Public Service Reform: Priorities and Challenges

When discussing reform in public service, it’s crucial to differentiate between significant, high-impact reforms and continuous improvements to systems and processes, which I refer to as “housekeeping.” True reform addresses fundamental issues, while housekeeping focuses on making routine adjustments.

Theoretical vs. Practical Approaches to Reform

In proposing reforms, it’s essential to distinguish between two types of knowledge:

1. Theory: This helps explain what the problems are and why they exist. Understanding theory is crucial to diagnosing issues and setting visionary targets.

2. Practical Experience: This involves real-world solutions that have been implemented, based on experience and a proven track record.

Although I don’t have direct experience in government, my 38-year career in corporate sectors offers a valuable perspective on how services can be improved. We can look at public service reform from two different angles:

• From the service provider’s perspective: The civil servants who deliver the services.

• From the recipient’s perspective: The people or third parties who rely on government services. Often, third parties can offer clearer insights into the weaknesses of the system.

I propose reforms in four main areas:

1. Cultural Reform

2. Leadership Reform

3. Financial Reform

4. Service Reform

1. Cultural Reform

There are four distinct cultures within the public service sector that need to be understood and potentially reformed:

• Political Culture: A culture of competition and conflict, where the government is elected by the people, and ultimately, the people hold the power.

• Business Culture: The focus is on competition, with customers as the primary drivers of business, presenting opportunities rather than problems.

• Government Culture: The role of government is to implement policies set by political leaders for the people. When governments change, policies shift accordingly.

• Public Culture: This is particularly prevalent among Malays, where a “subsidy mindset” persists. Many believe that benefits are their right rather than their contribution, fostering a culture of dependency.

Understanding the cultures of all stakeholders, whether political, private, or public, is essential to reduce conflicts between politics, the private sector, public services, and the government. This mutual understanding is crucial for policymakers, planners, and service providers.

In particular, I want to emphasise the need to change the subsidy mindset, drawing from my personal experience. I grew up in an extremely poor family, my father passed away when I was a baby, and my mother and brother had to become settlers in Ulu Kelantan. For seven years, we survived without any income, relying entirely on our own efforts, without any government assistance.

I was independent from the age of 12, living in a village while attending an English school, funded by a lottery grant of RM15 a month. Despite hardships, I managed to get into the University of Malaya and eventually pursued professional studies at prestigious institutions abroad. My career spanned international companies, government-linked corporations (GLCs), and politics, with experiences in over 20 countries across five continents.

The moral of my story is simple: I didn’t rely on government scholarships or subsidies, just like many others from different ethnic backgrounds. I became a self-made man through independence and self-reliance. The message is clear, Malays must discard the subsidy mindset and the belief that the government owes them. This attitude weakens the community, stifling self-sufficiency and competitiveness. It is not just rhetoric, it is a reality I have lived through, and I have raised my children with the same mindset.

2. Leadership Reform

There are two types of leadership in both politics and government:

1. Individual Leadership: Focuses on personal leadership qualities.

2. Organisational Leadership: Centers on building a system or structure that drives success.

Success in any organisation, whether a political party or government agency, requires both types of leadership. Individual leadership is important, but without strong organisational leadership and systems, success will be limited. Unfortunately, the current political culture often glorifies individual leadership, rooted in feudalistic traditions. We need to promote open-mindedness, encourage freedom of expression, and recognise achievements from all levels, regardless of hierarchy.

3. Financial Reform

Financial reform should focus on two areas:

1. Civil Service Productivity

2. The efficiency and effectiveness of government spending

Currently, the salaries of civil servants do not differ significantly from their private sector counterparts. However, this can indicate low productivity and underemployment within the civil service. Increasing the number of employees without increasing productivity is a flawed approach. Instead, we should reduce employment levels while increasing productivity and wages, closing the gap with the private sector.

The reality is that low productivity in the civil service, particularly among Malays, has cost the community billions in lost wealth-building opportunities over the past six decades. This issue needs immediate attention.

Additionally, measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of government spending is much more challenging compared to the private sector. In business, profits reflect good financial management, but this is not as straightforward in government.

For example, I was able to fund my daughter’s education for four degrees, including ACCA, for RM100,000. In contrast, government agencies often spend RM600,000 or more to send a student overseas for a single degree, only for them to return with a loan of RM120,000 before even starting their career. These students do not necessarily outperform local graduates in terms of job prospects or salaries. No significant study has proven that overseas graduates are better, with perhaps the exception of top-tier students.

4. Public Service Reform

I’ve already mentioned the relationship between politics and government. It’s important to avoid conflict and understand the distinct roles they play. Politics cannot be dismissed as a waste of time; it has its functional purpose.

The key is the government’s service to the people, particularly the Malays who have fallen behind, as well as to the business community. In areas like land and the economy, we need a clear blueprint that outlines:

• Gaps in service

• Proactive actions from the government

• Specific timelines and roadmaps for achieving these targets

The KEB 24 plan must be detailed, particularly in initiatives to ensure it achieves its goals. While the private sector may be responsible for reaching these targets, the government should take an active role, acting as a co-owner invested in success. Proactive action and initiatives should be visible, with progress monitored monthly to ensure accountability and results.

In conclusion, public service reform is not just about tweaking processes, it’s about fundamentally rethinking the culture, leadership, finances, and service delivery to create a government that truly serves the people effectively and efficiently.