assignment ahmad shamsul 5

8/4/2019 Assignment Ahmad Shamsul 5

1/52

ETHIC ISSUES IN PUBLIC SERVICE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Values and ethics in Public Service are the main important practices

which are parallel to government policies that guides and push forwards

towards glorious success of a country. Therefore, laws and regulations

regulated in Public service contents forbidden and allowed attitudes of

the employees. Ethics and value should be used as the measurement

to determine the success of the occupational objective among the

public servants or employees.

2. DEFINATION OF ETHICSAND PUBLIC SERVICE

2.1. Ethic is defined as an individuals personal beliefs about whether a

decision, behavior, or action is right or wrong (Norman Barry, 1999). It

also defined as concern with moral obligation, responsibility and social

justice (Wiley, 1995).

2.2. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2002) Fifth Edition,

the public service defined as a). Government employment; b). a service

provided to the community especially under the direction local or central

government or other official agency.

1


2/52

2.3. Under Article 132 Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the public service

are the compromised of :

i. the armed forces

ii. the judicial and legal service

iii. the general public service of the Federation

iv. the police force

v. the joint public services mentioned in Article 133

vi. the public service of each State, and

vii. the education service.

2.4. Therefore ethic in public service can be defined as individuals personal

of government employment officers/employees beliefs about whether a

decision, behavior, or action is right or wrong according to Public

Officers (conducts and discipline) regulation 1993 amended in 2002.

3. SCENARIO OF ETHICS EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC SERVICE

3.1. Mustafa (1996) explained that efforts have been taken to make ethics

and values widely practiced in Malaysian Public Service by Malaysian

Government since the programs of Mental Revolution and Bumi Hijau

launched in 1970's.

2


3/52

3.2. Then the Malaysian public servants been introduced with Guidance of

Excellence Service (Panduan Perkhidmatan Cemerlang) in 1979 that

bring the motto Service For The Nation (Berkhidmat Untuk Negara)

that been wrote down in all government official letters.

3.3. The Guidance of Excellence Service have seven core services that

contains guided values for the public servants towards quality of job,

trusteeship, responsibility, efficiently encourage the healthier

environment of good communication with behaviors and conducts that

harmonize accordingly with Rukun Negara. In 1981, the public service

taken to make intention to value the importance to time by

implementing punch card in public service (INTAN, 1994).

3.4. Campaign Bersih, Cekap dan Amanah launched by the Former Prime

Minister of Malaysia, Tun Mahathir Mohammad in year 1982 to educate

and culture a new occupational ethics and behaviors among the

Malaysian society especially the government employees. The top

priority of this campaign was the effort given to promote high job

performances which covers job outputs and job standards (INTAN,

1994).

3


4/52

3.5. In the same year Look to East policy launched focusing in integrating

positive values such as discipline, team loyalty, quality job performance,

efficiency and quality management from developed east countries such

as Japan. The objective of this policy was to improve management and

development performances and create the society that upholds positive

values and ethics for the advancement of nation.

3.6. The values and ethics of public servants strengthen through

Leadership Through Example policy ( Dasar Kepimpinan Melalui

Teladan) in 1983. By this policy, every leader in government agencies

are expected to drive their leadership by good examples to their

subordinates and by changing their bad attitudes and vital positive

values such as hardworking, honest, careful, clean and trust.

3.7. In the year 1985, Enhancing Islamic Values policy has being introduced

in the public sector where the public servants are being promoted to

embrace Islamic values which are comprehensive and universal. The

selected Islamic values are trustee, responsible, moderate, sincere,

dedication, discipline, diligent, cooperative, noble heart and grateful

where the values can be accepted by the man globally (INTAN, 1994).

4


5/52

3.8. Then Excellence Working Culture (Budaya Kerja Cemerlang)

introduced in the year 1989 for increasing quality working culture to

drive the excellence of public service (INTAN, 1994).

3.9. Continuation of that, Islamic Working Ethics launched in 1997, stressing

aspect of the values as the obedience to Allah focusing on sincerity,

trustee, dedication, efficiency, mutual and universal happiness.

3.10. The great consent toward public service shown through Gerakan

Pemantapan Keutuhan Sistem Pengurusan Pentadbiran Kerajaan

Malaysia (GPKSPPKM). This move is the clear evidence of

commitment and seriousness of Malaysian government to generate the

ethical public service but still the implementation are still slow and far

away from achieving its objective and goals.

i. GPKSPPKM has been instructed by the Prime Minister Dato'

Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohammad in 8 January 1998 through the

Prime Minister's Instruction No.1 Year 1998 (Arahan Perdana

Menteri). This instruction requires every state, ministry, and

government agencies to set up the Committee of Totality

Management (Jawatankuasa Keutuhan Pengurusan, JKP)

meant for the efforts to overcome poor administration, financial

management, bribery or corruption prevention among the public

service employee that high-rise government agencies internally,

5


6/52

comprehensively and continuously through effectiveness,

integrity and accountability aspects (Dr. Mazlan, 2000).

ii. This particular Prime Minister's Instruction is the complement for

the steps of reformation in government's Purity Values Programs

(Program Nilai Murni) that had being introduced before. JKP is

constructed based on comprehensive, systematic, continuous

and cohesiveness. Through Purity Values Programs, two types

of values that had being stress on which are core values and

expansion values to be compulsory in every and each

government agencies. Where core values meant to be the

mother values while the expansion values are special values

designed for the particular occupation based on occupational

sectors and main functions of the agencies. The core values

have six values which are trustee, truthful, fairness, wise,

transparent and grateful.

3.11. Some of the circulars that being published:

i. Core Public Service ( Teras Perkhidmatan Awam), January

1979,

ii. Public Service Ethics (Etika Perkhidmatan Awam) and

Excellence Service Concept (Konsep Perkhidmatan Cemerlang),

December 1980 ,

6


7/52

iii. Bersih, Cekap dan Amanah, April 1982,

iv. Enhancing Islamic Values (Penerapan Nilai-nilai Islam Dalam

Perkhidmatan), Julai 1982,

v. Development Administration Circulars (Pekeliling Kemajuan

Pentadbiran ), 1991-2008

vi. Tonggak Dua Belas, 1992,

vii. Leadership Through Example (Kepimpinan Melalui Teladan),

Mac 1983, and

viii. Gerakan Pemantapan Keutuhan Sistem Pengurusan

Pentadbiran Kerajaan Malaysia: Garis Panduan Pelaksanaan

Dan Mekanisme Sistem Penyeliaan Program-program Nilai-nilai

Murni (Arahan YAB Perdana Menteri No.1 Tahun 1998- Siri No.1

Tahun 2000)

7


8/52

4. ISSUES OF ETHICS BY PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

4.1. The philosophy of the Malaysian Public Service is to create the

creative, efficiency, sincere, trustee and hardworking, patient and wise,

firm and brave, having high self dignity, plain and not greed, calm in

facing challenges with clear mind, sincere in their heart, words and

deeds, cooperative and responsible, always take cares of spiritual

health, mental and physical, skilled in their work and always prepared to

teach their skill to others and most important is never makes mistakes

on determine priority. This philosophy is in line with the occupational

ethics - The Main Twelve Pillars (Tonggak Dua Belas).

