Remembering Old Roles And Addressing The Challenging New Roles Of Bureaucrats And Technocrats In The Sarawak Civil Service

A number of very critical and major development occurred during the early month of October 2001, immediately after the State General Elections, which will impact on the Civil Service, or rather the performance of the State Civil Service. Firstly, the announcement by the Federal government, after earlier announcement of the country’s RM3 billion (in March 2001) and RM4.6 billion (in September 2001) to allocate RM100 million as a special pre-emptive project to be spent within 3 months (October to December 2001) in the State which will push ground officers to implement these projects within a tight time period. Secondly, the immediate response by the State Cabinet and the State Civil Service machinery covering all the Divisions and Districts to accord urgency and priority to plan and implement the projects so as to be able to spend the funds fully. This has further involved ground or field visits by the Chief Executives. Thirdly, in recognizing the still vast areas of the state needing focused and well co-ordinated development, came the announcement to split the former hitherto still vast-spanning Divisions of Sibu and Sri Aman into two new divisions of Mukah and Betong. Fourthly, the comments made by the Chief Secretary to the Government (Ketua Setiausaha Negara) to introduce competency-based evaluation in measuring the performance of officers and staff of the nation’s Civil Service during a particular year. Fifthly, as a result of the rather poor project implementation nationwide, the Prime Minister on 29 October 2001 made a call that the Government’s administrative system must be reviewed to prevent problems like delays in implementing development projects, and in turn to provide the reasons why the allocations are not spent. And sixthly, the Deputy Prime Minister on 1 November 2001 has also directed ministries, government departments and agencies to institutionalise the monitoring of progress of development projects at their weekly meetings as well as to be “hands on”.

Against this backdrop of historic events and announcements, it is therefore quite appropriate to revisit, reminisce and review the old roles of the administrative and technical officers, i.e. the bureaucrats and technocrats while at the same time addressing their challenging new roles. The administrative officers comprise the Permanent Secretaries and the officers of the Ministries (PAS/AS, PAD/AD or whatever nomenclature), the Residents, District Officers (DOs) and Sarawak Administrative Officers (SAOs). Together they and their supporting staff can also be considered as the bureaucrats. The officers of the technical departments (engineers, architects, agricultural officers, researchers and teachers) and their technical support staff are aptly referred to as technocrats.

The point in question here is not one regarding the roles, functions and responsibilities but rather the issue regarding the changing, evolving and revolving roles of administrative officers and technical officers over the years, and new unfolding challenges that arise from time to time. For purpose of this Editorial we shall focus on the more historical and highly-respected and revered roles of Residents, DOs and SAOs at the ground level.

The roles of Residents, District Officers (DOs) and Sarawak Administrative Officers (SAOs) have always been fascinating since the Brooke and colonial eras right up to the present time. Many of their writings can still be found in past issues of the Sarawak Gazette. This, however, does not mean that we are not recognizing other non-administrative officers from the technical departments who also play a pivotal role in the public service, except that little was written in the past about their roles.

Administrative Officers have always been the principal government officers of the Divisions, Districts and Sub-districts and play pivotal administrative, protocol, magisterial and other miscellaneous roles on behalf of the Government administration in the name of the State Secretary. In the past when the communication system was grossly lacking, they acted as the focal points for all and sundry in the matter of administrative affairs and state governance. These Administrative Officers were thus held in high esteem or revered by the local community that they served in. Tuan Residen, Tuan D.O. or Kunsil were household names that reverberated in the kampungs and longhouses. What makes it more fascinating then was the fact that the “powers” of former Administrative Officers were unwritten. Their power was acquired through their charismatic charm, their ability to mix, mingle, communicate and relate themselves with the local people who quickly gave them their awe and respect. Furthermore, they quickly pick up the local dialects, learning and understanding local adat and custom; they travel on foot from one longhouse or kampung both in the interior and coastal areas; they travel by marine vessels, longboats and speedboats to meet the people on a regular basis; they also collect information about the villages and longhouses through their somewhat archaic “ tin system “.

Immediately after Malaysia Day, from 16th September 1963 and for the next two decades or so, the local Residents, DOs and SAOs continued to perform such administrative roles with finesse and telltale accounts as well - thus the perennial and proverbial anecdotes like “sebatang rokok” longhouse, the Kunsil who brought his typewriter and performed his work in the coffee-shop, and of course episodes of the young and handsome SAOs being regarded as the most eligible bachelors around with local beauties swooning at their feet, so to speak. Although their development role was not yet evident, they had to grapple with security matters together with the military and police commanders and personnel within their Division, District or Sub-District against the communist insurgents and their sympathisers.

