Empirical Assessment of Good Governance in the Public Sector of Malaysia

Abstract

IntroductionThe transformation of Malaysia from a developing country to a developed one is ongoing. Only four years to go before 2020, the year when Malaysia is targeted to become a fully developed nation. Vision 2020 is a program that encourages Malaysia to develop economically, socially, and politically through the enhancement of government systems, social and spiritual aspects, and national satisfaction and confidence (The Malaysian Digest, 2014). Good governance is considered as an important element to achieve Vision 2020. Strategies have been introduced to improve the quality of good governance in the Malaysian public sector, while cultivating integrity across all segments of the country (The New Straits Times Online, 2014). Many reform initiatives have been conducted since 1980s, such as ''Clean, Efficient and Trustworthy'', ''Integration of Islamic Values'', ''Excellent Work Culture'', ''Code of Work Ethics'', ''Client's Charter'', and ''ISO 9000''.Moreover, the Malaysian Institute of Integrity (MII) was established to cultivate compulsory human capital and knowledge resource within the civil sector (Rusnah et al., 2011). The National Integrity Plan (NIP) aimed to mitigate corruption, misconduct, misuse of power, and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the public delivery system by 2008. In 2009, Malaysia introduced a new approach toward transforming the government and public sector by focusing on six National Key Results Areas (NKRAs) under the Government Transformation Programs with the objective of changing the government machinery to be more effective in its service delivery and be accountable for outcomes that matter most to people as well as to aid the country in becoming an advanced, united, and just society with high standards of living. Administrative reformation to improve government accountability and strengthen the public sector was identified as the most important area for the benefit of the people and the progress of nation, as well as a crucial step of the government to maintain public confidence and the determination of the government in implementing good governance in the public sector.Despite efforts to improve service delivery, criticisms and complaints toward public service remain to be heard. The public sector continues to face criticisms for its inefficiency, red tape, lack of flexibility, ineffective accountability, and poor performance for a long period of time (Siddiquee, 2006). Moreover, Malaysians are still under the impression that the public sector is easily manipulated by malevolent people, and this perception has dampened public confidence in government institutions that allegedly practice corruption in government procurement and in business transfers at the local municipal level and demonstrate land excision abuse and land transfer fraud (The Star, 2008). According to Iyer (2011), poor service delivery reflects gaps in accountability, inequalities in policy planning, and inadequate coordination across public agencies. Furthermore, a number of issues in Malaysia's public sector are on accountability, integrity, and ethical behavior.These issues had been highlighted prior to 2012 in the report of the Auditor General, including issues on the negligence of public officials who fail to uphold their duty of protecting government interest. Several weaknesses have also been observed during the audit, including improper payment, overlooked specifications or low-quality/unsuitable items in procurement, unreasonable delays, wastage, weaknesses in revenue management, and management of governments assets (National Audit Department, 2013). The report further discussed that the weaknesses are due to the negligence of officers, such as their inability to comply with the rules and regulations, lack of monitoring, lack of project management skills, and failure to attend to the outcome/effect of programs/activities/projects, resulting in the wastage of a significant amount of money. …