4.2. Malek Shah (1998) suggest that to build a model of high quality public

service there is a need to create a management based in chastity

values (nilai murni) that gives assurance of achievement world class

standard public service with courtesy and morals. Therefore

management techniques based on implementations of religious values

that cover physical aspects and Islamic metaphysical aspects. So the

intention of succeeding the quality Public Service that will guaranty the

efficiency when we succeed implementation of ethics value that

considers professionalism aspects with moral (akhlak/adap) based on

faith (tawhid) and at theAl-Duniya Wal- Akhirah standards.

8


9/52

4.3. According to Dato' Hj. Ahmad Said (2000) as the official administration

and a government officer that being trusted to administrate the country

with power provided, laws and regulation, resources and uniform

officials, it is up to us to determine the good or bad of our nation. If

every leader and sincere, just and efficiency officers then the good

deeds will be norm and implemented by our society.

4.4. Although there's already have been many instruction and circulation as

been mentioned in this article that relates with public service ethics but

still quantitatively the implementation of ethics only be can be disclosed

through ethical and unethical behaviors cases by the government

employee as below:

i. Unethical Behaviors

(a) Government effort was to high-rise continuously the

service quality in every time, along the mainstream and

development of the nation. Although we have archived

success but still there were weakness to be fixed. We

worry that the implementation of ethic values has been

outer part only without the participation of the inner part of

our public servants. That would not show us the actual

9


10/52

and true identity of our public servants because no

observation was being done to monitor the inner part.

(b) That's making us unsurprised to understand why the

implementation of The Twelve Pillar was not the success

as universal values and implemented in daily live formally

in work or outside work since have being introduced along

ago. Therefore appreciating time, dedication to succeed,

enjoying work, dignity, high personal value and obligation

on job have been neglected. Through observation and

discussion have done shows us there are still many public

servants inattentive in their job, using office time for

personal interest, work usuriously, belief that working is

burden and not ibadah, misused power and government

properties, and show off unmoral behaviors. Although

there's some personal have outstanding performance but

never shows good morals, can't be advised and don't

want hear idea's from others in his department.

(c) Some of unpleasant behaviors that have been reported in

newspapers. Neglected of a hospital employee in Jitra

Hospital that accidentally transferred HIV blood to

housewife. There were reported that in the Magistrate

10


11/52

Court, Shah Alam that about three police officers was

accused on helping seven prisoners to get away from the

prison.

(d) To avoid unlawful act in particular such as sexual

harassment that had reported raised, ethics regarding

sexual harassment in working place has been introduced

in 1999. An instruction given to teachers that obligate

those to sign working contract (akujanji) to make sure that

their will never do anything beyond the teachers ethics. It

was published in news papers in 20 August 2001 that

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)

reported that Malaysian police have violated the human

rights which were against the constitutional of Malaysia

and the basic universal human rights where their have

disperse a gathering unlawful in Jalan Kebun, Klang,

Selangor. These action and the behavior give the

negative impact that shows the implementation of

occupational ethics has been destroying that would lead

towards destruction of image and confident of the public

to the Malaysian Public Service.

11


12/52

(e) The unethical behaviors of the public service employees

has been clarified through General Orders (Chapter A-

G) when their found guilty in committing unlawful

behaviors, such as:

o Breaking the nation's law that can be punished in

any court of law for commit crime, bribery and unlawful

use of drug.

o When the behavior is against the moral principles

of the society such as solitude and sexual harassment.

o When the deed was done not for public but

because of depression such as family, politic, religion

or race.

o Misused the power given.

(f) Every cases that have been mentioned above are

classified as unethical based on what are clarified in

General Order. Based on observations, the unethical

behaviors always happens regardless of big or small

cases that involved in every layer of the government

12


13/52

officers that neglected by the agencies and many cases

were not reported and taken a proper action.

ii. Discipline Cases

(a) Breaking or violating discipline also can be concluded as

violation of values and ethics that has been regulated and

ought to obeyed. Based on statically report by the Public

Service Department (PSD), discipline cases by the

members of Public Service for the recent five years of

duration as reported (2002-2006), taken action (exclude

Armed Force and Police Force) in 2002 2004 and State

Body) was 10,438 personel. Statistical records on

discplinary actionsare as Table 1.0 below:

(b) Numbers of officers of the Malaysian Royal Armed Force

and Police Force that taken action on discipline cases in

recent five years of duration was reported totalled 7,390

and 4,819. Details are as shown in Table 2.0:

(c) Officers from the Supporting Group are the most public

officers that had been given disciplinary actions which

accumulate 9,649 (92%) from 10,438 officers. This

13


14/52

phenomenon are caused by the domination of the

population of Supporting group which are totalled 887,665

(77%) out of 1.1 million public employees. Details of

discipline actions according to groups as Table 3.0

(d) Cases regarding to Absence from duty are the most

highest offence committed by public officers which totaled

7,668 cases (55%) compared to total cases of 13,761

cases. Details and the types of offence including

behavioural as Table 4.0:

(e) Two (2) types of punishments that often used by

Discipline Board are warning(4,527 officers) and dismissal

from duty (2,918 officers). Details as Table 5.0.

(f) From the data apparently discipline cases, absents from

work (Regulation 23) and the failure to be honest and

responsible [regulation 4(2), (f) & (g)] , shows the high

numbers covering more than 80% from the total whole

cases. It was then followed by the cases such as failure to

comply the instruction from high management [Regulation

4(2)(j), Drug abuse [Regulation 7] and failure to defend

the image of public service [Regulation 4(2)(d)]. All these

14


15/52

cases related with the values of dedication toward

success, value of time, enjoyment in work, noble

simplicity, boastful personal and obligation to undermine

task.

