing only our credibility and reputation as a stable and fair multi-ethnic nation-state, or does it mean much more than that?

My research would suggest that while the brand, ‘Malaysia,’ can have reputation and lose credibility in terms of global perceptions of us; the people of Malaysia, who make up this nation-state, can lose her integrity, and the full meaning of her integrity, as defined by how the rakyat is governed.

Good governance is a state of affairs when all citizens are treated equally and fairly; and such that their rights, privileges, and responsibilities are equally shared by all others, including visitors. Our institutions of good governance must ensure all of the above.

Integrity as Malaysians

The Malaysian passport-holder carries good vibes in much of the world today. That credibility gives us almost unhindered access to most countries, without too much hassle.  That also makes our nation-state, as brand ‘Malaysia truly Asia’, also a credible and reputable tourist destination.

But, my critical mind asks another set of different questions: “Do our institutions of governance in Malaysia have integrity and credibility between their espoused theories and their theories-in-use?”

At the highest of levels, we have an elected federal government authorised to govern under the federal constitution as the supreme law of this land. The constitution also defines the nature of all institutions; our democracy, monarchy, and our systems of the rule of law, including Islamic law.

That same government of the day is provided with a mixture of governance tools or institutions with potent power and legitimate authority for the practice of good governance in our nation-state. But these are historically defined in both space and time, and have been declared secular as repeatedly established by case-law precedence. So, why is there so much confusion today among our esteemed institutions?

Let me list the many good governance institutions in Malaysia as we are all aware:

  • The institution of the federal constitution and all the background work related to the Cobbold and Reid Commissions and all other related Federalist Papers leading to 1957 and 1963; which gives and empowers for the functioning, and defined the limits of all related governing institutions.
  • The institution of the Conference of Rulers, as  created by the constitution; its culture, protocols and history of the rotational nature of the brother rulers in ensuring constitutional governance by our monarchy. Each Malay state has its own protocol for their sultanate system.
  • The institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or YDPA, or the Malaysian king; which is a rotational appointment  every once in five years when the brother rulers take turns to provide leadership to the nation-state, as defined by the constitutional provisions. New limits have also been placed here, too.
  • The institution of the legislature, or the Parliament of Malaysia, made up of both houses and the new royal assent system for law-making. This is the highest law-making body and they cannot make any laws which are not already provided for by the federal constitution.
  • The institution of Malaysian recorded history. This is a living and oral appreciation of our past as commonly understood but fully captured by the hearts and minds of the of more than one generation of peoples living in this land. They define interpretation of these factual and grounded historical facts. Each group has its version of history.
  • The institution of states at two levels: the three legal states of the Malaysian Federation, i.e. Sabah, Sarawak, and peninsular Malaya, and the smaller constituent Malay states of the peninsula plus the two Straits Settlements of British Malaya.
  • The institution of sultans and their mode of conduct as heads of respective Malay states.
  • The institution of the Executive as most obviously represented by the cabinet at the federal and all the cabinets of states. All related public service functions report to the chief secretary of respective state heads for executive authority; whether for criminal, or civil, or religious jurisdictions.
  • The institution of the Judiciary, our system for administration of justice and the entire protocol of federal civil and criminal jurisdiction of and for Malaysia’s continued existence; including the religious domains of state governance, as currently defined and constrained by the constitution and case-law.
  • The institution of the chief public prosecutor, as the attorney-general, and the auditor-general, or the Public Services Department director-general, and all related systems for administrative law compliance.
  • The institutions of royal and statutory commissions for all defined oversight responsibilities. These institutions are usually off-budget and financed from the royal purse.

Do we have institutional integrity of good governance?

After our 50th anniversary reunion which genuinely rekindled our spirits as Enam Lima Puteras, or Elputeras of the Royal Military College (RMC); we now have various Whatsapp groups as do all Malaysians with smartphones.

Strangely though, in our family or fraternity dialogue, when I made the public statement that most of our governing institutions are corrupted and somewhat decayed for the challenges of tomorrow; there were accusations of over-generalisation!

This column is therefore my rebuttal, as the 26 word limit text is not the right platform to consider such weighty matters. In fact after my more than 500 columns in Malaysiakini over the last 10 years, it is almost my full documentation of this phenomenon. The real problem is that my classmates have not kept up with the reading habits, as they are more interested in lesser matters.

Sorry guys; but, our future needs to be defined for this nation of ours, and our grandchildren.

My prayer for Malaysia therefore is: that the new president of our Integrity Institute will then set up an entire division for reviewing institutional integrity of all our public institutions in Malaysia. “ Kebanyakan cakap tak serupa bikin .”

To evaluate institutional integrity of most public institutions is not a difficult task. Most of them have a published service level agreement about the services they offer to the Malaysian public or rakyat. The rakyat has a right then to receive that prescribed level of service, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

When the leadership of these institutions cannot deliver the requisite level of service promised and to the quality and expectations of the rakyat; that system or institution lacks credibility, and therefore integrity as well. May God bless Malaysia with such institutional integrity for good governance.