The neutrality of the civil service is the foundation of an effective system of administration in any country.
It basically means that while civil servants serve the government of the day, their ultimate duty is to promote and protect national interests, which are deemed to be synonymous with public interests.
The principle of being above party politics or personal loyalties should guide the civil servants’ performance on the job. They should adhere to a professional code of ethical conduct, no matter which political party holds the reins of power in government.
However, how this is interpreted and practised can be very subjective. Often, it is determined by the prevailing power dynamics and organisational culture within the civil service at any point in time, notwithstanding the civil servant’s own value system. This was well illustrated in the recent 1MDB audit report court case.
In early March, Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan acquitted and discharged former Prime Minister Najib Razak and ex-CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy of abuse of power in the 1MDB audit report tampering case, without their defence being called.
The learned judge said that there was no evidence to clearly prove that Najib Razak had instructed that amendments be made to clear and protect himself from potential civil and criminal action over his role in 1MDB operations.
Aside from my personal disappointment that the prosecution lost this case, it also raised many questions for me regarding the role of the civil servants involved in this case.
Where do these civil servants stand as far as the professionalism, integrity and neutrality of the civil service is concerned? Are there objective measures of integrity and neutrality of the civil service? Or does it depend on personalities and circumstances?
In this IMDB case, one civil servant, Nor Salwani Muhammad, made an unauthorised audio recording of the meeting in 2016, where the then PM Najib ordered that parts of the first audit report be amended.
She then defied the orders of her superior, the auditor general, to destroy all copies of the first report. She kept a copy of the first report under her chair for over a year and passed it on to the new auditor general in 2017.
Nor Salwani subsequently was praised by many, awarded a ‘datukship’ and promoted after the change of government in 2018.
The new auditor general back then, Dr Madinah Mohamad, confirmed in a press statement in 2018 that the 2016 1MDB final audit report was tampered with, on the orders of Najib Razak. She relied on and trusted the information given to her by Nor Salwani and two other officers, who corroborated what Nor Salwani said. She handed over the audio-recording to the cybersecurity lab. She also declassified the report in 2018, after her meeting with the new Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
The former auditor general, Ambrin Buang, maintained during the court proceedings that the amendments to the first audit report were justified and authorised by him.
The learned judge said that there was no evidence that Ambrin was forced to make the changes and described him as the “epitome of professionalism”.
The government’s former chief secretary Ali Hamsa, who was present at the meeting as well, testified in 2020 that the unauthorised audio recording of the meeting was unethical.
As for the role of former PM Najib, who was for all intents and purposes the chief executive of the administration at the time, his defence was not called.
So, in this whole saga, who exactly were the civil servants who prioritised national interests over personal and political interests? Did the four key amendments to the first audit report jeopardise our national interests in any way? Even if it would not have caused potential civil or criminal liability for Najib, would it have had implications for national interests?
Clearly, some of the actors in this saga did think so – or were they acting in their own personal interests? Who exactly acted without fear or favour and who did it to ‘curry favour’? So, who were the heroes and who were the saboteurs, as far as being a dutiful and professional civil servant is concerned?
In 2018, after Pakatan Harapan took power, civil servants were instructed to sign off on all government correspondence “I, who carry out the trust” “Saya yang menjalankan amanah” (I, who carry out the trust) as opposed to the earlier “Saya yang menurut perintah” (I who obey orders).
So, does this mean that civil servants can defy orders from superiors whom they believe betray the public trust? How do we create an enabling environment that will encourage and protect civil servants who call out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
According to organisational psychologist Adam Grant, “The highest form of integrity is fidelity to your values, not to your employer.” If so, we then have to ensure that the values of civil servants and their ’employer’ (ie the elected executives) are congruent with public interests, as ultimately, the public are the true masters.
Perhaps this is what Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is attempting to do with his “masyarakat Madani & kerajaan Madani” (civil society and civil government) initiative, focusing on good governance, sustainable development and racial harmony.
Is this congruence possible?
They say politics is the art of the possible. So, let’s work together to make it possible.
The post Neutrality of the civil service: Identifying the heroes, zeroes and saboteurs! appeared first on Aliran.