Table 1: Statistical Officers records on disciplinary actions, 2002 2006

Classification of Service 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Federal Civil Service 1,136 552 1,066 978 714

State Civil Service 282 206 154 239 304

Federal Body 303 312 217 127 353

Local Authority 222 302 367 249 271

Total 1,943 1,372 1,804 1,593 1,642

Table 2: Statistic number of officer the Malaysian Royal Armed Force

and Police Force that taken action on discipline cases, 2002 - 2006

Service 2002 2003 2004 2005 200

6

TOTAL

Royal Armed Force 3,026 2,784 804 253 523 7,390

Royal Police Force 1,130 1,397 984 878 430 4,819

TOTAL 4,156 4,181 1,788 1,131 953 12,209

Table 3.0 :Discipline Actions According To Groups, 2002 2006

Year/

Group

Management Management &

Professional

Supporting

Group

Total

2002 2 155 1,786 1,943*

2003 1 126 1,245 1,372*

2004 4 159 1,641 1,804*

2005 2 147 2,575 2,724

2006 3 190 2,402 2,595

TOTA

L

12 777 9,649 10,438

Note:* exclude Royal Armed Force and Royal Police Force

Table 4.0 : Types of Offence, 2002-2006

15


16/52

Offence 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Absence From Duty 2,182 820 2,056 1,300 1,310

Behavioural & Prohibitive 1,234 357 771 928 854

Court Cases 375 125 132 222 240

Drug Abuse 391 58 285 84 37

Total 4,182 1,360 3,244 2,534 2,441

Table 5.0: Punishment Types, 2002 2006

Punishment /Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Warning 1,438 522 855 969 743

Fine 524 114 166 459 227

Lucut Hak Emolument 517 326 391 317 148

Tangguh Pergerakan Gaji 219 118 137 191 148

Turun Gaji 88 49 78 74 75Turun Pangkat 85 16 2 24 16

Buang Kerja 530 389 618 753 628

TOTAL 3,401 1,534 2,247 2,787 1,985

16


17/52

5. ANTI CORRUPTION ACT 1997

5.1. Bribesare one of the main types of corruption. The Public Service of

Malaysia have stated clearly in Regulation 8 - Present , Chapter D

under the General Order which indicated that the government actually

tries to avoid and overcome the bribery issues in public service and its

employees. The two (2) sub regulation under regulation 8 as below:

i. Sub regulation (1) subject to the provisions of this regulation, an

officer shall not receive or give nor shall he allow his spouse or

any other person to receive or give on his behalf any present,

whether in a tangible form or otherwise, from or to any person,

association, body, or group of persons if the receipt or giving of

such present is in any way connected, either directly or indirectly,

with his official duties.

ii. Sub regulation (4) if the circumstances make it difficult for an

officer to refuse a present or token of value, the receipt of which

is prohibited by this regulation, such present may be formally

accepted but the officer shall, as soon as practicable, submit to

his Head of Department a written report containing a full

description and the estimated value of the present and the

circumstances under which it was received.

17


18/52

5.2. Anti Corupption Agency (ACA) discripes bribery offences as below:

i. Soliciting/Accepting Bribes - Any person or agent who

corruptly solicits/accepts/agrees to accept gratification

(money/property/ service and others) as an inducement or a

reward to do or not to do an act inrelation to a transaction or any

official act of his principal or employer.

ii. Offering/Giving Bribes - Any person who corruptly offers/gives

gratification (money/property/service and others) as an

inducement or a reward for any person or agent to do or not to

do an act in relation to a transaction or any official act of his

principal or employer

5.3. In 1997, Malaysian Government introduced Anti Corruption Act 1997

(act 575) to combat bribery which was the combination of three (3) acts;

Anti Corruption Act 1961, Anti Corruption Agency 1982 and Ordinance

(Kuasa-Kuasa Perlu) Dharurat No. 22 1970.

5.4. Since year 1995 ACA launched anti bribery campaigns which

encourages government officers to take action to anybody that tried to

bribe them. Refer to Table 6, the statistics shown that the information

about information, investigation paper, total arrested and charged have

been conducted by ACA during the year of 2004 to 2007. From this

18


19/52

statistics, it discovered by overall increasing in information on corruption

activity which has been received and also prosecution were carried out

by stated body. Amount are also increasing in total government officer

arrested and charge for the bribery cases. Also, base current

development year 2008, the number arrested in January to June 2008

has surpassed total overall arrested for the last year.

Table 6.0: Bribery Statistic for 2004 -2007

2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Information 11,413 11292 11061 12407 46173

InvestigationPaper 982 1441 1317 1365 5105

Arrested 497 485 546 591 2119

Charged 178 205 254 222 859

ACA Report 146 210 251 234 841

Peg. Kerajaan 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Arrested 242 239 277 303 1061

Charged 78 121 142 133 474

Table 7.0 : The Number Arrested In January To June 2008

Month Arrested

January 80

February 27

March 39

April 72

May 65

June 36

Total 319

Source: www.bpr.gov.my

6. PUBLIC OFFICERS (CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE) REGULATION1993

19


20/52

6.1. According to Chapter One, Service Order (Arahan Perkhidmatan)

(1999), government's agencies are been set up to implement the

government policies without wasting any resources of manpower, time

and money. The purpose is accordingly to the principles of value and

ethics based on integrity, loyalty and honesty.

6.2. Basically the important matters regarding to ethics and behaviors of the

public servants have being stated in Chapter D, General Order,

Regulations of Officers ( Conducts and Discipline) 2002. Although it is

being not spelled out as ethics but still it contents the ethics principles

that every public servant to uphold in their service such as:

i. Execute jobs with efficiency, sincerely and responsibility;

ii. Give priority to the public interest than self interest in their work;

iii. Protect the image of public service in all time.

6.3. The Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation 1993 (the

General Orders the GO) are being illustrated by section 2 of Article

132 of Federal Constitution effective on 15th December 1993 and

amended in 2002.

6.4. These regulations has been stated clearly in Malaysian governments

General Orders, Chapter D especially under Conduct in Section II

which comprise of 20 subtitle that discuss the matter. These regulations

20


21/52

are imposed to all public service officers in all time during their service.

Any violation upon these regulations may result discipline acts done to

the person involved.

6.5. Under the GO, Part V sets out the procedure pertaining to dismissal or

a reduction in rank of a public officer. Regulation 35 empowers the

Chairman of the Disciplinary Authority (the DA) to determine the nature

of the breach of discipline, whether it warrants a punishment of

dismissal or reduction in rank. If the breach does not warrant a

dismissal or a reduction in rank, the DA should follow the procedure in

regulation 36. Otherwise, the DA will proceed under regulation 37.

6.6. Under regulation 37(2), if the Chairman of the DA is satisfied that there

exists a prima facie against the officer, he shall cause a letter to be sent

to the officer containing the facts of the disciplinary offence and the

grounds on which it is proposed to dismiss the officer or to reduce his

rank.

6.7. The officer is then required to make a representation within 21 days

containing the grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself. If the

officer did not make any representation or that his representation does

not exculpate himself to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority,

21


22/52

the Disciplinary Authority shall proceed to consider and decide whether

to dismiss or to reduce his rank.

6.8. However, if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the case

requires further clarification, the Disciplinary Authority may establish an

Investigation Committee for the purpose of obtaining such further

clarification.

