Addressing, Responding and Redressing Public Complaints, Dissatisfaction and Woes in The Civil Service

Complaints, dissatisfaction, woes or whatever queries and doubts raised by the public have always been surfacing over time and place, whatever form of government that exists. Citizens, as individuals or groups, will never tire to register their complaints or ask for better deals from the authorities i.e the government in power. And very often, the issues raised will have to be addressed, responded and redressed by public sector institutions like ministries, departments and statutory bodies. These complaints may be real or unreal, true or untrue, verifiable or non-verifiable. They may be verbally and orally communicated, written or unwritten. Some come in the form of letters or correspondences, some as “flying letters” or “poison-pen letters” and some are spawned via the super information highway - the internet. The bottom line is how has the civil service address and answer these myriad forms of complaints via letters, petitions, phone calls, meetings, press releases, news programs, editorials and other media?

In order to answer these crucial questions , this editorial focuses on the universal nature of complaints, analyses and dissects the various forms of public complaints, the people who lodge these complaints, the theoretical insights and the practical realities in dealing with such complaints. Next, the Malaysian perspective on complaints handling is also discussed, where the present apparatus of complaints handling will be evaluated. This editorial will conclude by trying to debunk perceptions and myths that the civil service is poor in the handling of public complaints, dissatisfaction and woes.

The relationship between the government and the citizenry is at the very heart of public administration and administrative law. While the bureaucracy is entrusted to carry out or implement public policies there is bound to be public woes which may result from poor service delivery, bureaucratic red tape, maladministration and unethical practices. Although public sector bodies have always had complaints handling procedures of some type or another, they have not always had a high profile, nor have they been particularly user-friendly. In order to address such public dissatisfaction toward the bureaucratic apparatus, governments almost always set up an ombuds system or complaints handling bodies, or a combination of both.

Let us first deal with the nature of public complaints, dissatisfaction and woes, which always have been emerging in any society - and more so in countries which practise democratic forms of government where citizens almost always freely and readily voice their dismay presumably because they assume that they have the right to be heard and the freedom of expression. Today, these complaints, dissatisfaction and woes originate from different sources and multifarious forms - actual grievances raised through elected representatives, pressure groups or responsible NGOs. Some complaints may be categorised as general comments or criticisms about policy areas, actions and demeanours of public institutions based on perceived views, perceptions and varied perspectives . Some complaints are genuine while others are mere viewpoints, perspectives and personalised anecdotal problems. Some complaints are raised by rabble-rousers, societal recalcitrants or individuals and groups of a disgruntled citizenry. On a constructive note, some complainants have the passion and penchant to give their critical views. The unconstructive ones are those who feed on eavesdropping, rumour mongering, and unverified information and facts. These can also include whistleblowers whose bad intentions can damage the image of a person or an organization. We are mindful that societies will always consist of the libertarians, utilitarians, communitarians, egalitarians, consequentists, democrats, autocrats and what have you. Good complainants focus on public values while the not so good ones like to focus more on personal values. The bad ones feed on junks. The nature and source of information and criticisms have also expanded from the more organized to “junks” in the form of flying letters, poison-pen letters even using the digital media. The latter group can be described as nihilistic and narcassistic. Left unverified and unchecked, there is the danger that their sour grapes and craps may become fodder for the uninitiated, misinformed and innocent public.

From a simple public policy perspective or viewpoint, corrective action could entail and mean banning, blocking or “firewalling” the source and so on. And yet some quarters also argue back that such acts might conflict with freedom of expression. The challenges and issues confronting today’s liberal, democratic and free society is best described as how one deals with “ the noisy views and voices of the minority” versus “ the quiet, silent and unassuming majority”. By and large, the satisfied and silent majority often tend to be quiet and content to live a “business-as-usual” kind of existence. This means expecting and appreciating that political stability, the development and transformation of the country and the other activities that denote progress, will be delivered and continue to be delivered to meet their needs.

