RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA

BY
Ernest John

INTRODUCTION
Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It is damaging to a country because
decisions are taken not for the public benefit but to serve private interests. Corruption
undermines good governance, fundamentally distorts public policy, leads to misallocation of
resources, and particularly hurts the poor. Controlling it is only possible with the cooperation of
a wide range of stakeholders in the integrity system, including most importantly, the state, civil
society, and the private sectors (Transparency International). Malaysia is in the lowest rating
ever by Transparency International in the latest Corruption Perception Index for 2010.

Malaysia has plunged down to serious corruption with an index score of 4.4, the index has a
range of 0 to 10, 0 being highly corrupt to 10 being very clean. An index score of 4.4 is deem to
be a "serious corruption score" and is rank at 56 out of 178 countries being rated. As compared
to Singapore which is jointly tied at the top spot with Denmark and New Zealand with a high
index score of 9.3 being the cleanest of countries. Dato’ Paul Low, the President of the local
branch of Transparency International noted the plunge was serious not only when compared to
the country’s perceived past performances but more importantly, in relation to other countries
worldwide and especially those within the Asian region.

Besides that, in Malaysia, the prevalence of corruption has been acknowledged by the
Government and various steps have been taken to prevent and eradicate it. Anti-corruption
legislation has been enacted, an Anti-Corruption Agency and later the Malaysian Anti
Corruption Commission established and other administrative mechanisms like the Public
Complaints Bureau set up. Despite these measures however the incidence of corruption has
escalated. The spread of corruption, incompetence, malpractices, abuse of power, fraud and
other unethical behaviour as well as the lack of work motivation, have been attribute to the

1
decline in integrity among individuals, organizations and society at large(Towards A Free
Corruption in Malaysia, 2009).

There is a widespread concern about corruption in public at large. These days we hear a lot
about acts of nepotism, theft, bribery, etc. from the public purse. Alongside this there is a
general concern about maladministration and inefficiency in the public sector. Something
seems to be going diabolically wrong. A clear code of ethics is required which specifies the
guiding moral values or principles that will govern the public service and reduce or prevent the
corrupt practices and unethical behaviour in question. The basic aim of this paper is to prove
that ethics as an area of philosophy attempts to arrive at an understanding of the nature of
human values, of how we ought to live and of what constitutes right conduct.

We are often faced and confronted with the consideration of ‘why we ought to act and live
morally’, for example, that there is a course of conduct which ought to morally choose,
irrespective of one’s likes or dislikes and perception. This action would be the right thing to do
despite one’s own self-interest or preferences. That is why we hold individuals responsible for
the moral judgments they make, or ought to have made. This aspect of judgment making is the
subject matter of moral philosophy and ethics. The fact that corruption and maladministration
existed and must therefore be interpreted as a total absence of moral and ethical culture in the
conduct of public service. What, if anything, needs to be done to lead a moral and ethical life?
What could be a possible remedy to prevent or eradicate the unprofessional practices in
question?

DEFINITION
Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone who depends on
the integrity of people in a position of authority or power. Corruption simply means taking
something out of favour or gratification for doing something which is legally wrong. It is
morally, ethically and lawfully wrong to take something which doesn’t belongs to us and
depriving others of taking the profit or benefits from it. Legally speaking corruption is a deed by

2
any person who by himself, or in conjunction with any other person corruptly solicits or
receives or agrees to receive for himself or any other person or corruptly gives, promises or
offers to any person whether for the benefit of that person or of another person any
gratification as an inducement to or a reward for, or otherwise on account of any person doing
or forbearing to do anything in respect of any mater or transaction, actual or proposed or likely
to take place or any officer of a public body doing it or forbearing to do anything in respect of
any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is
concerned (Law of Malaysia, 2009).

MALAYSIA ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW

The Law is required to act against corruption just as the need for laws against all crimes.
However sometimes the laws are enacted not to act as a deterrent against crime but rather
promote or encourage people to break the law. “ Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we
ought to do, as well as determine what we shalldo. On the other hand the standard of right and
wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects are fastened to their throne. Corruption is
about both-the right and wrong, the chain of causes it will bring to the public and the ethics and
moral that comes with it- ( Jeremy Bentham-introduction to the Principles of Moral and
Legislation 1780 )

Enactment of laws on anti- corruption in Malaysia was gazetted on the 12th September 1997,
Act 575, but the power of this act was limited. People in authority starts abusing their powers in
order to gain personal benefit or benefits for their immediate families, friends, relatives and
those close to them.Law on corruption should be very strict as it intends to punish both the
giver and the taker as without the giver there will be no corruption and without the taker there
will also be no corruption. Those who offer gratification should be equally guilty as the taker or
receiver and deserves the punishment. Since both the giver and the recipient may be charged
with corruption, both would be unwilling to report the incident. This of course makes
corruption difficult if not impossible to prove and prosecute in the court of law.

