Since 2004, premised upon a fraudulent action against me by a government company where I served, and the failure of many of my Public Service colleagues to stand up with me on truth matters, I started writing with Malaysiakini . My voice in all these writings was an argument for good governance, which I could not see being practiced; based on global standards of good, bad, right and wrong.

By then I had attended three public training programmes, all of them at the National Institute of Public Administration (Intan), and in every case I was supposed to have excelled in their evaluation system. I believe I was in the top three students each case. But, the reality of this, as reflected on the ground, was somehow less wholesome in practice. What do I mean?

Although I had moved up more than 100 places within my peer group based on the historicity of the original appointment list, I was somehow overlooked for promotion at many opportune moments for career advancement. While ‘lesser others’ moved forward to assume greater responsibilities, I appeared, to me at least, that I was being overlooked because of what I now call ‘kulitfication’; even though I did not lack in qualifications.

Therefore, this column is a reflective write-up of what I have learned after 32 years of public service and public life, and another 10 years, in greater public service life! I turn 65 this year.

Duality of life and practice

The first time I learned this lesson was when I was appointed as registrar of Intan. After I assumed my role, and sat on the hot seat of administrative, management and curricular challenges of ‘training for development’; the agenda of Intan.

There was a full scale organisation structure model of the entire staff strength of members with photographs and reporting lines. There were the academic staff and there were the administrative staffs.  Then, in less than six months, I had to review the past budget and to submit the next year’s budget.  

Lo and behold, I find an entirely different organisational structure submitted to the Public Services Department and the Finance Ministry. Finally, as I walked around the entire campus of Intan, inclusive of our new external campuses, I realised that the reality on the ground was even more different that either of the earlier two.

The more I reflect on life and reality, I realise that such duality of life is very well-practiced in Malaysian cultural and social, at all levels of society, and equally in all organisations which uphold faith and religion values. This new learning has shocked me the most, in the past few years.

Personal but public action

Too often in too many organisations, most people create an excuse for poor thinking; an illusion and a delusion of the lack of choice on their personal part, which then defines their purported action agenda. They therefore always conclude: I have no choice. Not true at all.

All of us as humans always have choices, even when it appears like we lack choices. Simply learn to think outside the box; the paradigm frame which we often lock ourselves within, because of past factors and an unquestioning mind. Challenge the existing paradigm and you learn to shift the paradigm of imprisoned thinking.

The difference is that when one transcends the existing paradigm, it is by definition a leadership challenge and call for a shift in the framing structure of thought and life. That choice is always risky and moving into unknown territory. Therefore, this is never an easy choice and it is always easier to get back into one’s cocoon and pretend and illusion of hopelessness.

Such cutting edge decision-making, or choice-making, is frightening  for the individual because it is always a personal but public choice. One is totally and completely accountable and responsible for that choice and all the full repercussions.

Integrity of public office

All public offices must have public accountability and responsibility of public officers. Therefore, it is perfectly okay for the MB of Selangor, in his campaign for the recent by elections, to ask the rhetorical question if the inspector-general of police (IGP) is a lackey of the federal government’s dominant partner, Umno.

The real question or issue at hand is the more important concern of all public servants; do they serve the public interest, and not just the interest of the government of the day. At Intan, we trained the Diplomatic and Administrative Service (PTD) officers (who form the core of all public policy makers) to remember that we are meant to be politically neutral; and have to serve any government of the day.

Therefore also, no senior public servant can belong to any political party, at least publicly and would not be seen to be attending any party events. There is a rumour that the IGP is an Umno member, after all it is now public knowledge that his brother is not only a member but also a branch chairperson and does business with the federal government on matters of security and defence.

It is not wonder then, why the public servants in Selangor did not make a police report about the ransacking, theft and destruction of all state documents from the incumbent menteri besar’s office. Neither am I aware that the police undertook any investigations; and even if they did, we did not hear anything.

It is interesting for me to note that the current incumbent IGP was actually the Selangor chief police officer (CPO) from 2007 to 2010. So, if the MB of Selangor asks the rhetorical question if the IGP is a lackey of Umno, it is a valid and good question.

Therefore, while the CPO of Penang has given the MB of Selangor one week to apologise for the remark or question; my question to the IGP himself is: what did you do when the office of the MB was ransacked when you were the CPO of Selangor?

Did the Selangor CPO conduct an investigation about public theft and the denial of the public interest, when the office of the MB was ransacked and all relevant documents were either stolen or destroyed? If not, why not? Is not the security of all public facilities part and parcel of the responsibility of the police?

I am especially concerned, as I argued in the previous column, if the IGP does not take seriously what is the defined role and responsibility under the Police Act and instead seeks to safeguard unqualified jobs.

Part I: Systemic Integrity

Part II: Private dimension of public roles