Bribery Perception

16 February 2017 - I had a new insight today. I had a chit chat with one of my subordinates today. It's how people from a faith other than of mine perceive the act of "give and take" involving money and services rendered a.k.a. willing taker and willing giver of a bribery act. The staff said, it is not wrong to accept money if the giver willingly offer to pay money for a speedier service by a government staff. 

I'm trying not to make a connection of  this perception to any religion because I have a strong belief that all religions reject bribery. When I disputed that staff about this teaching belief, the staff further said their upbringing accepted this practice and it is not abnormal paying a staff/officer, either to the government servant or private company employee to get their application processed faster.

I just couldn't believe myself that such belief actually exists. We debated about this perception and presented examples to support our arguments. Lastly, my staff said to me "Sir, you won." and left my room and punched out the attendance card. 

My gut tells me, I won maybe because I am the boss.

Fight Against Bribery

I have one suggestion in curbing bribery and misused of power for personal interest by the civil servants.

Usually though it is not a standard practice, KSU, TKSU and Chiefs of Uniformed Services as well as Department's Director Generals i.e. ATM, Police, will be hired soon after their retirement. Apparently and maybe coincidently, the organizations who hired them are mostly have had businesses with the ministries, services or departments which the senior officers served as the decision makers prior to their retirement.

Some of them were the Chairman of the Tender Committee and/or had the final say in the procurement decision makings.

In order to paint a good image of the government and maintain integrity and more importantly to avoid the corrupt decision making of favouring some companies for certain government contracts, the companies who hired the government's senior officers will be subjected to SPRM's scrutiny for at least six months period.

For example, the six months old contracts that have been awarded to the companies which the retired officers were the chairman of the tender committee or held the important decision power could be rescinded if the government find there were elements of abuse of power.

JPA could formulate a guideline for After Retirement Employment for Government Employees. The Treasury may review the procurement procedures and SPRM would be playing more effective roles in upholding the integrity of the public service officers in managing the tax payers hard earned money.