Good public service depends on three Rs, according to my theory of Good Public Administration. These are: doing the Right things, in the Right way and with the Right attitude or political intent.

Exactly 365 days ago today, I was in Parliament before the special committee on integrity to \”whistle-blow\” on seven \”infringements\” against \”this theory of mine\” wherein the public services departments or agencies I had worked in were guilty of \”poor public services delivery\” measured against good public administration.

In this article, I will whistle-blow another case study wherein I \”publicly protested a political abuse, while part of the management of Mimos Bhd; but wherein no visible action was obviously taken by the management.\” The same matter is however within public service scrutiny now and fully within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance; the ultimate custodian of all public assets in this country.

The New Straits Times (NST) highlighted that Jaring Sdn Bhd is now a Ministry of Finance Incorporated company since Dec 31, 2006 with the Board of Mimos Bhd (a wholly owned government R&D company) \”approving the transfer to Ministry of Finance.\” I presume this was done with the approval of the Cabinet or at least backed by a Cabinet decision.

Theory R

What is good public service delivery issue here? Public service delivery is the efficient and effective delivery of \”public goods and services\” to the citizens and customers, or beneficiaries, with maximum satisfaction and ease of access. Theory R defines the complete knowledge process rules for such a delivery. Let me clarify. First, the department or agency responsible must know the \”right things\” to do. This, in management literature, is often called Leadership\’s Goal and Role Clarity. If leadership does not have such clarity, there is a great risk of \”the lack of real leadership integrity.\”

All government departments and agencies are set up under some particular rule of law and therefore have \”guiding rules and regulations to define this \”right thing to do.\” I call this the public policy intent and jurisdiction as provided under the law. Be aware that these laws must be nevertheless be consistent with the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of this nation and which defines our constitution as a nation.

Second, the federal department rules and regulations and the subsidiary state rules and regulations (except otherwise explicitly provided for by the constitution, like on matters related to land or religion) all have a specified and specific \”due process of governance.\” This therefore becomes the focus of doing it \”the right way.\” For example, there is a very clear process for \”the disposal of any public assets or inventory.\” All government officers in the Administrative and Diplomatic Service (or the PTD) are taught this in their very first compulsory course at Intan. Therefore, there is no need for very creative imagination about \”how\” Jaring Sdn Bhd should be \”disposed or transferred,\” as a public asset. The rules and regulations are there for those who have eyes and ears to observe! Just follow them. Maybe, there is a need to be creative in \”how fast the process of approval is done once the right decision is made,\” but surely \”due process of making the right decision\” is equally important for good governance! Why? Simply, it is because these are not private property but public assets and therefore belong to all Malaysians.

Finally, all such efficient and effective delivery of public goods and services must seek to fulfill the right attitude, or policy intent! For instance, when the former minister of finance announced the \”Budget Policy Speech\” at the Parliament in 2003, one of the sentences of the speech related to such a \”public policy pronouncement to dispose off Jaring to TM Net Sdn Bhd.\” Although this was a budget speech and therefore had the Cabinet\’s full approval, obviously the apparent \”legitimacy of the former minister of finance to make such a selective decision is questionable.\”

For that matter, I understand that in that same year there were seven instances of \”non-public intent or private intent\” sentences which were \”inserted into the public policy speech without the full awareness or knowledge of the then minister of finance.\” And, such a public disposal of Jaring was one of those sentences! For those who do not know, in the old Ministry of Finance building, from about three months before the Budget Speech, access to the 10th Floor and upwards is denied to all without special approval.

Backdoor policy

In short only \”authorised people could enter and thus even seek or attempt to make these unapproved seven new policy insertions.\” Consequently, within a meeting of the management of Mimos after the Budget Speech, I tabled an internal paper in which I protested that I would be forced to \”make a police report if such a \’backdoor piratisation policy\’ sale was in fact effected.\” My argument was simple: \”How can we dispose a Malaysian public asset to another public listed company owned by foreigners and others through the backdoor of public policy.\” The results of my protest and the rest of the matter are now history.

Therefore let me publicly congratulate the Abdullah government and especially the chief secretary for this excellent new initiative of \”Pemudah.\” It demonstrates strong political will to change and improve due processes of public services delivery. Six months is a lot of time if the political will is strong. Such attempts at \”renewing or re-energising the public services delivery is however not new.\” Some in the past have been done very well and in a sustainable way. I remember one significant programme which has the signature of the current prime minister, when he was a minister in the Prime Minister\’s Department.

It was in 1982. One night, I received an urgent call from Dr Shahari Ahmad Jabbar, my boss and former director of Intan. \”Please call an urgent meeting of our senior officers and can we meet at my house at 8.30pm.\” As the registrar and trained in the RMC, I could not say anything else except, \”Yes Sir.\” So, at 8.30pm in the boss\’s home the who\’s who of Intan were there.

We were told that Intan had been assigned the role of \”idea generator\” for a crazy new idea called a \”one stop payment center.\” Pak Lah had seen the GIRO system in Singapore and wanted to know why it could not be done in Malaysia. He was then the chairman of \”the modernisation and development administration committee\” in the Prime Minister\’s Department of Mampu.

The deputy chief of JPA was the deputy chairman and many other relevant key departments were members. I heard that Pak Lah \”constructed this special team of PhDs as his own private think-tank.\” Only one in the team had no PhD. After the full evaluation and an attempt to convince the minister that \”it cannot be done,\” the then minister turned to the Intan director and said, \”Doc, I am sure you have many good and bright people who can think up a solution.\” We were therefore directed to come up with a solution in three months. The very next week, the minister informed the then PM that a one-stop payment center can be launched in October to improve the public service delivery. The project was later in fact launched on Oct 1, 1982, three months after that infamous night meeting. Again, the rest is now history.

Political will

In hindsight what was it that made the civil service leaders who gave \”100 reasons why it cannot be done\” to actually roll-out the solution in three months, which until today is probably the most basic but best public service delivery model ever developed in Malaysia? My answer: political will and not just skill, strategy or even technology! In fact, that entire solution was all paper-based and involved the minimal technology, even at that point in time.

Therefore, as the new task force on public services delivery meets next week, I have only some free advice so that they can also entice the political will to effect change. First, the problem analysis is 80% of the solution. My advice is that the task force should avoid \”focusing merely on operation issues and problems\” which are well known and obvious. Their analysis should be strategic and critical. Change masters would advice that the design elements must be both radical and fundamental to bring about real revolutionary service changes. For instance, in the case of the one-stop payment centres, the most radical and revolutionary change was in \”breaking the problem into its two constituent service demands.\”

The creativity was in breaking the problem into what was then called, \”in the front of the counter service demands\” and \”behind the counter service delivery problems.\” The first focused on \”public demand for quality services\” and the latter focused on the \”operational issues and problems related to delivery of service levels.\” The former was of interest to the politicians and the public whereas the latter was too often the domain of the focus of the public servants.

In that experience of service excellence, this problem analysis gave the break through on the one-stop payment services delivery. Until today, the post office continues to provide such services to the public. It was an excellent public services delivery innovation. Such a strategic analysis will also reveal why, for instance, certain counter services have inordinate delays in the services levels even though their client service charters make very different promises. Among the radical new ways that may therefore need to be considered are:

Which service delivery can be privatised without any compromise to the public without any diminution of value of the good

Which services can be fully automated especially using the electronic or the mobile solutions available today

Which services can be simply improved by \”letting the managers manage\” by simple delegation of both authority and responsibility with accountability.

In my view also there should be a fundamental change in attitude of the public services towards \”their public services delivery.\” In the old days, there was a warning sign at most government offices which read, \” jangan masuk tanpa urusan rasmi .\” Do not enter unless you have an official matter! That was a frightening warning to most ordinary citizens as they had to decide whether the purpose was official or not. On the other hand, if one takes a different attitude, \” sila masuk jika ada urusan rasmi ,\” it is rather easy to view every citizen as a legitimate \”customer\” for whom the public services exists to deliver public goods for which they are paying taxes.

Therefore, as the task force meets to consider their new assignment and a strategy to resolve their recommendations within six months, I wish them all the best and please keep focused on the mission at hand.