6.9. Pursuant to regulation 37D, the Disciplinary Authority may impose any

punishment or may even acquit the officer after considering the officers

representation and the report of the Investigation Committee.

6.10. The main discipline regulation in Public Officers (Conduct and

Discipline) Regulation 1993 are:

i. Regulation 4: General

ii. Regulation 4A: Sexual harassment

iii. Regulation 5: Outside employment

iv. Regulation 6: Dress etiquette

v. Regulation 7: Drugs

vi. Regulation 8: Present, etc.

vii. Regulation 9: Entertainment

viii. Regulation 10: Ownership property

22


23/52

ix. Regulation 11: Maintaining a standard of living beyond

emoluments and legitimate private means

x. Regulation 12: Borrowing money

xi. Regulation 13: Serious pecuniary indebtedness

xii. Regulation 14: Report of serious pecuniary indebtedness

xiii. Regulation 15: Lending money

xiv. Regulation 16: Involvement in the futures market

xv. Regulation 17: Lucky draws, lotteries, etc.

xvi. Regulation 18: Publication of books, etc.

xvii. Regulation 19: Making public statement

xviii. Regulation 20: Prohibition on acting as editor, etc., in any

publication

xix. Regulation 21: Taking part in politics

xx. Regulation 22: Institution of legal proceedings and legal aid

xxi. Regulation 23: Absence from duty

xxii. Regulation 24: Disciplinary action for absence without leave

(See Appendix A for the details)

7. CHALLENGING A DISCIPLINARY DECISION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

23


24/52

7.1. Procedural Fairness

i. In the case of Ghazi bin Sawi v. Mohd Haniff bin Omar, Ketua

Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 114 the Supreme

Court applied the principles in Council of Civil Service Union v

Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 697. At page 126-

127, Jemuri Serjan SCJ delivering the judgment of the court

said:

The common law concept of natural justice is already embodied

in GO 23 and art 135(2) of the Federal Constitution in so far as

the right to be heard is concerned. Since the effect of certiorari is

to quash a decision which is void or ultra vires in the broad

sense, we need only to consider whether in dismissing the

appellant, the respondent had failed to observe the rules of

natural justice, apply the Wednesbury principles of

unreasonableness adverted to earlier on, or failed to understand

correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power, and

give effect to it. Lord Diplock had compendiously classified the

grounds for judicial review under three heads, and referred to

them as procedural impropriety, irrationality and illegality. See

the GCHQ case Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for

the Civil Service at p 410 as it is now known. Here, in the

24


25/52

present appeal, the appellant relied only on the ground of

procedural impropriety which until then was popularly referred to

as the breach of the rule of natural justice or the denial of the

right to be heard.

ii. Federal Court decision in Lembaga tatatertib Perkhidmatan

Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang & Anor v Utra Badi a/l K

Perumal [2001] 2 MLJ 417 which had clearly decided the Article

135(2) Federal Constitution and the GO are in accord with the

concept of natural justice and procedural fairness in common

law. Therefore, since the procedures on dismissal have been

clearly provided in the GO, is the Court in any position to

question the procedures under an extended version of

procedural fairness in common law? Can the Court of Appeal

do so in light of Jemuri Serjans (SCJ) judgment in Ghazi bin

Sawi where His Lordship held that the principles at common law

do not apply to a case regulated by statutes or subsidiary

legislation which have legislative effect. Would the court be

usurping the powers and functions of the executive by

questioning the procedures in the GO according to the courts

perception of what amount to fairness in the circumstances of

the case?

7.2. Right to an Oral Hearing

25


26/52

i. The right to be heard before a person can be dismissed or

reduced in rank is entrenched in Article 135(2) of the Federal

Constitution (the Constitution), which reads: (2) No member of

such a service as aforesaid shall be dismissed or reduced in

rank without being given a reasonable opportunity of being

heard.

ii. Regulation 34 of the GO has also provided that before an officer

can be dismissed or reduced in rank, he must be informed in

writing of the grounds on which such action is proposed and he

had been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

iii. The pertinent question of whether the right to be heard in Article

135(2) Federal Constitution includes a right to an oral hearing

that had been settled by both the Supreme Court in Ghazis case

and the Federal Court in Utra Badi a/l K Perumal. In Ghazis

case, SCJ Jemuri Serjan made the following pronouncement on

this: The right to be heard does not mean the right to be heard

orally. What it means is that the officer concerned should be

given a full opportunity of stating his case.

26


27/52

iv. In any event, the right to an oral hearing has been specifically

provided by regulation 37(5) of the GO which clearly provides

that if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the case

against the officer requires further clarification, the Disciplinary

Authority may establish an Investigation Committee for the

purpose of obtaining such further clarification.

v. Further, regulation 37B (2) and (3) allows the Investigation

Committee to call the officer to give evidence before the

Committee as well as an opportunity to cross-examine any

witness that was called to give evidence before the Committee.

vi. In Ganasan a/l Marimuthu v. Public Services Commission & Anor

[1998] 4 CLJ 331 at 342, His Lordship NH Chan JCA said:

The Privy Council as well as the Supreme Court have held that

in employing the procedure prescribed in general order 26 and

the former reg 30 of the general orders, the requirements of

fairness have been satisfied by an opportunity to make written

representations to the deciding body. In all such cases, it has

been held time and again by the highest courts in the land that

written representations will suffice and that a fair hearing does

not mean that there must be an opportunity to be heard orally by

27


28/52

the officer in person or by his lawyer at the disciplinary authority

stage.

It is only if a committee of inquiry is appointed because the

disciplinary authority requires further clarification in the case

against the officer (General Order 26(5)), that he will have the

opportunity of giving oral testimony to exculpate himself (General

Order 26(6)). It is only then that the committee has discretion to

allow him to be represented by an officer of the public service or,

in exceptional cases, by an advocate and solicitor (General

Order 26(8)).

vii. However, the Court of Appeal in Ang Seng Wan v Suruhanjaya

Polis Di Raja Malaysia & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 131 had decided

that in the circumstances of the case, where the officer had given

an exculpatory statement, the failure to hold an oral hearing

tantamount to a failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to

afford the officer a reasonably opportunity of being heard. At

page 136-137 Mohd Saari J held:

There is nothing in law which prohibits a disciplinary authority

from holding an oral hearing or enquiry. The decision whether to

hold an enquiry or not would depend on the circumstances of

each case. Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that

28


29/52

there is no evidence whatsoever to contradict the exculpatory

statement of ASP Ang, the holding of an oral hearing or enquiry

would, in our view, be justifiable. It follows, therefore, by such

omission, it tantamount to failure on the part of PSC to afford

ASP Ang a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7.3. Access to Documents

i. The GO does not provide Disciplinary Authority a duty to supply

documents when directing the officer to make representation to

exculpate himself. The GO only provides a specific situation

where the officer can have access to the documents. This is

provided by regulation 37B(4) which provides that:

