On Feb 3, the National Congress on Integrity (NCOI) will organise its 4th dialogue on the issue of federal accountability and local governance.

The two keynote speakers are Public Accounts Committee chairperson Shahrir Abdul Samad and former Bar Council president Dr Cyrus Das.

The core issue will relate to jurisdictional authority for right governance under the federal system of governance, which has designated the cabinet as the chief executive of government.

The recent transfer of a local council president within 24 hours by the Selangor Menteri Besar (MB) raises this very question of jurisdictional authority for proper and due process of governance at state and local government.

Both the New Straits Times (NST) and The Sun reported the news, imputing that the MB had directed the transfer for valid and justifiable reasons. While I really appreciate the MB\’s sudden concern for \”apparent anti-corruption issues\”, my questions centre on issues of due process related to the Federal Constitution and \”abuse of jurisdictional authority by many authorities\” especially at the local level.

\"\"

Therefore, my question to both the Selangor government and federal Public Services Department is: on what authority can the MB \’transfer\’ a federal officer with 24 hours notice?

To the best of my knowledge, only the Sultan or the King has such authority to issue a persona non grata order. Under such a legal/diplomatic requirement, any sovereign state can require a visitor to leave without any reason being given.

But in this case, it is not the Sultan (who is theoretically above politics) but the MB who is a politician in the ruling coalition. Does this also mean that the Kelantan MB can also transfer federal officers out of the state within 24 hours because of some partisan reason, or if the Chief Minister (CM) of Sabah or Sarawak can do the same with a federal immigration officer?

Elements in definition

This issue brings to the forefront of our consciousness three popular words which do not appear to have been fully understood by most and, worse, by the federal authorities with relevant jurisdiction and due responsibility for action and inaction.

The words are: integrity, accountability and responsibility. Newly-appointed Chief Secretary Mohd Sidek Hassan recently told civil servants to shape up or ship out.

While I agree with the dictum – applied by highly effective organisations for performance evaluation and, more so, for the public service – due process must be followed before \’an officer of the King\’ is removed or disciplined. It cannot simply be that the MB wakes up one day and decides that enough is enough.

Let me therefore first define what the three words mean for the public services. Integrity is the requirement to seek full congruence between the public policy intent on a matter, the articulated clients\’ charter and the appropriate executive action.

In doing so, the officer has to be accountable to both the government (a political responsibility) and rule of law (the legal authority), as per the constitution and related laws.

\"\"

The \’rule of law\’ principle is what makes the constitution the supreme authority in our federation. The gazetted federal officer\’s responsibility and limits of authority are defined by the law, together with the discretions allowed by the same law, in each case.

In the Selangor case, the purported reason was transfer within 24 hours was that the officer\’s explanation about approval of a licence \”did not satisfy the MB\”. The NST report quoted the MB as saying: \”He only sent in a normal report. We found out that he had extended the licences by six months.\”

Was this what the chief secretary meant by \”shape up or ship out\”? I don\’t think so! In fact, on Jan 17, the NST highlighted another ultimatum by the chief secretary to all secretaries and directors-general to review 585 cases of alleged corruption involving civil servants between 2002 and 2006. The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has recommended disciplinary action against those implicated. The chief secretary has given all heads six months to act against these persons, or face action themselves.

\”If they fail to act, their superiors or the chief secretary will instead take action against them,\” Azman Amin Hassan, the director-general of the National and Unity and Integration Department, reportedly said in explaining the new directive.

In an interview with the NST on Nov 5 last year, the chief secretary defined integrity as \”being trustworthy… It is not limited to not taking bribes or being corrupt. It is about doing a job that is given to you, and doing it to the best of your ability even if there is nobody to supervise you.\”

His definition included the three elements of integrity, accountability and related responsibility within the limits of law.

Discriminatory practice

My point is that even the chief secretary will not ignore or disregard the maxim in the rule of law, that every person is innocent until proven guilty by law. It is reasonable and correct for the ACA to request action against the culprits if it has exhausted the evidence-gathering process, but has to request that action follows due process of the Administrative Rule Book on Discipline because there is insufficient evidence to charge the culprits in court.

But my deeper concern is when the political system which already appears to be very corrupt acts indiscriminately against a federal officer who is not even under the MB\’s jurisdiction. As highlighted in my last article, what appears politically correct today may not be politically correct tomorrow.

Therefore, holding the council president responsible is tantamount to the MB absolving himself of responsibility even before CID chief Christopher Wan acts on the matter. Didn\’t the MB and his political appointees and agents of state governance see or hear the problem to date? How did this become a problem overnight?

Maybe it is time to understand and review the real issues and problems that have bred this \’close-one-eye culture\’. Maybe this is really a problem with leadership integrity at state level and not a problem of one local council and one president.

\"\"

I have raised this issue before in relation to the promotion of the MPSJ president soon after he sought to implement an improper policy on pest control services. Dear MB, your action then was wrong in the eyes of citizens, Instead of demoting the person, you promoted him as the chief financial officer for the state. How come? My questions relate to integrity, accountability and responsibility with regards your administration of the state government.

What shocks me is the MB\’s sudden attempt to come clean through an \’anti-corruption campaign\’. That appears uncharacteristic of his actions to date. To me, the lack of integrity in Selangor is at the level of policy intent (or integrity) and the obvious gap between the espoused theory (accountability) and the theory in use (responsibility).

Unless the MB is very serious about these three core words and related issues, and understands fully the legal nuances of what he has done wrong, I would rather give the benefit to the council president and declare him innocent until proven guilty by law and with due process. Trial and conviction by media is a form of defamation of his character and the dignity of his personhood.

While the MB appears to be doing the right thing for a change, I am as concerned as Citizen Nades that his actions are not really in the public interest. I would rather see the MB making a clear policy pronouncement about bribery and corruption than trying out a politically-correct attitude on corruption within local authorities.

My advice to the MB is to take time off his busy schedule to attend the 4th NCOI and learn about what the Federal Constitution says about federal accountability and local governance. Hope to see you, Sir, on Feb 3 at the UCSI main campus.