3
Evidences have to be painstakingly documented and facts have to be properly recorded so that
the cases can be prosecuted successfully. Without those elements, there will be a prolong court
proceedings as each defendant would employ the best lawyers to defend them in court. The
results can sometimes be unpredictable and unbelievable. (Towards A Free Corruption in
Malaysia, 2009).Malaysia's comprehensive anti-corruption system, a core component of Prime
Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's governmental and economic reform programme, addresses
these common failures in a unique way by establishing a permanent agency at the centre.

Using the structure of Hong Kong's anti-corruption agency as a foundation, the independent
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) is part of the Government Transformation
Programme, meaning that both its achievements and shortcomings are discussed at length in
the annual report issued on the reform progress. Since its inception in 2008, MACC has made
outstanding progress by focusing on a three-pillar approach that institutes reform in
government, civil society and business. All are bound by recognising the powerful appeal of
money in inducing corruption, either when corporate interests deem it acceptable to leverage
money behind the scenes to get what they want, or when the government culture allows
politicians to enrich themselves while abusing the public trust. A truly effective and efficient
anti-corruption system must have stakeholders from all ends of society working in tandem and
cohesion.

On the 8th January 2009, The Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission Act 2009, Act 694 was
gazetted to replace the Malaysian Anti Corruption Act 1997(Law of Malaysia, 2009). The power
of this act is unlimited because all the corruption cases should go through and be investigated
whatever or whoever commits it without fear or favour. By upgrading the agency into a
commission, the officers serving the MACC is only answerable to the parliament and not to any
ministers, government officials or influential individuals. Compared to the Act 575, this act
added 2 new sections on the part of offences and penalties, and added 11 new sections on the
part of Investigation, Search, Seizure and Arrest.

4
PART IV (OFFENCE AND PENALTIES)
Section 17 – defines the offence of giving or accepting gratification by agent. A person
commits an offence if he being an agent corruptly accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempt to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person any gratification as
an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal’s
affairs or business or for showing favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his
principal’s affairs or business or he corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any
gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for
having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business or
showing any favour or disfavour.

Section 18 – states the offence of intending to deceive principal by agent. A person commits
an offence if he gives in to an agent, or being an agent he uses with intend to deceive his
principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is
interested, and which he has reason to believe contains any statement which is false or
erroneous or defective in any material particular, and is intended to misled the principal.

Basically Sections 17-18 of the former Anti-Corruption Act and the present Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission Act defines the offences of giving or taking gratifications either for
himself or for others a reward or inducement for doing something for the benefit of his
principal. In Dato’ Hj Harun b. Hj Idris & Ors vs PP ( 1977 ) 1 MLJ 180 the defendant, being
the Chief Minister of Selangor was convicted and charged for corruptly taking gratifications
for himself from the parties having vested interests in relation to his principal’s affairs or
business. He was charged and sentenced to jail and in the process relinquished his Chief
Minister’s post. Being a Chief Minister, the defendant has the power and authority to award
any contracts or business to any interested parties in return for gratifications such as land
and financial gains.

5
Section 19 – states that the acceptor or giver of gratification to be guilty notwithstanding
that purpose was not carried out or matter not in relation to principal’s affairs or business.
This means that an offence under this section is being committed if the subject corruptly
solicited, accepted, obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification as
an inducement or reward to show any favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his
principal’s affairs or business.

In Basil b. Omar vs PP ( 2009 ) 1 MLJ 192, the defendant was charged in the Seremban court
for attempting to bribe a traffic policeman for a traffic offence. The presiding judge who
passed the judgement stated that an offence of trying or attempting to bribe an officer
is serious as it can undermined the administrative and legal process of the enforcement
process. The defendant offered RM100 to the traffic police on duty so that actions would
not be taken against him for speeding and overtaking on the double lines.

Section 20 – states that an offence is committed if a subject corruptly procure the

withdrawal of a tender. A person commits an offence under this section if he/she with intent
to obtain from any public body a contract for performing any work, providing any service,
doing anything or supplying any article, material or substance, offers any gratification to any
person who has made a tender for the contract receive an inducement or reward for
withdrawing the tender.