(4) No documentary evidence shall be used against an officer

unless the officer has previously been supplied with a copy of the

evidence or given access to the evidence.

ii. In Nicholas Langok Changkok v Director General of Prison & Ors

[2001] 7 CLJ 428, Slaiman Daud JC in applying the GO said as

follows:

It is clearly stated therein that only the report of the incident was

referred the Disciplinary Board and that the Board only

considered that report in finding that there is prima facie case

against the plaintiff and deciding that a charge be framed against

29


30/52

him. I did not find anything in the said reg. 28 to require such

report to be furnished to the plaintiff. Subregulation (1) thereof

only require a statement containing the facts of the breach of

discipline alleged to have been committed by the officer and any

proposed ground on which the officer is to be dismissed or

reduced in rank to be sent to the officer concerned.

iii. Tthe Court of Appeal in the judgment of Justice Sri Ram in Raja

Abdul Maleks case also seemed to indicate that there is no duty

on the disciplinary authority to provide documents without any

requests made by the officer. Therefore, if the officer made a

request for access to the relevant documents, does the refusal to

accede to his request amount to a denial of natural justice?

iv. In Ang Seng Wan, the Court of Appeal had also clearly implied

that in certain circumstance it might be necessary to furnish the

statements of witnesses and reports to the public officer. In Ang

Seng Wan, it was held that "there is nothing in law which

prohibits a disciplinary authority from holding an oral hearing or

enquiry", and that the "decision to hold an enquiry or not would

depend on the circumstances of each case". In the event, it was

held by the Court of Appeal that the absence of evidence to

rebut or contradict the exculpatory statement of the public officer

30


31/52

plus the fact that "the statements of witnesses and reports,

although they were supplied to members of the PSC, were not

supplied to ASP Gan" made it necessary for an oral hearing to

be held, and that therefore the failure to conduct an oral hearing

was a failure in the procedure and a breach of "natural justice as

enshrined under art. 135(2)".

v. The GO does not provide a duty to supply documents when

directing the public officer to make representations. The

legislative scheme has provided the only situation where

documents are supplied to the public officer. This is a situation

where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that further

clarification is needed, only then the public officer is accorded an

oral hearing where regulation 37B(4) provides no documentary

evidence shall be used against the officer unless he is previously

supplied with a copy.

7.4. Autrefois Convict and Autrefois Acquit

i. The doctrine of autrfois convict and autrefois acquit emanates

from criminal law. In Mohammad Yusoff v Attorney General

[1975] 1 MLJ 1, Justice Chua had quoted the principle as stated

by Charles J in R v Mills: The principle is that no man shall be

31


32/52

placed in peril of legal penalties more than once on the same

accusation.

ii. In the GO, regulation 31:

(1) An officer who is acquitted of a criminal charge in any

criminal proceedings shall not be subject to disciplinary action on

the same charge.

(2) Nothing in subregulation (1) shall be construed so as to

prevent disciplinary action from being taken against the officer on

any other ground arising out of his conduct in relation to the

criminal charge, whether or not connected to the performance of

his duties, as long as the grounds for the disciplinary action do

not raise substantially the same issues as those in the criminal

proceedings in relations to the criminal charge of which the

officer was acquitted.

iii. In Mohammad Yusoff v Attorney General [1975] 1 MLJ 1, Justice

Chua held that what is prohibited under the doctrine is double

punishment for the same offence. Therefore, since the Public

Service Commission is merely tasked to enforce a high standard

of propriety and professional conduct and not to enforce

punishment like a court of law, His Lordship held that the

doctrine does not preclude a man who has been acquitted or

32


33/52

convicted upon a set of facts alleged to constitute an offence

being subsequently subjected upon the same facts to disciplinary

action by a domestic tribunal.

iv. The predecessor to regulation 31, which is regulation 29 of the

GO, 1980 became an issue before Justice Steve Shim in Mohd

Nasir Shamsuddin v Inspector General of Police & Anor [1997] 5

CLJ 398. In this case, the officer was charged under section 406

of the Penal Code for dishonest misappropriation or disposal of

property which he had been entrusted with. He was

subsequently discharged not amounting to an acquittal. About 3

years later disciplinary action was taken and he was dismissed

from the police force.

v. One of the issues raised was whether by taking disciplinary

action on the basis of the four charges which contained

substantially the same issues upon which the officer was earlier

discharged not amounting to an acquittal by the magistrate's

court, had contravened regulation 29. Justice Steve Shim then

proceed to examine the ingredients of section 406 of The Penal

Code and compare them with the disciplinary charges. At page

404/a-c His Lordship said:

33


34/52

It is quite obvious that the charges relied upon by the 1st

defendant in dismissing the plaintiff form a concerted attack upon

his general conduct in the performance of his duties - that he

was grossly negligent in the handling of the exhibits under his

care, custody and control at all material times. They are certainly

not directed at any dishonest intention on the part of the plaintiff

in relation to the said exhibits. In the circumstances therefore it

cannot be said that the grounds of dismissal are the same or

substantially the same as those for which the plaintiff was

charged in the magistrate's court and subsequently discharged

not amounting to an acquittal. They might have been concerned

with the same exhibits but the nature and character of the

charges are entirely dissimilar, one being concerned with a

criminal offence and the other with gross negligence or gross

dereliction of duty. That being the case, there has been no

contravention of General Order 29 aforesaid.

8. CONCLUSION

The efficiency of implementation of occupational ethics in Malaysian Public

Service has been argued and discussed. Although there are many regulation,

values and ethics that have been published for implementation, but there are

still need to focus on launching and explaining. Follow ups and continuous

34


35/52

action need to be done by the government agencies. Circulations and

instructions related to values and ethics need to launched in stages so that

ethic values can be implemented. Although there are many programs to

succeed implementation of ethic value in our public service but it won't

succeed until the leaders and the employees in government agencies are

committed toward implementing

occupational ethics.

35


36/52

Public Officers (Conducts And Discipline)

Regulation 1993 Amended In 2002

Main Discipline Regulation

A. Regulation 4. General

(1) An officer shall at all times give his loyalty to the Yang di-Pertuan

Agong, the country and the Government.

(2) An officer shall not-

(a) subordinate his public duty to his private interests;

(b) conduct himself in such a manner as is likely to bring his private

interests into conflict with his public duty;

(c) conduct himself in any manner likely to cause a reasonable

suspicion that

(i) he has allowed his private interests to come into conflict

with his public duty so as to impair his usefulness as a

public officer; or(ii) he has used his public position for his personal

advantage;

(d) conduct himself in such a manner as to bring the public service

into disrepute or bring discredit to the public service;

(e) lack efficiency or industry;

(f) be dishonest or untrustworthy;

(g) be irresponsible;

(h) bring or attempt to bring any form of outside influence or

pressure to support or advance any claim relating to or against

the public service, whether the claim is his own claim or that of

any other officer;

36

Appendix A


37/52

(i) be insubordinate or conduct himself in any manner which can be

reasonably construed as being insubordinate; and

(j) be negligent in performing his duties.