What are these complaints, dissatisfaction, grievances or woes? We need to analyse and differentiate these as some are real or unreal, some border between personal views and idiosyncracies as distinct from public views and values, and some may be categorised as downright junks. We can start with some typical examples of complaints. Example 1: “ My drinking water is salty!”, “ The Council has not collected my garbage bin for days!”. When citizens or the public at large make complaints about the poor and unsatisfactory level, quality or state of public amenities, facilities and utilities, or that the level of cleanliness in urban settings are found wanting, these are clearly complaints or dissatisfaction addressed to city councils or local authorities and utility providers. If nothing or no action is taken to study and verify the complaint, or implement programmes and projects to redress the citizens’ needs, then such grouses can be construed as truly genuine. If the complaints are directed to government organizations or public bodies, corrective action must be taken promptly. Example 2: “ He is always absent from duty!” or “ He profits from his public office!” . When individuals make a complaint based on hearsay, gossips and eavesdrops, send flying letters via traditional methods like the mail or new methods like the internet, personal vendetta and emotion will often rule and cloud the issues. For the discerning public or society at large, they must be able to distinguish between personal views and public values. It is apt and still relevant to discuss these issues metaphorically - by distinguishing between “what I like or don’t like” which is a personal and private idiosyncrasy with “what society and community need” which generally reflects overarching public values. The latter is easier to comprehend when such public values are physically translated into societal needs like the building of roads to link remote villages, improving water supplies or clinics in the rural areas.

When the complaints, dissatisfaction, grievances and woes are addressed to public institutions or government departments, we are dealing and talking about public sector accountability. In any system of government, especially those adopting and practising liberal democracy, public sector is often subjected to a very thorough public scrutiny i.e. the “fish bowl” metaphor. Some countries employ ombudsmen, others establish public complaints bureaus and similar variants. Their jobs, tasks and objectives are to handle public woes which are often manifested by malpractices committed by public servants anad public organizations. Let us take a closer look at these bodies that maintain and sustain public sector accountability.

The office of the ombudsman is a Swedish invention as explained by Berkley-Rouse. The literal translation of “ombudsman” is either a “representative” or “complaints commissioner”. Thus in Scandinavian countries, the ombudsmen function as the people’s representatives. He or she is always a highly-esteemed individual or distinguished former judge. Put simply, an ombudsman is a government official whose primary duty is to seek out citizens’ complaints of abuse by public adminstrators and to negotiate changes in the offending practices. In a similar vein, David Corbett defines the ombudman’s role as “ to investigate a citizen’s complaint against any action of a government agency or official, and if the complaint is found to have merit, to make representations to the agency to persuade it to change the decision that gave rise to the complaint”. Let us examine further the practice of the ombuds system in countries like Netherlands, Australia and the United States.

In the Netherlands, a country practising “centralised unitary state” system, the ombuds structure is pervasive in nature - there is the “National Ombudsman” plus many others at the municipality level. In Australia, a country practising a federal system known as the “Washminster” mutation, the Ombudsman is empowered to investigate complaints from citizens and to enquire whether their case was properly dealt with by the bureaucracy. The ombudsman cannot criticise the content of the policy, only its implementation. In the United States, the ombudsman has not been used at the national level, but in some of their States, ombudsman offices have been established. The success of the ombudsmen institution around the world is a tribute, in part, to the incumbents and their investigating and negotiating skills. In most cases, complaints can be corrected without the need for public exposure.

Let us now look at our own experience. In Malaysia, we have not opted to implement the ombuds system but the government has set up what is known as “Public Complaints Bureau” (PCB) under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Department, headquartered in Putrajaya. The functions of PCB involves receiving and investigating public complaints on dissatisfaction on any government administrative action, reporting the outcome of investigations and make recommendations to the Permanent Committee on Public Complaints (PCPC) and relevant authorities, to forward the decisions of the PCPC to ministries, departments, statutory bodies, local authorites and agencies concerned with the purpose of corrective actions and lastly, monitoring the corrective actions taken by public agencies before submitting such feedbacks to the PCPC.

Back to Sarawak, the government has set up a Public Complaints and Suggestions Bureau but was restructured paving the way for the setting up the Public Relations Unit. Since then, public complaints have been handled by the State Secretary’s Office through three separate units. The Public Affairs Unit handles public complaints on general issues and policies, the Human Resource Management Unit on specific complaints against government personnel while the Human Resource Development and Quality Unit handles complaints from the Talikhidmat - a telephone-based complaints handling.

