This week can be considered Integrity Week in Malaysia. I am aware that a number of activities, both global and local related to integrity are being launched this week. The highlight will be the National Integrity Day being commemorated by the Institute of Integrity Malaysia on Nov 5, 2006.

In recognition of this major agenda of the Pak Lah Administration, I would like to use this column to reflect on the core issues related to integrity in Malaysia or rather how we can improve systems-level integrity within the public services of Malaysia. This column is dedicated to the Integrity Institute of Malaysia or IIM; the custodian of our concept and driver of the integrity agenda in Malaysia.

The Pak Lah Administration made integrity a cornerstone of governance of the nation. To that extend he has probably set himself up to a very much higher standard of measure than any or all our former Prime Ministers; with maybe the exception of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his national unity agenda.

Integrity is the softest of measures in terms of national development; it is almost an inclusive and integrated measure of the uprightness and trustworthiness of an organization in terms of its objectives and its maturity process in services delivery.

Most of the time however, as was made visible in Selangor, the so-called developed state, our conceptual understanding of this organizational development is rather skewed and reduced to only the material and physical aspects of life.

And therefore, for example, in Selangor the more popular measure of \”development\” appears to be the fact the councilor can build a Hollywood-like mansion modeling \”the rich and famous,\” even if disregarding the rules and laws or regulations.

The MB now even admits that there are \”thousands of illegal factories\” in the state. That much said for the rule of law and organizational integrity in Selangor.

PM\’s philosophy

Selangor may therefore be the most \”developed\” in physical terms but may also be the most morally decadent in terms of integrity or the uprightness of the organizational system!

The physical must never become the only measure of development. The non-physical and non-material should also become an important measure; if not one of the most important measures of integrity.

To do so, we need input measures, process measures and output measures, and finally outcome measures to really ascertain organizational integrity.

\"\"

This is what I believe Pak Lah has called the \”software of development\” or what he has otherwise defined as \”first world culture.\” In a first world culture, rules and regulations prevail and systems and procedures work, regardless of the specific consideration of each of the unique applicants.

Even if the applicant is a 40 year old Umno veteran, he will not be allowed to ignore the rules and regulations. That is first world culture.

The United States is probably the best example of this kind of egalitarianism before the law. Even the President of the US can be summoned before the Congress or the courts, if and when necessary. Not in Malaysia; some people appear to be always above the law! Our Lady of Justice is sadly not very blind.

This aspiration for integrity was made nationally popular by this government but sadly needs a clearer definition and translation for better appreciation and understanding especially among government servants and ordinary citizens. The PM has in deed taken three very distinct steps and actions to prioritize \”his integrity agenda\” in Malaysia.

First, he declared that parliament as the seat of political power which must regain her honour and dignity. Some very clear and specific actions have been made in this direction, and the foremost of which is the setting up of the Parliamentary Special Committee on Integrity which was given a two-year work mandate to get feedback and make recommendations to the executive on this core issue of integrity in Malaysia.

Secondly, the government set up the Institute of Integrity Malaysia with the launching of the National Integrity Plan. Within the NIP are action plans which contain \”translateable ideas for all segments of society.\”

I believe that the new and simplified booklet to be launched by the PM on Thursday will make the NIP even simpler for the man on the street to understand.

Finally, to me, the PM\’s biggest and most solid contribution has been the \”work with me and not for me philosophy\”.

Selective law enforcement

What the PM asked and requested for all Malaysians was to \”trust him\” and to collaborate with him to deliver on his promises. I believe that the people and the media have responded fairly well to date; but the real question is whether the public service has delivered on the PM\’s promises of integrity through transparency in terms of service delivery?

The concept of integrity has both a personal and organizational dimension.

The dictionary defines the personal dimension of integrity as \”the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty and sincerity.\” Most ordinary people can recognize dishonesty the instant they see it or experience it!

It is an obvious and perceived gap between the espoused theory related to the actor and the theory-in-use. Let me illustrate this point again with the now very popular case of the Klang councilor who had not submitted building and development plans.

The real integrity gap was not known earlier because \”everyone assumed that he had obtained the requisite permissions.\” But, the moment the media photographed the mansion and declared that there were no building plans submitted, the integrity of the councilor became an issue.

Transparency was established. But thereby, the integrity of the leadership of the state and that of the council also became an issue. Questions arise, why did those entrusted to \”oversee the enforcement of the due legal processes in the state and local authority overlook it until the media picked it up?\”

Be it the MB of the state or the president of the council or the council members themselves, or even all officers with the responsibility for oversight of the function. Why did they not \”see any wrong?\”

Why did they selectively \”see wrong only\” with the ordinary law-breakers but not \”see it\” with three of their own councilors? That is precisely the \”third world culture and mentality\” that Pak Lah wants to get rid of.