B. Regulation 4A. Sexual harassment

(1) An officer shall not subject another person to sexual harassment, that is

to say, an officer shall not -

(a) make any sexual advance, or any request for sexual favours, to

another person; or

(b) do any act of a sexual nature in relation to another person, in

circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all

the circumstances, would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

(2) A reference in subregulation (1) to the doing of an act of a sexual

nature to another person

(a) includes the making of a statement of a sexual nature to, or in

the presence of, that other person, whether the statement is

made orally or in writing or in any other manner;

(b) is not limited to the doing of such act at workplace or duringworking hours only as long as the doing of such act brings the

public service into disrepute or bring discredit to the public

service.

C. Regulation 5. Outside employment

(1) Unless and to the extent that he is required or authorized to do so in the

course of his duties as an officer of a public service, an officer shall not

(a) take part, either directly or indirectly, in the management or

dealings of any commercial, agricultural or industrial undertaking;

(b) undertake for reward any work with any institution, company, firm

or private individual;

37


38/52

(c) as an expert, furnish any report or give any evidence, whether

gratuitously or for reward; or

(d) function as an executor, administrator or receiver.

(2) Notwithstanding subregulation (1), an officer may, with the prior written

permission of his Head of Department, carry on any of the activities or

perform any of the services specified in that subregulation, either for his

benefit or for the benefit of his close relatives or any non-profit-making

body of which he is an office-bearer.

(3) In considering whether or not permission should be granted to any

officer under subregulation (2), the Head of Department shall have

regard to the code of conduct as laid down in regulation 4 and shall

ensure that the activity or service-

(a) does not take place during office hours and during such time

when the officer is required to perform his official duties;

(b) does not in any way tend to impair the officer's usefulness as an

officer of the public service; and

(c) does not in any way tend to conflict with the interests of the

public service or be inconsistent with the officer's position as an

officer of the public service.(4) Except as may otherwise be determined by the Federal Treasury, all

sums of money received by an officer as remuneration for carrying on

any of the activities or performing any of the services mentioned in

subregulation (1) shall be deposited with the Federal Treasury pending

its decision as to the amount, if any, which may be retained by the

officer personally and by any other officer who assists such officer in

carrying on the activity or performing the service.

D. Regulation 6. Dress etiquette

(1) An officer on duty shall always be properly attired in such manner as

may be specified by the Government through directives issued from

38


39/52

time to time by the Director General of Public Service or other

authorities.

(2) An officer who is required to attend an official function shall be attired

as specified for the function, and if the dress etiquette for such function

is not specified, he shall be appropriately attired for such function.

E. Regulation 7. Drugs

(1) An officer shall not use or consume any dangerous drug, except as may

be prescribed for his use or consumption for medicinal purposes by a

medical practitioner who is registered under the Medical Act 1971 [Act

50], or abuse or be dependent on any dangerous drug.

(2) If a Government Medical Officer certifies that an officer is using or

consuming, other than for medicinal purposes, a dangerous drug or is

abusing or dependent on a dangerous drug, that officer shall be liable

to disciplinary action with a view to dismissal.

(3) Notwithstanding subregulation (2), the service of an officer whom a

Government Medical Officer has certified to be using or consuming,

other than for medicinal purposes, a dangerous drug or abusing ordependent on a dangerous drug may be terminated in the public

interest under regulation 49 if the officer has attained the optional

retirement age specified by the Government at that time.

(4) For the purpose of this regulation, "dangerous drug" means any drug or

substance listed in the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

[Act 234].

F. Regulation 8. Present, etc.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, an officer shall not receive

or give nor shall he allow his spouse or any other person to receive or

give on his behalf any present, whether in a tangible form or otherwise,

39


40/52

from or to any person, association, body, or group of persons if the

receipt or giving of such present is in any way connected, either directly

or indirectly, with his official duties.

(2) The Head of Department of an officer may, if he thinks fit, permit the

officer to receive a letter of recommendation from any person,

association, body, or group of persons on the occasion of the officer's

retirement or transfer so long as such letter of recommendation is not

enclosed in a receptacle of value.

(3) The Head of Department may permit the collection of spontaneous

contributions by officers under his charge for the purpose of making a

presentation to an officer in his Department on the occasion of the

officer's retirement, transfer or marriage or any other appropriate

occasion.

(4) If the circumstances make it difficult for an officer to refuse a present or

token of value, the receipt of which is prohibited by this regulation, such

present may be formally accepted but the officer shall, as soon as

practicable, submit to his Head of Department a written report

containing a full description and the estimated value of the present and

the circumstances under which it was received.(5) Upon receipt of a report made under subregulation (4), the Head of

Department shall

(a) permit the officer to retain the present; or

(b) direct that the present be returned, through the Head of

Department, to the giver.

G. Regulation 9. Entertainment

An officer may give to or accept from any person any kind of

entertainment if-

40


41/52

(a) the entertainment does not in any manner influence the

performance of his duties as a public officer in the interest of that

person; and

(b) the giving or acceptance of such entertainment is not in any way

inconsistent with regulation 4.

H. Regulation 10. Ownership property

(1) An officer shall, on his appointment to the public service or at any time

thereafter as may be required by the Government, declare in writing to

his Head of Department all properties owned by him or by his spouse or

child or held by any person on his behalf or on behalf of his spouse or

child.

(2) An officer who does not own any property shall make a declaration in

writing to that effect.

(3) Where, after making a declaration under subregulation (1), an officer or

his spouse or child acquires any property, either directly or indirectly, or

any property acquired by him or by his spouse or child is disposed of,

that officer shall immediately declare such acquisition or disposal ofproperty to his Head of Department.

(4) Where an officer or his spouse or child intends to acquire any property,

and the acquisition is inconsistent with regulation 4, the acquisition shall

not be made without the prior written permission of the Secretary

General of the Ministry.

(5) In deciding whether or not to grant permission under subregulation (4),

the Secretary General of the Ministry shall have regard to the following

matters:

(a) the size, amount or value of the property in relation to the

officer's emoluments and any legitimate private means;

(b) whether the acquisition or holding of such property will or is likely

to conflict with the interests of the public service or with the

41


42/52

officer's position as a public servant, or be in any way

inconsistent with regulation 4;

(c) any other factor which he may consider necessary for upholding

the integrity and efficiency of the public service.

