http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/187867
In our system of governance today, we only measure the measurable but ignore the non-visible or invisible factors.
Therefore, for example, the Pemandu group takes pride in their major achievements with reducing crime in “hot spots” and increasing the average crime reporting within their stations.
But, they do not talk about how many crimes were not well reported or were dismissed without any investigation at the grassroots levels. A NFA record is therefore not reported, I believe.
In yet other feel-good stories like how much investments have been deployed into ETP projects, we measure funds related to projects, and claim that 82 percent are local funds but do not measure how many FDIs or domestic investors were disappointed and left Malaysia because of corruption and cronyism, which has become endemic in Malaysia.
In the mid-1980s, a team of us at Intan responded to a challenge to innovate new programmes and launched the then Productivity Measurement Programme.
The biggest challenge was how to measure “output” in public service terms as different from goods and services provided by the private sector or companies driven by privatised and capitalised interests.
We quickly found out that public interest has more than one simple customer or beneficiary.
Therefore, even with the factor of the “output” itself, for example, in the issuance of a passport in two hours, the question remains, who is the real customer and is it only the citizen who applies for the passport?
Who is the selected or appointed supplier and was there an open market competition for the supply of services? All these are equally good and relevant questions other than just the mere output level of services.
All these questions led us to two other ideas and ideals; that were the concepts of outcome and impact.
With regard to public services both outcome of the service provided (or the output) and the impact on the different beneficiaries and stakeholders was also an important principle and concern.
Therefore, I was amused that our media and the MACC made some simplistic measurements and victory or feel-good stories; that the MACC’s prosecution rate was now 74 percent.
Most of us have read of the book, “how to lie with statistics.” The figure by MACC and the reports by the media are not analytical enough to tell the whole truth of the matter and related concerns of public interest.
Anyone who has studied Statistics 101 knows two concepts that define any measurement. One is the concept of “population” under study or observation, and the other is the “sample” chosen.
Let me use these foundational statistics concepts to question the MACC and their media allies. First, in public policy training we teach the concept of “definition of the problem.”
Corruption is any institutionalised system of giving selective services based on preferences, rather than from the perspective of the right to service for every individual or applicant.
A non-corrupt system uses reason, logic and rationality to make optimal decisions, or at least providing satisfying solutions to the majority.
Therefore, if I am interested to study our incidence of bribery and corruption in Malaysia, I would first conduct a population survey which asks ordinary people what or how they get normal public services done?
For example, to pass a driving test, do you routinely pay bribes in some institutionalised form? Is it included into your fees within the “driving lessons?” Or, is it outside the system?
Next, I would look at the real problems on the ground in the delivery of that service. What is the normal passing rate? What is the normal failure rate at every station and every driving school?
Based on simple and foundational statistical measures, we can begin to build potential hypotheses about the state and nature of corruption at each level of service delivery. These can be quantitatively measured too.
Only then will I begin to look at the “failure rate for enforcement.” After that I will begin to look at the reports about corruption within that service bureau.
Finally only will I look at the prosecution and success rate of both the MACC and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
For example, against the population’s complaints about corruption, what were the investigation rate and reports about the same? How many cases were passed for prosecution after a thorough investigation?
Only then do I get a fuller picture of the real state of bribery and corruption within the public services and only then can we evaluate whether the MACC is doing a credible job; never before!
Early January, the Malaysia Institute of Development and Asian Studies or MiDAS@UCSI University conducted a public forum on “Media and the 13th General Election.”
What was most glaring and a shocking finding to me at that forum was professors and lecturers from public universities suggesting that our undergraduates “do not know how to think.”
I asked, “do not know how to think or not willing to think?” The response was repeated to me: “They do not know how to think.”
Therefore, I ask what the foundational purpose of education is, if not “how to learn to think about life and issues?” Are we saying then that we have created an entire generation of undergraduates who can only repeat information and review these at some uncritical or simplistic levels of “knowledge?”
The policy science approach we use at UCSI teaches students that defining the problem and having clarity about all potential causes of the problem are the most critical aspects of the problem solving process.
If that definition and potential causes and sources of the problem are not well and clearly articulated, then we have a situation wherein we assume that people are dumb and will believe anything because they are uncritical.
May the media and public agencies in Malaysia learn to tell the truth and especially the whole truth of any matter, but we should not use statistics to tell only part of the story about an issue or concern.
Half-truths are not truths. Bribery and corruption are serious enough issues and concern all sides and stakeholders responsible for these issues.
Partial solutions or progress are never good enough, even if it is a good start. May God bless Malaysia with truth of issues.
KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him atkjjohn@ohmsi.net with any feedback or views.
Therefore, for example, the Pemandu group takes pride in their major achievements with reducing crime in “hot spots” and increasing the average crime reporting within their stations.