Section 21 – states that an offence is committed if there is a bribery of an officer of public

body. An offence is being committed if any person who offers to an officer of public body or
being an officer of any public body solicits or accepts, any gratification as an inducement or
a reward for the officer who show favour or disfavour in anything of interest in his capacity
as a public officer.

6
Sections 20-21 states that an offence is committed if there is an attempt to bribe an officer
of public body. In Lau Kong Peng & Ors vs PP ( 2004 ) 6 MLJ 501 the defendant is a
contractor who was awarded a contract to build a primary school in Sekinchan, Selangor.
The tender for the contract is RM22.88 million and it was reported that the tender was
awarded after the original bidder and winner of the tender conceded that he withdraw
because his licence was revoked. It is believed his licence was revoked because the
defendant influenced the authorities that the bidder was a bankrupt and a person of
doubtful reputation. The certificate of fitness for the building was approved even though
the workmanship was shoddy and of poor quality. Later it was found out that the officer
who approved the certificate of fitness deposited RM500, 000 into his wife account and was
seen going overseas for holiday with the defendant on several occasions. The ACA Deputy
Public Prosecutor requested a heavier sentence for the defendant as the project to build
the school building is of public interests and cost the tax payers money.

Section 22 – states that an offence is committed if there is a bribery of foreign public

officials. Any person who by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person gives,
promises or offers, or agrees to give an offer to any foreign public officials or being a foreign
public officials solicits, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain whether
for the benefit of the foreign public official or another person any gratification as an
inducement or reward commits an offence under this section.
In this
Section 23 – relates to an offence of using office or position for gratification. Any officer of
the public body who uses his office or position for any gratification whether for himself, his
family, relatives or associate commits an offence under this section.

Section 24 – states the penalties for offences under Sections 16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and 23
shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years, fine not
less than 5 times value of the gratification or RM10,000 whichever is higher.

7
Section 25 – states the duty to report bribery transactions.

Section 26 –dealing with, using, holding, receiving or concealing gratification or advantage

in relation to any offence.

Section 27 – Making of statement which is false or intended to mislead to an officer of the

Commission or the Public Prosecutor.

Section 28 – Concerns attempts, preparations, abetment and criminal conspiracies

punishable as offence.

of the law so that he would not take action for an offence being committed is a serious
offence. It can jeopardise and compromised the enforcement process of the law.

PART V (INVESTIGATION, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND ARREST)

Section 29 – Power to investigate reports and enquire into information.

Section 30 – Power to examine persons.

8
Section 31 – Power of search and seizure.

Section 32 – Translation.

Section 33 and 34 – Seizure of movable property.

Section 35 – Investigation of share and purchase account.

Section 36 – Powers to obtain information.

Section 37 – Order not to part with, deal in, movable property in bank.

Section 38 – Seizure of immovable property.

Section 39 – Prohibition of dealing with property outside Malaysia.

Section 40 – forfeiture of property upon prosecution for an offence.

Section 41 – forfeiture of property where there is no prosecution for an offence.

Section 42 – dealing with property after seizure to be void.

Section 43 – power to intercept communications.

Section 44 – surrender of travel documents.

Section 45 – power to amend or revoke any order or notice under this notice.

Section 46 – advocates or solicitors required to disclose information.

9
Section 47 – legal obligation to give information.

Section 48 – obstruction of investigation and search.

Section 49 – Offences under Act to be seizable offences and powers of officers of the
Commission relating to investigation.

THE NATURE OF MORAL AND ETHICS

Most philosophers draw a distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ while others treat these
two concepts as synonymous. Many philosophers use the concepts ‘ethics’ and ‘ morality
interchangeably; these terms are concerned solely with the elucidation and justification of
morality and more generally with questions about how ought to live, about what could count as
good reason for one person acting in this way rather than another, and about what constitutes
a good life for human beings. Philosophers typically describe moral judgement as involving
matters of right or wrong, ought not, a good action or a bad one.

Meta-ethics, which was very influential among early Greek philosophers, has received renewed
attention in recent deal of uncertainly about basic norms and values, and it is also a fact that
many of the decisions that confront us these days are much more complex morally and
ethically. That is why most philosophers are now expected to be so much more ethically
sensitive than they used to be. Some philosophers see this as no more than a natural
consequence of the increasing influence of morality on society in general. But others go further
and interpret it as symptomatic of the transformation of philosophers into a new type of social
institution.