(6) The Head of Department shall, if he is satisfied with the declaration of

property made by the officer, direct that it be recorded in the officer's

records of service that the declaration has been made.

(7) Every declaration under subregulation (1) shall be categorized as

classified and every person who gains information under this regulation

of any such declaration shall comply with the procedures and

regulations pertaining to the management of the Government's

classified documents.

(8) In this regulation, "property" includes property of any description,

whether movable or immovable, as may be prescribed by the Director

General of Public Service from time to time.

I. Regulation 11: Maintaining a standard of living beyond

emoluments and legitimate private means

(1) Where the Head of Department is of the opinion that an officer is or

appears to be-

(a) maintaining a standard of living which is beyond his emoluments

and other legitimate private means, if any; or

(b) in control or in possession of pecuniary resources or property,

movable or immovable, the value of which is disproportionate to,

or which could not reasonably be expected to have been

acquired by the officer with his emoluments and other legitimate

private means,

the Head of Department shall, by notice in writing, requires the officer to

give a written explanation within a period of thirty days from the date of

42


43/52

receipt of such notice on how he is able to maintain such standard of

living or how he obtained such pecuniary resources or property.

(2) The Head of Department shall, upon receipt of the explanation under

subregulation (1) or, where the officer fails to give any explanation

within the specified period, upon the expiry of such period, report this

fact to the appropriate Disciplinary Authority together with the officer's

explanation, if any.

(3) Upon receipt of the report under subregulation (2), the appropriate

Disciplinary Authority may take disciplinary action against the officer or

take such other action against the officer as it deems fit.

J. Regulation 12. Borrowing money

(1) No officer may borrow from any person or stand as surety to any

borrower, or in any manner place himself under a pecuniary obligation

to any person-

(a) who is directly or indirectly subject to his official authority;

(b) with whom the officer has or is likely to have official dealings;(c) who resides or possesses land or carries on business within the

local limits of his official authority; or

(d) who carries on the business of money lending.

(2) Notwithstanding subregulation (1), an officer may borrow money from,

or stand as surety to any person who borrows money from, any

financial institution, insurer or co-operative society, or incur debt

through the acquisition of goods by means of hire-purchase

agreements, if

(a) the financial institution, insurer or co-operative society from

which the officer borrows is not directly subject to his official

authority;

43


44/52

(b) the borrowing does not and will not lead to public scandal and

cannot be construed as an abuse by the officer of his public

position to his private advantage; and

(c) the aggregate of his debts does not or is not likely to cause the

officer to be in serious pecuniary indebtedness as defined under

subregulations 13(7) and (8).

(3) Subject to subregulation (2), an officer may incur debts arising from-

(a) sums borrowed on the security of land charged or mortgaged,

where the sums borrowed do not exceed the value of the land;

(b) overdrafts or other credit facilities approved by financial

institutions;

(c) sums borrowed from insurers on the security of insurance

policies;

(d) sums borrowed from the Government or any co-operative

society;

(e) payment due on goods acquired by means of hire-purchase

agreements.

K. Regulation 13. Serious pecuniary indebtedness

(1) An officer shall not in any manner cause himself to be in serious

pecuniary indebtedness.

(2) Serious pecuniary indebtedness from whatever cause, other than as a

result of unavoidable misfortune not contributed to in any way by the

officer himself, shall be regarded as bringing disrepute to the public

service and shall render the officer liable to disciplinary action.

(3) Where serious pecuniary indebtedness has occurred as a result of

unavoidable misfortune, the Government may give to the officer such

assistance as the circumstances may warrant.

(4) If an officer finds that his debts cause or are likely to cause serious

pecuniary indebtedness to him, or civil proceedings arising from the

44


45/52

debt have been instituted against him, he shall immediately report this

fact to his Head of Department.

(5) An officer who fails or delays in reporting his serious pecuniary

indebtedness or who reports his serious pecuniary indebtedness but

fails to disclose its full extent or gives a false or misleading account of

such indebtedness commits a breach of discipline and shall be liable to

disciplinary action.

(6) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this regulation, where an

officer's debts amount to serious pecuniary indebtedness but he has

not been adjudged a bankrupt, the Head of Department shall monitor

and, from time to time, review the case.

(7) For the purpose of this regulation, the expression "serious pecuniary

indebtedness" means the state of an officer's indebtedness which,

having regard to the amount of debts incurred by him, has actually

caused serious financial hardship to him.

(8) Without prejudice to the general meaning of the expression "serious

pecuniary indebtedness" set out in subregulation (7), an officer shall be

deemed to be in serious pecuniary indebtedness if-

(a) the aggregate of his unsecured debts and liabilities at any giventime exceeds ten times his monthly emoluments;

(b) he is a judgement debtor and the judgment debt has not been

settled within the period of one month upon receipt of the sealed

order of the judgement; or

(c) he is a bankrupt, or an insolvent wage earner, as the case may

be, for so long as any judgment against him in favour of the

Official Assignee remains unsatisfied or for so long as there is no

annulment of his adjudication of bankruptcy.

(9) Notwithstanding subregulation (7), an officer may incur debts for the

purpose of education loan so long as he is not declared a bankrupt.

45


46/52

L. Regulation 14. Report of serious pecuniary indebtedness

(1) The Registrar or Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court and the

Registrar of the Sessions and Magistrate's Courts shall, in respect of

proceedings in their courts, report to the appropriate Head of

Department every case of a public officer-

(a) who, being a judgement debtor, does not appear from the file of

the suit to have settled the debt within the period of one month

upon receipt of the sealed order of the judgement;

(b) who has filed his own petition in bankruptcy or for a wage

earner's administration order; or

(c) against whom a creditor's petition in bankruptcy has been

presented.

(2) The Official Assignee shall, as soon as he has sufficiently investigated

the affairs of a public officer who is a bankrupt or an insolvent wage

earner, communicate to the appropriate Head of Department a report

containing the following matters:

(a) the Statement of Affairs filed by the bankrupt or an insolvent

wage earner in accordance with the bankruptcy law for the timebeing in force;

(b) the amount of instalment payment ordered or proposed to be

made;

(c) whether or not the Official Assignee proposes to initiate any

further proceedings and, if so, a brief indication relating to the

nature of those further proceedings;

(d) the main cause of the bankruptcy;

(e) whether in his opinion the case involves unavoidable misfortune,

dishonourable conduct or any other special circumstances,

favourable or unfavourable to the officer; and

(f) any other matter which, in his discretion, he thinks proper to

mention.

46


47/52

(3) The Head of Department shall forward the report received under

subregulations (1) and (2) together with his report on the officer's work

and conduct before and since his serious pecuniary indebtedness to

the appropriate Disciplinary Authority.