While ombudsman, complaints bureau and Talikhidmat address public woes and dissatisfaction it is pertinent that we also look at related areas like public opinion, public interest and national interest which can spark off public complaints. Public opinion is an elusive and fragile commodity. Metaphorically speaking it is also referred to as “ the unknown god to which moderns burn incense”. Public opinion is actually an aggregate of many individual opinions on a particular issue that affects a group of people i.e. it represents a consensus which is ignited by people’s attitudes toward the issue in question. Public opinion addresses what people think ought to be done. On matters of public policy which can affect the interests and emotions of many people it is likely that enough individuals will react in the same way for their collective private opinions to constitute a manifestation of public opinion. In a democratic state the government is sensitive to the pressure of public opinion and the legal and moral rights tend to harmonize and coalesce. Public interest involves the social choice that represents the best outcome for society as a whole rather than for some subset of the population. The irony about this definition is that there is a plethora of public interest groups in our society that champion their own specific interest, while others indulge in a one line crusade. The general or national interest is more encompassing i.e a wide agreement on particular ends and means for the good of all as opposed to sectional interests.

After all has been said and done about addressing public complaints, we must ponder and ask whether the civil service has performed well or otherwise in this area of public accountability? An evaluation of the present system will undoubtedly leads us to a better undersanding of whether our civil service genuinely address public complaints or is it merely sleeping or sidestepping such complaints. There are two ways to treat public complaints. One is to ignore them and the other is to handle and deal with them proactively. The idea is to improve the mechanisms under which customers could register complaints and obtain prompt redress. Hence, complaints procedures should be well-publicised and easy to use and ensure that all public sector bodies act swiftly and effectively to redress complaints.Complaints can be considered as a yardstick of how efficient the department or agency concerned is serving the public. If numerous and persistent complaints are lodged against a government agency, then obviously something is amiss and needs to be addressed quickly.

According to statistics provided by the Public Complaints Bureau, the number of public complaints received annually in the past five years is about 3,000. Out of the total, only fifty per cent is considered as genuine in nature and have a basis for investigation. This confirms our early fears about the basis of making complaints i.e. is there a real public issue or just merely people using the opportunity to air their grievances which is not a public issue at all, or merely complaints which are considered as feedbacks or those seeking advice only? In evaluating our present complaints handling system three factors should be taken into account i.e. efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness. Public complaints which are not attended to or receiving slow response will surely erode public confidence in the civil service. To be efficient, the complaints handling system must be readily accessible to users, simple to operate and speedy with time limits for dealing with complaints. It must also be objective, confidential and integrated with the organization’s Management Information System (MIS). To be effective and responsive, the complaints handling system must be targeted at solving the problem and providing at the very least a satisfactory explanation, an apology or some form of redress. There must be a “follow-up” and “follow through” to public complaints, otherwise the credibility of the civil service suffers.

The Public Complaints Bureau has, since October 2000, implemented what is known as the total electronic office system whereby officers handling complaints have direct access to all matters related to the complaints, from the time complaints are lodged right up to the latest development. The public can also voice their grouses and get the reply from the bureau through the e-mail or the website. The official attending to the complaints will give “hands-on” advice and provide documents to the complainants on what needs to be done to resolve their grievances.

In conclusion, a positive and dynamic approach should therefore be adopted in dealing with public complaints, dissatisfaction and woes. Such an approach can remove much of the indifference and resentment which unfortunately afflict many government employees when they receive complaints about their departments and their services. A proper complaints handling system will take into account factors such as : how successful is the complainant likely to be in pursuing his complaint?, how might the existing institutions and procedures be impaired? what gaps in “grievance satisfaction” still remain? Public complaints is treated as serious business in the civil service. A local social activist has rightly pointed out that the civil service ought to fulfil its responsibilities and to preserve its image of being impartial, disciplined and accountable. In the same vein, it was pointed out that “if the work of civil servants is satisfactory, it is the Government that gets the credit. Equally, it will receive brickbats if the public is dissatisfied.” Public complaints should be viewed as a necessary input in the continuing process to improve government services. Thus some complaints should be construed as “gifts” i.e. feedbacks from the public to the government department or agency for corrective action and continuous improvement. The Sarawak Civil Service therefore must not have a combative nor a defensive attitude in addressing, responding and redressing public complaints, but it must be “impartial, disciplined and accountable”. Above all, the various agencies individually through the Heads of Departments or the other superiors, must also take the initiative to address and nip the problem at its bud. And mindful of the large number of public servants in the State, imagine what a difference complaints redressal will mean if we all play our individual part in answering, responding and redressing public complaints in the civil service. With the institutionalisation of an efficient, effective and responsive complaints handling system, we can debunk the myth that the civil service is anathema to complaints and work zealously to prove that the civil service is indeed complaint-friendly. Let us together show that we are the beacon that illuminates, the lampost that brightens and the moon that shines.