But, they do not talk about how many crimes were not well reported or were dismissed without any investigation at the grassroots levels. A NFA record is therefore not reported, I believe.
In yet other feel-good stories like how much investments have been deployed into ETP projects, we measure funds related to projects, and claim that 82 percent are local funds but do not measure how many FDIs or domestic investors were disappointed and left Malaysia because of corruption and cronyism, which has become endemic in Malaysia.In the mid-1980s, a team of us at Intan responded to a challenge to innovate new programmes and launched the then Productivity Measurement Programme.
The biggest challenge was how to measure “output” in public service terms as different from goods and services provided by the private sector or companies driven by privatised and capitalised interests.
We quickly found out that public interest has more than one simple customer or beneficiary.
Therefore, even with the factor of the “output” itself, for example, in the issuance of a passport in two hours, the question remains, who is the real customer and is it only the citizen who applies for the passport?
Amused about the media and MACC
Is the cost of that delivery not also an important question? What was the profit margin of the service provider; that too is an important issue of concern? Who makes all the profits, as this service too is a monopoly.Who is the selected or appointed supplier and was there an open market competition for the supply of services? All these are equally good and relevant questions other than just the mere output level of services.
All these questions led us to two other ideas and ideals; that were the concepts of outcome and impact.
With regard to public services both outcome of the service provided (or the output) and the impact on the different beneficiaries and stakeholders was also an important principle and concern.
Therefore, I was amused that our media and the MACC made some simplistic measurements and victory or feel-good stories; that the MACC’s prosecution rate was now 74 percent.Most of us have read of the book, “how to lie with statistics.” The figure by MACC and the reports by the media are not analytical enough to tell the whole truth of the matter and related concerns of public interest.
Anyone who has studied Statistics 101 knows two concepts that define any measurement. One is the concept of “population” under study or observation, and the other is the “sample” chosen.
Let me use these foundational statistics concepts to question the MACC and their media allies. First, in public policy training we teach the concept of “definition of the problem.”
Conduct a population survey
How or what do we define as “bribery and corruption?” To me, bribery is when one individual uses money or some other form of inducement to get a favour done which he does not nor should not deserve to receive under normal conditions.Corruption is any institutionalised system of giving selective services based on preferences, rather than from the perspective of the right to service for every individual or applicant.
A non-corrupt system uses reason, logic and rationality to make optimal decisions, or at least providing satisfying solutions to the majority.
Therefore, if I am interested to study our incidence of bribery and corruption in Malaysia, I would first conduct a population survey which asks ordinary people what or how they get normal public services done?
For example, to pass a driving test, do you routinely pay bribes in some institutionalised form? Is it included into your fees within the “driving lessons?” Or, is it outside the system?
Next, I would look at the real problems on the ground in the delivery of that service. What is the normal passing rate? What is the normal failure rate at every station and every driving school?
Based on simple and foundational statistical measures, we can begin to build potential hypotheses about the state and nature of corruption at each level of service delivery. These can be quantitatively measured too.
Only then will I begin to look at the “failure rate for enforcement.” After that I will begin to look at the reports about corruption within that service bureau.
Finally only will I look at the prosecution and success rate of both the MACC and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
For example, against the population’s complaints about corruption, what were the investigation rate and reports about the same? How many cases were passed for prosecution after a thorough investigation?
Do not know how to think
How many of those were approved for actual charges being made? And, of those what is the success rate of prosecution?Only then do I get a fuller picture of the real state of bribery and corruption within the public services and only then can we evaluate whether the MACC is doing a credible job; never before!
Early January, the Malaysia Institute of Development and Asian Studies or MiDAS@UCSI University conducted a public forum on “Media and the 13th General Election.”
What was most glaring and a shocking finding to me at that forum was professors and lecturers from public universities suggesting that our undergraduates “do not know how to think.”
I asked, “do not know how to think or not willing to think?” The response was repeated to me: “They do not know how to think.”
Therefore, I ask what the foundational purpose of education is, if not “how to learn to think about life and issues?” Are we saying then that we have created an entire generation of undergraduates who can only repeat information and review these at some uncritical or simplistic levels of “knowledge?”
The policy science approach we use at UCSI teaches students that defining the problem and having clarity about all potential causes of the problem are the most critical aspects of the problem solving process.
If that definition and potential causes and sources of the problem are not well and clearly articulated, then we have a situation wherein we assume that people are dumb and will believe anything because they are uncritical.
May the media and public agencies in Malaysia learn to tell the truth and especially the whole truth of any matter, but we should not use statistics to tell only part of the story about an issue or concern.
Half-truths are not truths. Bribery and corruption are serious enough issues and concern all sides and stakeholders responsible for these issues.
Partial solutions or progress are never good enough, even if it is a good start. May God bless Malaysia with truth of issues.
KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him atkjjohn@ohmsi.net with any feedback or views.
No comments:
Post a Comment