(4) After considering all the reports, the appropriate Disciplinary Authority

shall decide whether to take disciplinary action against the officer

concerned and, if so, what action to take.

(5) If the disciplinary action taken under subregulation (4) results in a

punishment of deferment of salary movement, the appropriate

Disciplinary Authority may, on the expiry of the deferment of salary

movement, order that an amount equivalent to the restored salary

movement be added to the instalments payable to the Official Assignee

or to any judgement creditor.

(6) An officer who obtains an annulment of his bankruptcy may be treated

as having fully restored his credit.

M Regulation 15. Lending money

(1) An officer shall not lend money at interest, whether with or withoutsecurity.

(2) The placing of money on fixed deposit or into an account in any

financial institution or co-operative society or in bonds issued by the

Government or by any statutory body shall not be regarded as lending

of money at interest for the purposes of this regulation.

N. Regulation 16. Involvement in the futures market

No officer shall involve himself as a buyer or seller or otherwise in any local or

foreign futures market.

47


48/52

O. Regulation 17. Lucky draws, lotteries, etc.

An officer shall not hold or organize or participate in any lucky draws or

lotteries other than for purposes of charity.

P. Regulation 18. Publication of books, etc.

An officer shall not publish or write any book, article or other work which is

based on classified official information.

Q. Regulation 19. Making public statement

(1) An officer shall not, orally or in writing or in any other manner-

(a) make any public statement that is detrimental to any policy,

programme or decision of the Government on any issue;

(b) make any public statement which may embarrass or bring

disrepute to the Government;

(c) make any comments on any weaknesses of any policy,

programme or decision of the Government; or(d) circulate such statement or comments, whether made by him or

any other person.

(2) An officer shall not, either orally or in writing or in any other manner-

(a) make any comments on the advantages of any policy,

programme or decision of the Government;

(b) give any factual information relating to the exercise of the

functions of the Government;

(c) give any explanation in respect of any incident or report which

involves the Government; or

(d) disseminate any such comment, information or explanation

whether made by him or any other person, unless the prior

48


49/52

written permission, either generally or specifically, has first been

obtained from the Minister.

(3) Subregulation (2) shall not apply to any comment, information or

explanation made, given or disseminated where the contents of the

comment, information or explanation had been approved by the

Minister.

(4) For the purpose of this regulation, "public statement" includes any

statement or comment made to the press or to the public or in the

course of any public lecture or speech or in any broadcast or

publication, regardless of the means.

R. Regulation 20. Prohibition on acting as editor, etc., in any

publication

An officer shall not act as the editor of, or take part directly or indirectly

in the management of, or in any way make any financial contribution or

otherwise to, any publication, including any newspaper, magazine or

journal, regardless of the means by which it is published, except the

following publications:(a) departmental publications;

(b) professional publications;

(c) publications of non-political voluntary organizations; and

(d) publications approved in writing by the Head of Department for

the purposes of this regulation.

S. Regulation 21. Taking part in politics

(1) Except as provided in subregulation (3), an officer in the Top

Management Group and the Managerial and Professional Group is

prohibited from taking an active part in political activities or wearing any

emblem of a political party, and in particular he shall not-

49


50/52

(a) make any public statement, whether orally or in writing, that

would adopt a partisan view on any matter which is an issue

between political parties;

(b) publish or circulate books, articles or leaflets setting forth his

partisan views, or the views of others, on any matter pertaining

to any political party;

(c) engage in canvassing in support of any candidate at a general

election, by-election or any election to any office in any political

party;

(d) act as an election agent or a polling agent or in any capacity for

or on behalf of a candidate at an election to the Dewan Rakyat or

to any State Legislative Assembly;

(e) stand for election for any post in any political party; or

(f) hold any post in any political party.

(2) An officer in the Support Group may stand for election or hold office or

be appointed to any post in a political party after first obtaining the

written approval of the Director General of Public Service or the

Secretary General of the appropriate Ministry, as the case may be.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subregulation (1), an officer who hasbeen granted leave until the date of his retirement for the purpose of

finishing his accumulated leave may participate in political activities

provided that-

(a) he has obtained the prior written approval of the Director General

of Public Service or the Secretary General of the appropriate

Ministry, as the case may be; and

(b) by being so engaged he does not contravene the provisions of

the Official Secrets Act 1972 [Act 88].

(4) An application for approval under paragraph (3)(a) shall be made at

least three months prior to the date the officer is allowed to go on leave

prior to retirement.

50


51/52

(5) Nothing in this regulation shall preclude an officer from being an

ordinary member of any political party.

(6) An officer who has been accepted as an ordinary member of any

political party shall as soon as possible inform this fact to his

Head of Department.

T. Regulation 22. Institution of legal proceedings and legal aid

(1) Where an officer desires legal aid as provided for under subregulation

(3) he shall not institute legal proceedings in his own personal interests

in connection with matters arising out of his public duties without the

prior consent of the Secretary General of the Ministry.

(2) An officer who receives a notice of the institution or intended institution

of legal proceedings against him in connection with matters arising out

of his public duties or who receives any process of court relating to

such legal proceedings shall immediately report the matter to the Head

of Department for instructions as to whether and how the notice or, as

the case may be, the process of court is to be acknowledged, answered

or defended.(3) An officer who desires legal aid to retain and instruct an advocate and

solicitor for the purpose of legal proceedings in connection with matters

arising out of his public duties may make an application to the Secretary

General of the Ministry.

(4) An application under subregulation (3) shall contain all the facts and

circumstances of the case together with the considered opinion of the

Head of Department as to the nature of the officer's involvement and

shall be addressed and submitted to the Secretary General of the

Ministry.

(5) Upon receipt of an application under subregulation (3), the Secretary

General of the Ministry may approve or reject the application, subject to

the advice of the Attorney General as to-

51


52/52

(a) the amount of legal aid to be approved;

(b) the advocate and solicitor to be retained and instructed by the

officer; or

(c) any other conditions which the Attorney General may consider

advisable,

and to a further implied condition that, in the event of the officer being

awarded costs by the court at the conclusion of the legal proceedings,

no payment in respect of the legal aid so approved will be made by the

Government unless the amount of costs so awarded to him is

insufficient to meet charges for retaining and instructing an advocate

and solicitor.

(6) Charges for employing, without the approval of the Secretary General

of the Ministry, an advocate and solicitor retained and instructed by or

on behalf of an officer in legal proceedings in connection with matters

arising out of his public duties shall not be paid for by the Government.

U. Regulation 23. Absence from duty

In this Part, "absence", in relation to an officer, includes a failure to be present

for any length of time at a time and place where the officer is required to be

present for the performance of his duties.

V. Regulation 24. Disciplinary action for absence without leave

An officer's absence from duty without leave or without prior permission or

without reasonable cause shall render him liable to disciplinary action.