|
 ©The Nut Graph
(Used by permission)
by Zedeck Siew
PAIN is almost always expected when dealing with Malaysian government agencies.
We are surprised by helpfulness and efficiency, sometimes to the point that
people are thrilled enough to write happy letters to the editor.
More often than not, we expect bureaucratic feet-dragging, wildly inconsistent
adherence to standard procedure, and no follow-up.
When we do choose to make a fuss, we might turn to the Public Complaints
Bureau (PCB), an oversight body that monitors government services.
Established under the prime minister's department in 1971, the PCB functions as
a sort of national ombud. It represents the public's interests by hearing and
investigating cases of alleged misconduct by arms of the administration.
Thirty years on, the bureau has a well-maintained, frequently updated internet
presence with nine state branches nationwide. It receives around 3,000
complaints annually, ranging from purported abuse of powers by the Royal
Malaysian Police to grouses regarding public hospital fees.
The Nut Graph sat down with director-general Dr Chua Hong Teck to discuss the
PCB's aims and challenges, and how recent events such as Seputeh Member of
Parliament (MP) Teresa Kok's complaints about the food she was given under
police detention have affected the bureau's functions.
TNG: What is the function of the Public Complaints Bureau?
Chua: Our role is to assist people, to help them. They are already fed up with
the department concerned. Where else would they turn to? I advise my staff in
very simple terms: when complainants come to the PCB, we should treat them
better than other agencies have treated them or else, there is no point in
them coming here.
We try to treat every case equally. Whether the rubbish is not collected in
front of your house every day; or whether, if you have applied for a permanent
residency, you don't get it and you don't know why no issue is more important
than another.
How does the PCB receive complaints from the public? What is it doing to be
more accessible?
The PCB receives letters and telephone calls. I talk to certain complainants
personally; sometimes people want the assurance. We hold programmes such as the
Integrated Mobile Complaints Counter, which allows us to reach people in rural
or remote areas.
Nowadays, however, more and more of the complaints we receive arrive through the
PCB website. At the moment, the public may
track the progress of their own
complaint online. The website currently reproduces our annual statistics and
reports for the past eight years, and we are currently looking into providing a
live version that will track all the complaints we've received and our progress
in resolving them.
What kind of complaints does the PCB hear, exactly?
Our website has a guide to the sort of complaints we hear. Additionally, in our
online complaint form, we ask a complainant what he or she wants. Unless
complainants tell us exactly what they want, it is very difficult for us to
assist them.
We deal with maladministration. This can range from cases where no action is
taken or there is a delay; when your application to a department is not
approved, but they don't tell you the reasons; or when there is favouritism.
We don't deal with corruption, or issues that concern agencies such as the
Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), Public Accounts Committee, or the Legal Aid
Bureau. If an issue has gone to the courts, the PCB steps away.
The PCB differs from conventional ombuds by having no legislative authority: it
is not appointed by, and does not report to, Parliament. How does the bureau
actually work? How is it empowered to investigate complaints?
The PCB is an administrative arrangement. We report to the chief secretary to
the government who chairs the Permanent Committee on Public Complaints (PCPC), a
very high-powered committee.
The PCPC includes members like the director-general of the Public Services
Department, the director-general of the Malaysian Administrative and
Modernisation Planning Unit (Mampu, the organisation that deals with
administrative reform), the director-general of the ACA, and the senior deputy
secretary-general of the prime minister's department.
The PCB therefore has an implied power, derived from its position in the prime
minister's department and the PCPC. Because the chief secretary to the
government is also secretary to the cabinet, we effectively report to the
cabinet. Every year, we publish a report that is tabled in cabinet.
Without legislation, the bureau does not have the ability to enforce its
findings, and take action if government agencies fail to comply. Has there been
a case where an agency has been recalcitrant?
If it is good for that department, I don't see why they shouldn't adopt our
recommendations. Most of the time they will listen, because it is good for them.
I've been here for slightly more than two years, and I have never seen any
recommendation that we have made that the government department in question did
not take into consideration.
We have to know how these departments work. We have to know the rules and
regulations involved. We have a legal advisor in the bureau. We also have an
advisory board that consists of public figures from the private and public
sectors, and from non-governmental organisations.
How does the PCB make its recommendations? How do investigations and
negotiations between the bureau and a government department take place?
We issue letters. It is an official correspondence between the bureau and the
relevant department.
Maybe an example would illustrate the process
better. About a year ago, we had the case of this woman who lost her husband. He
was a firefighter. The Fire and Rescue Department has a welfare compensation
fund. If you die in the line of duty, your spouse or next of kin may receive a
certain amount from the government.
She made a complaint because she had been asking for this gratuity for several
years. But, every time she approached the Fire and Rescue Department, they said
that she wasn't eligible because her husband had died while working voluntarily.
We clarified this with the Fire and Rescue Department, and we worked out that
her husband had died while on official duty. Then the department brought up
other reasons: the fact that this woman had remarried soon after her husband's
death, and that the mother of the deceased had also made a claim for the money.
We checked with the religious department as to who had priority in this case
obviously, it was the spouse. At the time of the incident, our complainant was
still the spouse. We told them: it was none of their business whether this woman
had remarried afterwards.
In the end, the Fire and Rescue Department had to agree with us. Our complainant
received her compensation.
In late September 2008, Senator Murugiah Thopasamy, who is deputy minister in
the prime minister's department, said that the PCB would conduct a probe on the
quality of food served to detainees in police lock-ups. This followed MP Teresa
Kok's widely-publicised complaint that the food she was served during her
Internal Security Act detention was "slightly better than dog food."
As a result, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar accused the senator of
interfering with the home ministry, saying that: "It was not his job." Syed
Hamid also compared Murugiah's action as akin to being a spokesman for the
opposition.
As far as I'm concerned and I checked with Minister in the Prime Minister's
Department Tan Sri Bernard Dompok the home ministry cannot say that this is
not our jurisdiction, that we cannot barge in.
We can investigate
complaints lodged against any government department. Some people want us to be
more proactive, and that is what deputy minister Murugiah is doing. The public
does not need to make a complaint they may do it in the press for us to
investigate.
Anybody can lodge a complaint with us. No matter, [even if] you are from the
opposition; as long as you are a member of the public, you can make a complaint.
We even take complaints by non-Malaysians.
How has this incident affected the PCB?
I look at it positively. The function of the PCB has not been interrupted; in
fact, it has further enhanced our public profile. Because of this incident, more
people came to know about us.
For us, we are civil servants. We just do our work.
 |
News/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 109/2012: Be a Part of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee
