EXCLUSIVE Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Idris Jala may not be a politician, having been roped into the cabinet from an illustrious corporate career, but he sure knows how to evade a question.
It is Pemandu's role as a troubleshooter - or 'catalyst' in Idris' words - that will eventually transform the way the civil service and private sector do things and will crack the whip for as long as it takes for the transformation to turn to habit. To ensure that they themselves do not become jaded, all Pemandu staff are on a three-year contract.
Idris said, "Every Friday we hold a problem-solving meeting. When someone comes to us with a problem in getting approval from a government department, we will write and ask why was it not approved (and work on those reasons)."
Idris said, "Every Friday we hold a problem-solving meeting. When someone comes to us with a problem in getting approval from a government department, we will write and ask why was it not approved (and work on those reasons)."
Admittedly, I am far from being an economist but I think Pemandu has a thing or two to learn from Singapore.
Just read this article:
| Written by Reuters |
| Monday, 20 September 2010 12:11 |
SINGAPORE: Surrounded by graft-ridden Asian neighbours, Singapore has won international accolades as one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
Did Singapore always have a reputation for lack of graft?
No. At the time Singapore attained self-government in 1959, corruption was rife and permeated through all sectors of society. The law to fight corruption was weak and graft fighters were not given sufficient power to carry out their duties effectively.
Public officers were not paid well relative to those in the private sector. Some of them became indebted due to lack of savings to tide them over difficult times.
The population was generally less educated and did not know their rights, resorting to offering bribery to public officers to get things done.
What triggered the change?
After independence in 1965, the new political leaders set an example for bureaucrats to follow by divesting themselves of financial and commercial ties.
The law was revamped to give more power to graft fighters, and punishments for corruption offences were enhanced.
Salaries for public officers were raised to be comparable to the private sector while bureaucratic procedures were simplified significantly to improve efficiency and lower the chance of public officials demanding bribes.
How tough are the laws?
The anti-corruption law has been reviewed regularly.
Anybody convicted of a corruption offence can be fined up to S$100,000 (RM232,507.30) and/or sentenced to imprisonment of up to five years. If the offence relates to a government contract or involves a Member of Parliament or a member of a public body, the jail term can be increased to seven years.
Also, a person convicted of a corruption offence will be ordered by the court to return the bribe, and court is empowered to confiscate property and pecuniary resources which a convicted person cannot satisfactorily account for.
A public officer convicted of corruption will also lose his job, pension and other benefits.
Why does it work in Singapore?
A shorter chain of command in a compact country like Singapore helps, analysts said.
It is easier to create a climate of good governance in a city-state where the population is constantly reminded of the perils of corruption and its consequences.
Public tolerance of corruption is almost zero.
The fact that the law in both Singapore and Hong Kong is based on the British legal also helps maintain the confidence of international businesses when they have to deal with lawsuits on fraud or corruption.
"In business, when you are a victim of a fraud or corruption, companies have confidence in being able to use the Singapore judicial system to fight abuses," said Bob Broadfoot of Political & Economic Risk Consultancy. — Reuters
SOURCE: the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's website and Bob Broadfoot's Political & Economic Risk Consultancy.
Did Singapore always have a reputation for lack of graft?
No. At the time Singapore attained self-government in 1959, corruption was rife and permeated through all sectors of society. The law to fight corruption was weak and graft fighters were not given sufficient power to carry out their duties effectively.
Public officers were not paid well relative to those in the private sector. Some of them became indebted due to lack of savings to tide them over difficult times.
The population was generally less educated and did not know their rights, resorting to offering bribery to public officers to get things done.
What triggered the change?
After independence in 1965, the new political leaders set an example for bureaucrats to follow by divesting themselves of financial and commercial ties.
The law was revamped to give more power to graft fighters, and punishments for corruption offences were enhanced.
Salaries for public officers were raised to be comparable to the private sector while bureaucratic procedures were simplified significantly to improve efficiency and lower the chance of public officials demanding bribes.
How tough are the laws?
The anti-corruption law has been reviewed regularly.
Anybody convicted of a corruption offence can be fined up to S$100,000 (RM232,507.30) and/or sentenced to imprisonment of up to five years. If the offence relates to a government contract or involves a Member of Parliament or a member of a public body, the jail term can be increased to seven years.
Also, a person convicted of a corruption offence will be ordered by the court to return the bribe, and court is empowered to confiscate property and pecuniary resources which a convicted person cannot satisfactorily account for.
A public officer convicted of corruption will also lose his job, pension and other benefits.
Why does it work in Singapore?
A shorter chain of command in a compact country like Singapore helps, analysts said.
It is easier to create a climate of good governance in a city-state where the population is constantly reminded of the perils of corruption and its consequences.
Public tolerance of corruption is almost zero.
The fact that the law in both Singapore and Hong Kong is based on the British legal also helps maintain the confidence of international businesses when they have to deal with lawsuits on fraud or corruption.
"In business, when you are a victim of a fraud or corruption, companies have confidence in being able to use the Singapore judicial system to fight abuses," said Bob Broadfoot of Political & Economic Risk Consultancy. — Reuters
SOURCE: the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's website and Bob Broadfoot's Political & Economic Risk Consultancy.
No comments:
Post a Comment