“What I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we have.’
– Ophah Winfrey, American talk show host and philanthropist.
Several years ago, I worked at an esteemed economic think tank in Kuala Lumpur as a senior economic analyst.
At the time, certain economic issues were making headlines, and my boss had written a report and made comments on national television about them. I felt compelled to respond to him, and so I penned my first letter, which was about 900 words long and was published by New Straits Times.
I vividly remember sitting down with the newspaper editor at a humble warung roti canai by the roadside in Taman Gasing Indah, Petaling Jaya on a Saturday morning, sipping hot coffee and poring over my response letter.
Despite my shaky writing skills at the time, the editor and I were able to crystalise the messages and points in the letter. And to my satisfaction, she chose to retain strong words like “misleading” and “illogical” to describe my boss’s comments.
Adding a touch of formality, I concluded the letter with “Saya yang menurut perintah,” which is the Malay equivalent of “Your obedient servant,” as a gesture of respect.
On Monday morning, I was summoned by my boss and I gave him a thorough account of why I wrote the letter and felt compelled to challenge his statements in the mainstream media.
I explained to my boss that I wasn’t trying to flaunt my intelligence, but instead correct the misguided public opinion on economic issues that I strongly disagreed with.
To my surprise, instead of being fired as I had anticipated, my boss responded in a way that has stayed with me throughout my career. His profound statement caught me off guard and left a lasting impression on me.
He said, “We are an economic think tank. We think. We don’t just follow!” This statement emphasises the importance of critical thinking and the value of challenging prevailing ideas.
My boss, who was already highly respected by economists in the country, rose even higher in the Ministry of Finance (MoF) after the incident.
He invited me to join his economic team under the fiscal and economic division. I accepted the offer but only worked there for eleven months because of clashes in economic principles with other economists.
Being a firm proponent of free market economics, I had to resign and pursue other opportunities.
In any case, as a young professional who was just beginning my career, a boss who sets the right professional tone is crucial in shaping the people who will carry this nation into the future.
Had the boss not commented on my slip, he might have continued thinking that to do his job well, he had to be subservient – when in actuality, the opposite was needed.
So, when the prime minister last month called in civil servants to speak out against wrongdoings – including those that might be committed by ministers – I was skeptical of whether this was achievable. I appreciate the good intention behind it; but, in this country, speaking out, especially against superiors, could be a challenge as mountainous as Everest.
After all, this is the very work sector for which the signoff ‘Saya yang menurut perintah” was known for generations. It was only in 2018 that the signoff was replaced with “Saya yang menjalankan amanah” (literally, “I who fulfil the trust of the nation”)
It was this culture of subservience that resulted in a special audit report on 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), which was drafted for a parliamentary public accounts committee, being amended at the alleged request of the then prime minister, who was the subject of the audit.
Which is why when one auditor dared to sneak out and preserve the last copy of the report against orders to surrender it to be destroyed – she, Datuk Nor Salwani Muhammad, was later heralded as a national hero. No one can deny how daring such an act was, especially coming from a civil servant.
But the more insurmountable challenge in getting civil servants to speak out will be the bosses themselves and whether the bosses can take and welcome criticism. The prime minister wants all civil servants to speak out when something illegal has been committed. But surely it would be far better to speak out before such a thing even happens?
Can Malaysian bosses in government take ‘teguran’? Six weeks ago the prime minister appointed his eldest daughter as the senior adviser on economics and finance to the minister of finance (that is, himself).
How that idea could even have sparked, let alone become official, defies all common sense on good governance. Did alarm bells ring in the halls of government? Did no one hear it? Or did everyone think, “Not my problem, I want to keep my pension”?
Over the past six weeks, the prime minister and his political allies have staunchly defended the decision, insisting that his daughter was the most qualified candidate for the position.
In a country of some 32 million people, could a career politician really be the best option? Even if she were the best, ethics demand that the prime minister should have taken the second-best person, rather than the best-but-conflicted person.
It took six weeks of public criticism for the daughter to resign – only for her to still be given a job serving her father.
And this debacle came soon after the prime minister appointed himself the finance minister repeating the same dangerous practise that landed us with the 1MDB problem to begin with insufficient oversight because the people who are granting permission are the same people who are applying it.
What is most concerning is the failure of the government to recognise that just because something is not illegal does not make it moral.
Nepotism and cronyism should never be accepted even in the company of saints so that there can never arise circumstances whereby an appointment is made for bad intentions, and so that no one has to grapple with their conscience in having to speak out against it.
Opposition politicians aside, everyone has been pulling their punches in calling out the government for what should clearly be acknowledged as a breach of good governance.
Admittedly, the government’s balance is still teetering. And where the other options might not be considered great, the compromise therefore is on the devil that we have yet to know, rather than the ones we already do.
But that compromise is a breach of ethics too. Because protecting the patron that is friendly towards one’s cause or politics will blinker us from seeing any wrongdoing.
This government is led by a coalition of parties that has always claimed that it would do things better, cleaner. Well, that time has now come. This country does not need more slogans or verbal assurances, or exhortations for civil servants to speak up. It needs a government that acknowledges that it is not ‘maksum’ (protected from Sin).