As its product becomes more tightly woven into the social fabric, philosophers have to perform
new roles in which ethical considerations can no longer be swept aside. What all this means is
that public institutions depend on the acceptable moral and ethical bases in order to flourish. It

10
is then possible and even desirable to develop a recipe for moral and ethical behaviour among
public institutions and public officials with the emphasis upon commitment needs to be
supported by an ethical and moral culture in a particular institution. Although it is hard to pin
down the meaning of ethics because the views that many people have about ethics are shaky,
many philosophers support the conviction that: ‘Ethics is the study of what is good or right for
human beings’ and also agrees that by ‘ethical’ or ‘ethics we mean established norms,
practices, policies, rules, or codes intended to guide an individual in terms of good (bad) or right
(wrong) behaviours.

In this definition, it is obvious that an individual administrator as able to decide morally

whether or not to accept or reject a particular ethical rule, or practice, as being a morally right
way of behaving. It is obvious from this definition that ethics is a set of rules which sets out
what constitutes well (bad) and right (wrong) behaviour. Such rules are usually directed at
professional workers, guiding them in what they ought to choose (or ought not to choose), or
guiding them about what it is the right thing (or wrong thing) to do in a given kind of situation.
For example, we talk of a moral or ethical person or of an act which is morally or ethically
accountable. On what basis do we judge certain forms of human behaviour or decisions taken
as right or wrong, good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable?. The moral consciousness of any
public official will indicate the moral norms which ought to be adopted and integrated into his
or her life, taking personal interests into account, as well as considering and protecting the
interests of others is acting ethically.

Ethical issues always involve interests or feelings and ethics is not just an abstract intellectual
discipline; it is about the conflicts that arise in trying to meet real human needs and values.
However, being ethical clearly is not a matter of following one’s interests or feelings. A person
following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right; in fact, one’s interest might
frequently deviate from what is ethical. Velasquez on business ethics also confirms the nation
of the necessity of morality and he says: “The moral point of view does not evaluate standards
according to whether or not they advance the interests of a particular individual or not they

11
advance the interests of a particular individual or group, but goes beyond personal interest to a
universal standpoint in which everyone’s interests are impartially counted as equal”(Velasquez,
2006).

To act morally in the public service environment means ensuring that the consequences of the
public service environment means ensuring that the consequences of the public services are
not detrimental to others, it to put this more positively, ensuring that public service activities
contribute towards the personal well being of others and of societies at large. But this depends
on the gradual creation of a political and public climate favouring impartiality, trustworthiness,
a sense of responsibility and accountability, and the maintenance of a high degree of ethical
and moral standards in the public sector. For example, it is more important to look honest that
it is to get anything done.

Since we live in a world in which there is a great deal of uncertainly about basic norms and
values, many decisions that confront public officials these days are much more morally and
ethically complex. As a result in the academic field, the subject of philosophy is now striving for
excellence in the teaching of ethics in all disciplines. The objective is to develop well-qualified
public servants who are impartial and consistent, and who are practically competent persons
ready to serve in both public and private sectors. Today the demand is to have well qualified
personnel with unquestionable integrity who preserve high ethical standards under all
circumstances. In the past few years there has been a growing interest worldwide in the ethics
of various spheres of life.

We talk of ethics or introducing ethics or philosophy as a subject to be taught not only in

academic institutions, but also throughout social, political, economical, and legal life. The
emergence of this interest in many fields of studies means that ethics is now recognized as an
important subject.

12
CORRUPTION AND MALADMINISTRATION AS MORAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS

What may be publicly considered as a most reprehensible act in one society may not be given
similar treatment in another. Consequently, the preparation of a list which includes all forms of
unethical conduct is difficult and maybe dangerously misleading. However, the following are
examples of those activities are generally considered unethical in many countries:
 Bribery, theft, nepotism;
 Conflict of interests (including such activities as financial transactions to gain personal
advantage);
 Misuse of insider knowledge;
 Protecting incompetence;
 Regulating trade practice or lowering standards in such a manner as to give advantage
to one or to family members;
 The use and abuse of official and confidential information for private purposes.

Such activities may produce many disadvantages for a society. For example, inefficiency,
mistrust of government and its employees, distortion or programme achievements, waste of
public resources, encouragement of racial discrimination and eventual national instability.
Under what circumstances are these actions called corrupt? It seems best to start by citing an
example. By ‘corruption’, we intend to describe it as “the violation of the intent of explicit
official laws, rules, and purposes for personal gain or the advancement of the private agenda”.
If, for example, one violates an explicit and public rule in order to further the interests of a
private company or corporation, so that its interests come to replace those of the public, this
person is guilty of corruption.