Such a perspective of \”selective law enforcement\” runs foul of every thing related to a first world culture of public service.

It is skewed and does not take a systemic view of life, but rather reverts to the feudalistic model wherein there are \”some who are perceived to be above the law.\” Such organizations lack integrity as well in their day to day operations.

In fact, the new Chief Secretary alluded to this in his Sunday interview in the New Straits Times . He said, \”Integrity can be defined being trustworthy. It is not limited to not taking bribes or being corrupt. It is about doing the job given to you and doing it to the best of your ability even if nobody is there to supervise you.\”

Can the Klang council president or the MB please address the Chief Secretary\’s issue?

How then can the Chief Secretary help the PM and the Government translate this integrity agenda to the level of all organisational systems? I believe that the Chief Secretary must help the leadership of public organisations translate the concept into reality.

First, the leaders themselves must have unquestionable integrity, then they must apply this leadership integrity to enforce due processes of laws and procedures; without any fear or favor. Such systemic integrity is what appears to be lacking today.

Obviously the government has already in place many rules and procedures to do things properly. But, why are these being denied or overlooked? Usually the rot starts with leadership which has comprised or succumbed to \”the compliance culture.\”

In the leadership literature this is called \”political correctness syndrome\”. We have too may compliant public servants who are more servant-like than civil about their attitudes and service. Often the public interest is set aside for other sectarian reasons or self-interest.

Good place to start

There will never be organisational integrity unless there is leadership integrity. In the specific case of Singapore, their march towards \”systems-level integrity\’ was directly related to a leadership commitment: to establish a clean, efficient and trustworthy government from more than 30 years ago.

Today, they stand out as a leader and global model for integrity. Achieving systems-level integrity takes time and undivided leadership commitment.

\"\"

It will take a generation of new leaders learning that \”lack of integrity does not pay,\” as the Klang councilor has recently found out. But, that is only one isolated incident that made it to the newspapers.

I hope that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government can please undertake a survey to find out how many such cases of abuse of power and authority have taken place throughout the nation of 145 local authorities; and then we will know the extent of the real problem of public organizational integrity at the level of local governance.

Pak Lah\’s government and the focus on integrity is a good place to start to clean up our national act. But, such an effort requires all players and actors to be clean and have clear and transparent motives. As it is said, the fish rots from the head.

Therefore, with due respects to the Umno constitution and the internal arrangements for corruption monitoring, I find it untenable that the Supreme Council found nothing wrong with Klang councilman and only required him to resign from his official post.

Are we really saying that he did nothing wrong from the Umno\’s point of view? Are we then saying that he is still a good example of the type of leaders for Umno leadership? What then is Umno\’s definition of integrity?

Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz, the de-facto law minister, was quoted as saying that Umno members are not liable to be charged for corruption under the ACA rules. On the other hand we also have the another Umno councilor who \”honorably resigned as he genuinely saw his mistake\”. That is trustworthiness, I think.

Which values are we really promoting and propagating? Under the Islam Hadhari philosophy, which leadership model is really consistent with core Islamic values?

I am genuinely confused and would like a rational explanation. Maybe the Ikim Director General can help me clarify the real and key issues in this case and advice how we can move towards systems-level integrity.

Therefore, while the PM proposes and pushes his \”espoused agenda of integrity,\” and whereas such an agenda is always only effective in the longer term, the Chief Secretary must seriously review \”the current lack of personal accountability\” at the level all public servants.

Dismissing political obedience

The \”Saya yang menurut perintah\” may not be valid anymore. If public servants only \”obedient servants of misguided political leaders,\” they clearly absolve themselves of the sense of accountability and responsibility for good governance of the laws and regulations in place.

Moreover, to appreciate the historical background from the British system of governance, the \”obedient servants\” were also servants of the King and of the public interest; and not just the political leadership of the nation.

In our case, the president of the local council for Klang obviously made \”political obedience\” very obvious by appearing that he actually had no authority to act against wrong doers.

That is not \”trustworthy\” at all.

The law empowers him to act against all law-breakers, and that he must do it without fear or favor if we really want to become a first world culture; and especially so to maintain his leadership of organisational integrity.

Otherwise, as a country, we must remain satisfied being \”excited\” whenever merely better than Indonesia, India or China or Thailand on some integrity score!

Let us not talk about any of the more developed countries, or even Singapore or Hong Kong for that matter!