Ombudsman agency could strengthen integrity in civil service

I REFER to the report “Misconduct in public agencies rising’” (The Star, Nov 30) on the number of misconduct cases involving workers in public agencies that were investigated by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) this year.

According to EAIC chairman Tan Sri Dr Ismail Bakar, the figure (50 as of October) was slightly higher than the 36 cases recorded in the same period last year.

He also clarified that corruption represents only one segment of the wider integrity issues involving government workers. EAIC oversees a broader spectrum of misconduct across enforcement agencies, including procedural violations and misuse of government resources, he said.

I fully support any stern action taken against rogue civil servants who commit malfeasance on their own volition, especially when the dereliction of duty is connected to crime syndicates and cartels. This is evident in recent cases such as the counter setting set-ups at the Immigration Department and the use of fake documents to issue birth certificates at the National Registration Department.

Unscrupulous civil servants who abuse their position and power to enrich themselves have lost the moral leadership to serve in the esteemed public service.

However, there is another act of the misconduct that may be committed by civil servants who are just following orders from top management – orders that violate standard operating procedure (SOP) and financial regulations.

In the hierarchical chain of command, civil servants would not dare disobey their superiors as it may be misconstrued as an act of defiance against the latter, and defiance may affect their performance appraisal and promotion opportunities.

Unfortunately, this fear has created a culture of blind obedience among civil servants, transforming them into obsequious employees who display unquestioning submission to the top management.

I encountered this problem in 2007 when I was posted to the Finance Division of the then Agriculture Ministry. One day, three of my officers rushed into my room to inform me that they had been instructed by top management to immediately pay 10% of an RM100mil fertiliser contract to the supplier. The contract agreement contained a provision stating that 10% of the total purchase cost could be paid upon signing the agreement.

The instruction posed a dilemma for us as it infringed our standard operating procedure and financial regulations. The problem was that even though the supplier had duly signed the contract agreement, it was still unenforceable since the minister had yet to sign it.

To protect the division from committing any act of financial impropriety arising from the decision that violated SOP, I instructed my officers to get a memo from top management to authorise the 10% payment. Fortunately, the memo was never issued and the act of financial infringement was averted.

This group of civil servants are the fall guys who are caught in a precarious situation when actions undertaken to obey instructions from top management may have unintended consequences.

An ombudsman agency could protect them by providing a platform to voice their dilemma. As such, I hope the proposed Malaysian Ombudsman Bill announced by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in a recent statement will be tabled in Parliament and passed as soon as possible.

DATUK WEE BENG EE

Tumpat