Corruption takes place when a public servant, in defiance of prescribed norms, breaks the rules
to advance his or her personal interests. We are concerned here with public office or public
institutions together with public officials, which behave in both unexpected and unacceptable
ways. What constitutes unexpected and unacceptable behaviour may seem to be a rather

13
personal and individual judgement, but to some extent they are members of groups with rules
regulating behaviour. Regardless of how they may be to personal gratification, group members
operate under some constraints if the group is to survive.

If any group as a public institution is to continue operating an entity, there must be some
agreement among the members regarding how they are to act towards one another and at
least a tacit consensus on what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. The issues of the existence
of standards of behaviour according to which some actions break some rules, written or
unwritten, regarding the proper purposes to which a public office or a public institution may be
put. For example, if a person is able to use his or her influence to gain or receive something that
is not justified under a country’s legal and administrative regulations.

On the other hand, corruption in a modernized society is thus, in part, not so much the result of
deviance of behaviour from accepted norms, as it is the deviance of norms from the established
patterns of behaviour. New standard and criteria of right and wrong behaviourleads to a
condemnation of, at least, some traditional behavioural patterns as corrupt. The issue in all the
cases of corruption cited is the existence of a standard of behaviour according to which the
action in question breaks some rules, written or unwritten about the proper purposes to which
a public office or a public institution is put.

The moralist, for example, has his or her own idea of what the rule should be. The actors in the
situation concerned create their own rules. It may be the same as the moralist (they may regard
themselves as corrupt; or quite different or behaving honourably according to their standards,
and regard their critics’ standards as irrelevant); or they may be “men of two worlds”, partly
adhering to two standards which are incompatible, and ending exasperates and indifferent
(they may recognize no particular moral implications of the acts in question at all – which
obviously is quite common). Corruption naturally tends to weaken or to perpetuate the
weakness of the government bureaucracy. In this respect, it is incompatible with political, social
and economic development. “The corruption of one government is the generation of another”

14
Corruption and maladministration are among the most important unethical (wrong) conduct in
the Public sector. Current writing about corruption has attempted to challenge the earlier
speculation that corruption is a phenomenon with no negative consequences. Huntington has
argued that corruption takes place when a civil servant is in defiance of prescribed or accepted
norms, breaking the rules to advance his or her personal interests. Thus, it is the behaviour
which deviates from the duties of one’s public role because of private pecuniary or status gains
or violates rules against the exercise of certain types of private influence.

This includes such behaviour as bribery (if a public official accepts gift from thankful members
of the public, for services rendered, this does not count as gratitude but a bribery); nepotism
(which is a use of the power to advance the interests of friends or of a member of one’s family);
misappropriation (which is illegal appropriation of public resources for private use;Theft (which
is taking money or property meant to benefit the public with the intention of permanently
depriving the public of it).

The general happiness results if we tolerate all others- regarding individual actions. The
purpose of the institution of morality, utilitarian insist, is to promote welfare by minimizing
harms and maximizing benefit. In short corruption is wrong ethically, religiously and morally, as
it tend to produce pain and displeasure. If corruption and maladministration neither promote
pleasure nor prevent pain for the general good they are not morally wrong from a utilitarian
point of view. It is generally accepted that administration must be efficient in the sense that the
objectives of public policy are securely attained without unnecessary delay, discourtesy, losing
of records, failure to answer effectively, and so forth. Administrative officials must satisfy the
general body of citizens that they are proceeding with reasonable regard to promote the
balance between the public and private interests. A nation plagued by rampant corruption will
collapse in no time.

15
On the other hand, maladministration describes as an action based on, or influenced by,
improper considerations or improper conduct of the public affairs. The matters handled by
public officials, no matter how small and unimportant they seem to them, usually are very
important to the individual claimant or client. In any community without a general consensus
on moral norms and values, authentic and sound society is actually impossible. Some
philosopher describes that maladministration as ‘a wrong action’ because maladministration
frequently transgresses the ethical norm of “respect of other person”. In brief, this means that
showing respect to others, is how everyone wants to be treated.

This presupposes a number of practical conditions. For example, if a public official considers an
act to be personally morally right, he or she must consider any relevant similar act to be right
for the same reasons. This is one version of the principle of impartiality, that is, ‘I should want
to be treated with respect by others because this is how I would want to be treated myself.
Among many underlying philosophical questions we need to consider this ethical norm are
when one says that the public official is morally obliged to show respect for other person, that
is what exactly he or she is supposed to do; why should they show such respect: how exactly
are they to show this respect?
To maintain a high level of integrity in the public sector is an absolute necessity. The purpose of
ethics in the public sector is to eliminate the uncertainly between what seems to be right and
what is in effect wrong. As the practical problems of maladministration and corruption are
ethical issues, solving it is a moral science, an exposition of what is good or bad, right or wrong.
Ethics is concerned with the development of human behaviour according to certain moral
norms. If judged morally wrong will be always wrong, especially if it has deleterious effects, and
of course, if it destructive and incompatible with a system of public order. Corruption is among
the most important manifestations of unethical conduct in the public sector. Let consider some
measures to prevent or eradicate unprofessional actions or the practices in issue.

