We refer to the establishment of Pemudah - the high-powered 23-member task force to promote faster reform in the delivery system. Are we reinventing the wheel? Yet another high-level mechanism to add to the existing ones in the government!

Indeed, there are so many that secretaries-general and heads of departments have become oblivious to the fact that they exist at all. They seem to conveniently forget these mechanisms, simply because they are unable to make things work. Inexplicably, it becomes more convenient to just set up another mechanism. The public service is obviously suffering from a severe case of 'institutional amnesia'.

Public servants need to be reminded of the extensive and serious initiatives on Malaysia Incorporated instituted in the early 1990s. Various mechanisms of dialogue and feedback between the public and private sectors to improve the delivery system were put in place. All public sector agencies were required to set up consultative committees with membership comprising public officials and the relevant stakeholders of the agency.

This initiative was a bold move to better serve the stakeholders viz the private sector and the public. In fact, this was a laudable initiative to institutionalise good public sector governance. There was leadership and commitment then, but it seems to have fizzled out when the baton of public sector leadership was passed on.

Now, the public sector has apparently failed to rise to the challenges of good governance and seems to be wallowing in self-indulgent mediocrity. The appointment of a private sector person to co-chair Pemudah is a sad reflection on the quality of our public sector leadership.

Do we need Pemudah? There is already a national-level Malaysia Incorporated Panel, chaired by the chief secretary with Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (Mampu) as its secretariat. Is Pemudah intended to replace the Malaysia Incorporated Panel? Are we saying that the annual Ministry of International Trade and Industry dialogues and the Finance Ministry budget dialogues are ineffective in providing continuous input and feedback for better public sector governance?

Are the consultative mechanisms at the departmental level established vide Mampu's Development Administration Circular No 9 of 1991 not performing as envisaged or were they ever instituted at all?

Indeed, it is an essential principle of good public sector governance that stakeholder relationships must be properly and appropriately considered to ensure that the legitimate interests of all stakeholders are met, be it the private sector or the citizens at large. After all, it is the role of public sector agencies to serve the stakeholders and serve them well through efficient and effective delivery systems. Otherwise, they would have failed to justify their raison d'etre.

The public sector must play its governance role effectively. Ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery system is its core business. The pursuit of continuous improvement is a moral responsibility for which all public servants must be held accountable. It is this vision and mission, which motivated the illustrious public sector leadership of the past to establish Mampu under the Prime Minister's Department in 1976.

The high-powered 'Panel on Administrative Improvements to the Civil Service', chaired by the chief secretary to the government, and comprising among others the treasury secretary-general and the Public Service Department's director general, was instituted to pursue public sector reform and continuous improvements, with Mampu as its secretariat. In the past, Mampu was helmed by towering personalities who provided the leadership and commitment for continuous improvements and innovations.

One wonders whatever happened to these institutions? Is the formation of Pemudah a reflection of the Panel's and Mampu's failure? Or is it the reflection of the insidious incompetence of the new generation of public sector human capital?

Whether it is intended that Pemudah should replace the Malaysia Incorporated Panel or not, Pemudah would be well advised to refer to a major deregulation study of five economic sectors entitled 'System of Licencing and Permits Pertaining to Business and Investments' done by Mampu in 1990.

The said study adequately addressed the issue of bureaucratic red tape 15 years ago! All Pemudah needs to do is to review the study and ensure its recommendations are faithfully implemented. The study and its recommendations are well documented in the government's reports entitled 'Improvements and Development in the Public Service' for the years 1990 and 1991.