In my previous letter Ministers, new or old, always must be accountable , I highlighted the minister’s collective responsibility in cabinet and individual responsibility in his own ministry. The recent events on disciplining some educationists in the government prods me to further explain the minister’s position in the public sector.

A  Brutus–Caesar scenario happened some 25 years ago when the KSU (chief secretary) of the ministry declared, ‘not that I love the minister less but that I love my ministry more’.  The event resulted in a change of portfolio for the minister. What could have happened to result in this?  

First, a minister’s entry into a ministry was by virtue of an appointment by the prime minister after having ascended to the position as a member of either houses of Parliament. Thus, the minister is clearly a member of the legislative.  

The ministry, with all its civil service staff, makes up part of the executive in the government. This population of workers serving in government offices is usually differentiated as the public sector.  

Second, the member of Parliament, or senator, by virtue of the prime minister appointing him to the ministry as minister, also heads the administration of the ministry. Whereas ministers are elected by the people during general elections held once every five years, civil servants have employment contracts with the government, which unless otherwise stated, create permanent appointments with evident career paths.  

Third, the Public Service Department  (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or JPA) at federal or state levels,  are likened to the human resource departments of the entire public sector. Thus JPA holds the responsibility of management, human resource development and succession planning  inclusive of performance management, discipline management and other  aspects of HRM of this work force of one million employees with the number still growing.  

The minister, in carrying out his duty on collegial decision-making at cabinet level, puts forth policies for the ministry to execute. Ministers, therefore,  provide  the bridge between the legislative and the executive. However, the management of officers in the ministry is under the chief secretary or KSU (ketua setiausaha) of the ministry.

The KSU oversees execution of policies in the ministry through weekly or more frequent meetings with the heads of departments and heads of agencies. He (the KSU) thus becomes the advisor to the minister. This structure in decision-making in public sector management has the ultimate objective of ‘freeing the minister from day-to-day operational matters’.

During World War II, the late Sir Winston Churchill’s apology for the fall of Singapore to the Japanese included three sentences: ‘I do not know. I was not told. I should have asked’. Whereas the first two sentences, ‘I do not know. I was not told’ were statements of excuse with doubtful acceptance by the public, the third sentence, ‘I should have asked’ was an admittance of responsibility as the minister heading a ministry.

The recent incident concerning the DPM’s jurisdiction in disciplinary action over a few educationists is clearly evident that the DPM  did ask and was appropriately advised by his KSU.  In the case of the MCA number plates, it appeared  that the minister of transport had pitched the director-general of JPJ, the head of one of the departments under his ministry, against the KSU. I will not speculate whether the minister had asked the KSU for advice. It was  his duty to do so, anyway.

I have previously mentioned that s.2( c) of the Official Secrets Act empowered the minister to declassify official secrets. But this is not absolute. Other provisions relating  to the effects and implications arising from disclosure of a classified document remain in force.

On the same note, the GTP is equivalent to NPM (New Public Management) public sector reforms which commenced in the  UK  in 1979, Australia in  late 1980’s and elsewhere in the world at different times.  Public sector reform started in Malaysia more than a decade ago with  the push for privatization of several public services. The main objective of these exercises is about improving the delivery of government services to the public.

The public sector is what will be around  to run the nation as politicians come and go. For Malaysia to be competitive, it is important that the country’s public sector, too, move up the ladder of service delivery. For this to happen, it requires the efforts of all segments of the nation.