REMEDIES TO COMBAT CORRUPTION AND MALADMINISTRATION PRACTICES

16
The issue of remedies is only a small part of the large subject of how to ensure good public
administration. Although it is small, it is important, and likely to become increasingly so. As a
matter of fact, much is currently being said and written about the possible remedies or
measures to control both corruption and maladministration. It would be a mistake to think that
there is no course for everyone’s concern, particularly philosophers or ethicists. Public service
decisions and actions are thought to need more social, political, economic, and legal control. A
new focus on the moral-ethical aspects of public life is called for. It is essential that measures
exist; even if they cannot eradicate corruption and maladministration completely, at least they
can play an effective role in controlling occurrence of both unethical and immoral actions and
practices in question.

It is essential to remember both corruption and maladministration pervade the entire

environment and do not necessarily focus on a particular area, and that whatever measures will
be implemented need to take into account the broad spectrum of both occurrences. It is opined
that corruption refers unequivocally to blatant and deliberate dishonesty in the use of public
money and goods, while maladministration is rather a dysfunctional condition in which the
taxpayer is the loser but in which the officials is not necessarily enriched. These two
phenomenon, however, are closely related and could possibly be placed on a continuum with
corruption as the extreme pole on the negative side. But when remedies are being considered
edit quickly and become clear that one has to do with differing issues, although there are points
of contact. Maladministration was described as Administrative action or inaction based on or
influenced by improper consideration or conduct. Arbitrariness, malice or biases, including
discrimination, are examples of improper considerations. Neglect, unjustifiable delay, failure to
observe relevant rules and procedures, failure to take relevant considerations into account,
failure to establish or review procedures where there is a duty or obligation on a body to do so,
are example of improper conduct or maladministration.

It is submitted that corruption and maladministration result in an erosion of confidence in many

public institutions and its public servants. Practically all countries have enacted some kind of

17
corrective and punitive measures to deal with ethical offenses in public service. It seems
profitable to consider the nature of ethics in the light of what qualities one would expect to find
in public officials who are to serve society effectively. The parallel step now is to ask what
qualities one would look for in a public official. There are certain beliefs, items of knowledge,
abilities, that qua public officials need if they are effectively to use the formal criteria (as they
must if they are rational) and more especially if they want to flourish in their conduct public
affair.
a. In order to be able to respect other person, an official needs to believe in the importance of
their needs and their interests as other persons like themselves.
b. In order to be impartial, the official ought to see a given situation from the other person’s
point of view, as well as his own. If this is correct, then he or she will need the ability to
understand the emotional states and feelings of others as well as his or her own.
c. A more practical implication of the rule concerns the knowledge of such things as the
relevant area of the law, the social norms, and the conventional expectations of society at
large and of different social groups. This means that he/she should be adequately
informed.
d. Another practical ability the official needs is they of communicating his or her thoughts
and feelings to others consistently.
e. The official needs also to have thought out choices of actions and possible of dealing with
problems in advance of situations requiring a rapid response. That is why such positions
require qualifications, experience and training.
f. Finally, a public official needs to develop a motive to behave in a way that fulfils the idea
of showing or disrespectful towards him.

The general principles which should govern the conduct of a public servant are based on the
premise that the maintenance of high standards of honesty, integrity and impartiality are
essential to assure proper performance of government tasks, the maintenance of public trust
and the confidence and respect of the citizens for their government.

18
To achieve a high standard and to prevent and discourage the occurrence of unethical activities,
public servants must know what those activities are and what remedial action may be taken
against infractions. A set of ethical guidelines or a code of conduct serves this purpose. The
foundation for a code of ethics is the provisions of law relating to public offences, the
requirement of public service, and the performance of public servants. It is important to
recognize that the existence of an official code does not in itself impute any lack of integrity and
honesty on the part of employees. Rather it main objective is to assist employees in
determining the proper course of action when faced with uncertainly regarding the propriety of
a contemplated action. The main aim is to prevent employees from unwittingly falling into a
situation of conflict of interest, to guide them away from perversion of their integrity by
bribery, theft, nepotism, fraud or other corrupt inducements, to help them identity what is
permissible and what is not, and to indicate possible courses of action when the impermissible
threatens or is brought to their knowledge.

An acceptance of public employment adds new factors, namely, that of confidence in the
integrity of government and ethical practice on the part of elected, appointed officials. Like it or
not, public officials are bound to accept the admonition which says: ‘do not pervert justice or
show partiality, do not accept a bride, for bride blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words
of the righteous. ‘An ancient line of philosophical thought attempts to demonstrate that to act
rationally is to act ethically.

Recently the government decreed that all superiors officers must ensured that their
subordinate officers are clean before they are recommended for confirmation, promotion or
transferred to new posts just to ensure that corrupt public officers do not get promoted whilst
being corrupt. The departmental head bore the onus of making sure that their officers are clean
before being considered for promotion. They must ensure that everything is okaybefore making
the recommendation as they are aware that they will tarnish the integrity and reputation of the
department concerned if they recommend someone with a case.

19
The integrity vetting is one of the remedies being implemented by the government and is
obligatory for government officers especially those going for promotion. Those found to have
“issues” would not get through the MACC recommendation. It was reported recently that a
number of civil servants who have been investigated by the MACC for graft were still in service
while some have even been promoted. MACC could not charge them for lack of facts and
evidence or technical flaws and could only recommend them to their respective departments
for disciplinary actions.

Public Service Department Director General DatukFaridahMohd Ali ordered that the files of the
officers be re-opened and gave department heads six months to investigate and take punitive
actions. She said further that action could be taken against department heads who were found
to have ignored MACC recommendations. The Public Service Commission can decline to
appoint, promote or confirm those who have “issues” or who have failed the MACC vetting.
Some of the officials could have already served their punishment which could include no year
end bonus, no increment or severe warnings. Once they have served their period of
punishment they are qualified to be considered for promotion or confirmation in their
respective posts. Between January and September 2012, 225 civil servants including 60 in the
management and professional group were arrested by the MACC and charged in court.
( STAR 8 November 2012-RED FLAG WARNING RAISED-By Zuhrin Azam Ahmad ).

ISLAM, POSITIVE WORK OF ETHICSAND MORAL VALUE.

Matters that refer to the rightness or wrongness and acceptableness or unacceptableness of a

particular thought or action in Islam are determined by the divine guidelines contained in the
Holy Quran.
Allah SWT says in Quran: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle, and those
charged with authority among you”

20
Islam expects the Islamic subordinates in the public service to obey their superiors not only by
virtue of legal and administrative rules, but because it is the divine requirement.Islam requires
every Muslim who is capable of working to do so; it is a religious and moral necessity as well as
a state requirement and responsibility towards Islamic society. At the same time, Islam protects
the freedom of work so long as it is line with the general Islamic values, or individual rights.
Islam urges Muslims who are healthy and capable to work hard and not to depend on charity
organizations, individuals, or state welfare system. Work in the Islamic system of public
administration is considered an external manifestation of faith.
The Holy Quran says: “As to those who believe and work righteousness, verily, we shall
not suffer to perish the reward on any who do a single righteous deed and o ye who
believe! Full fill all obligations.

Work is duty shared between the public service and the public officials. Both of them should be
concerned with the existence and continuation of the institution for which they work. However,
the public service should not care only about service maximization to the detriment of their
workers. Thus selfishness will only lead to the workers’ dissatisfaction and pressure for higher
wages and benefits. Islam encourages all Muslims to promote a brotherly environment-an
environment that is conducive to efficiency, hard work, and competence in one’s job and not
one that encourages the development of a negative work ethic. As far as the personal functions
such as recruitment, selection, appointment and promotion are concerned, the Islamic
administrative theory stresses merit. The Quran states: “Truly the best of men for them to
employ is the (man) who is strong and trusty”.

The strength corresponds to the skill and qualification the job requires and the ability to
understand Islamic principal and the power to apply them; trustworthiness applies to the fear
Allah SWT and the moral obligation and commitment to society and public service goals. It can
therefore be argued that Islam contributes to the development of a positive work ethic in the
public service as it encourages its followers to work hard and by promoting the “merit”
principal.

21
INTEGRITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN ISLAM

There are two concepts in Islam that, among other, define our understanding of integrity; its
meaning and method of attainment. These are purity and wholeness. We find that the Islamic
definition of integrity resembles the scientific and natural interpretations of the word more
than the philosophical or theoretical understanding; insofar that it refers less to the consistency
with which human behavior is aligned to a given moral or ethical dogma, and more to the
extent to which human behavior is bought into agreement with intrinsic human nature.

The Islamic understanding of purity, unarguably, bases itself on the concept of the fitrah
(natural disposition of the human being). Prophet Muhammad referring to this natural human
being) said: “Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew,
a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that
are maimed (at birth)?All creatures, then, including human beings, are born in a state of innate
purity; any subsequent defilement of that natural condition results from a variety of social
influences and manipulations. It is significant that the above hadeeth, the impurity that
develops, or that is to a degree inflicted, is likened to an actual injury or deformity - it is a
disfiguration of the natural state of the human being.Integrity in Islam refers to the restoration
and maintenance of that natural and primal state of purity. Allah SWT says:
“Set your face to the religion of Islam in sincerity which is Allah’s fitrah upon which He
created mankind. There is no changing in the creation of Allah. That is the right religion
but most people know not”

It is fair to say that completeness is the theme of Islam. Prophet Muhammad frequently
employed metaphors to explain of incomplete or unfinished thing being brought to completion.
For instance, he said: “My likeness and the likeness of the Prophet before me is the likeness of a
person who built a house and made it complete and beautiful,except the place of brick in a
corner. So people began to go around it and wonder at it and say. “Why has not this brick been

22
placed?” He said, “I am that brick and I am the final Prophet”.The imagery of cohesion here
reinforces the words of Allah Almighty, in the Holy Quran announcing the final perfection of His
Revelation to mankind, (what means):
“This day I have perfected my favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as you and
have chosen for you Islam as your religion”

It is submitted that integrity in Islam has to do with the consistency of the individual with his or
her innate purpose; the totality of the individual’s life being kept in alignment with their
intrinsic function. It is not merely the dogmatism of adherence to a relatively arbitrary code of
conduct and behavior, but the preservation of the individual’s purity and authenticity. Whereas
the philosophical definition of integrity would take violation of a given code of ethics as what
invalidates one’s integrity; in Islam, the violation of integrity constitutes an alienation from
one’s nature with drastic and profound consequences that ultimately invalidate one’s very life.

CASE STUDY: PKFZ

23
CONCLUSION

The public service needs public servants who are loyal to their organization, leaders, work
ethics, government and the tax payers. The main reason there of is that the concept of trust
that their income are paid through the taxpayer’s money. Therefore, they should use public
funds, inter alia, effectively and efficiently for the benefit of all the members of the society.
Positive work ethic and attitudes, such as loyalty to public service goals and value, do not
develop automatically. It needs the concerted efforts of all interested members of the society
to develop a positive work ethics and moral values. There is an effective promotion on positive
work ethics and moral values is very essential to be campaigned by the federal and state
governments, educational institutions, caretakers of religions, the society in general and the
parents in specific.

The corruption patterns have changed tremendously in the last 30 years. Corruption used to be
very domestic, very local and the form of corruption payment was very simple. Today, it has
gone beyond borders with the progress of Information Technology and so on. With the
country’s continued positive growth, fighting and scourge has become more complicated,
especially when some of it involved big contracts, procurements and well as very powerful and
influential figures. It needs officers with integrity and courage to investigate such cases that
involve corruption at this level.

24
With that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has propose a module on integrity and
corruption prevention to be included as subjects in primary and secondary schools starting
from next year. The suggestion listed religious, civic and moral education that will teach
students values such as honesty, trustworthiness, sincerity and integrity. The suggestion will
come with the module to mould students to become excellent human capital. The emphasis on
integrity is an attempt to nip corruption in the bud, especially in preventing students from
engaging in corrupt practices when they start working.

As a matter of fact, Malaysia scored 4.3 on the survey which gauges the perceived level of
public sector corruption among 183 countries and ranked third among ASEAN countries behind
Singapore at 9.3 and Brunei at 6.3. The fight against corruption should not be based on public
perception alone but needs the concerted effort of all parties in the society.

REFERENCES
Law of Malaysia. (2009). Retrieved November 1, 2012, from Malaysia Anti-Corruption Act:
http://www.lawnet.com.my/lawnetpublic/Members/tabid/53/ctl/SubDocumentDetails/mid/
369/Default.aspx?DocumentID=70456

Towards A Free Corruption in Malaysia. (2009). National Intergrity Plan , 1.

Transparency International. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1 , 2012, from www.transparency.org:

www.transparency.org

Transparency International. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2012, from www.transparency.org:

http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo?gclid=COfq65azsrMCFYl66wodpmEAiA

Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business ethics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall 6th
edition.

25