To execute and perform their jobs and tasks in the 1960s and 1970s would certainly require them to have multiple skills - the skills of a public administrator, magisterial competency and knowledge of the local customs and adat. In all these cases, officers in those bygone eras actually sat for compulsory government examinations where knowledge of the General Orders, Treasury Instructions, Administrative Circulars from the State Secretary’s Office, law subjects like Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Code, Law of Contract, Torts, Evidence and other Acts and Ordinances form part of the syllabus. Unlike the General Papers, these are certainly subjects which need to be mastered by administrative and technical officers, even in today’s context. These examinations have to be passed before one is confirmed in service. Furthermore, an officer cannot afford to fail a paper, as it was deemed necessary to pass all papers at one sitting. Such was the rigorous standards expected of the civil servants of yesteryears. It was no mean feat to pass all these variegated papers. For those who failed, they had to suffer the ignominy of having their salaries being barred. Consider and compare the scene today on civil service examinations. How many of us realise how hard it is to enter the elite civil service of countries like UK, France, Japan or India for that matter? If we are talking of a world-class civil service, then potential candidates have to undergo rigorous examinations and testing even before they can be recruited to the service.

S.R. Maheshwari in his book, Major Civil Service Systems in the World has cited how elites, mandarins and Brahmins in the Civil Service of many developed countries actually have to undergo a series of examinations and testing throughout their career. Among the subjects that they need to be conversant in are deep knowledge of law, legal studies, public administration, economics, statistics and political science. In another book edited by J.A. Chandler entitled Comparative Public Administration, while observing that there has been a paradigm shift from Public Administration to the New Public Management, the writers cited that public servants in various countries not only need to be knowledgeable in management subjects but also to be mindful of the wider political systems and democratic framework of their states.

In the case of officers who had to grapple with security matters, many had actually acquired new skills to perform tasks related to resettlement, psychological warfare (psywar), public relations, civic education and many more. Many officers actually experienced real skirmishes with the terrorists while travelling in “hot” or “black” areas. One can only describe them as the brave and gallant sons of Sarawak for they had laid the foundation of peace, prosperity, unity and tranquility as enjoyed by us today. The Rajang Area Security Command (RASCOM) operations must surely rank as the most trying for many of our SAOs as it combined administrative, security, civic development and public relations skills as well as the act of bravery and being physically and mortally fearless. Yet another of the skills acquired and consequently constitute part of the output generated was the regular District Annual Reports submitted for publication in the Sarawak Gazette.

With peace came changing new roles for the Administrative Officers - that of Development Administration. With the introduction of the Second Malaysia Plan (1971-75) and the unveiling of the New Economic Policy (1971-1990) in the early 1970s, it has got to be said in retrospect and hindsight, that the same group of officers from the State Civil Service had to switch to new roles of being a development administrator. The socio-economic development objectives and the accompanying programmes and projects planned and to be implemented for the benefits of the rakyat became overriding. New skills had to be learnt such as the very meaning of socio-economic development, the sectors to be developed and accorded priority, the meaning of development planning and project implementation and regional development encapsulated by the Miri-Bintulu Regional Development Study of 1972-1974.

Back to the present, Residents, DOs and SAOs are now playing the new roles of project planners, project directors or managers, project co-ordinators and project implementors, whether they have been told or are aware of it, consciously or unconsciously. Being the ground chiefs in their respective Divisions, Districts and Sub-districts , they have to ensure that their administrative set-up or machinery is in fact aligned and restructured (or re-engineered in today’s management parlance), so as to perform a Development Administration job, and not just a General Administration or Public Administration job. It is easily recalled that one of the trademarks of all Division, District and Sub-District Offices then was their “Operation Room” ala military style, except that the Boards were filled with maps covering all agencies showing the various programmes, locations, details in physical and financial aspects of projects planned and implemented and were always updated. Many turned up to become excellent development administrators possessing intricate and detailed knowledge of their own Division, District and Sub-District at their fingertips. Many became great Permanent Secretaries, General Managers or Directors owing to their vast skills and experiences. For the new officers working under them, they became their ideal administrative “gurus”.

As the State continues to develop and progress with the introduction of new policies and new priorities, and the incoming of new officers, new guards, “young Turks”, newer skills become necessary with the incorporation of statutory bodies, para-statal entities or quangos (non-departmental public bodies). General administration, public administration or development administration become inadequate. With the fast pace of development programmes and projects being implemented, the officers have become Development Managers - managing and co-ordinating development. They need to become managerial in their approach, businesslike or entrepreneurial in style. The new management challenge is not dealing with “business as usual” but rather dealing with “business unusual”. New Public Management or Managerialism is very much the order of the day as we start seeing corporatization, privatization, outsourcing and smart alliances between the public and private sectors coming into place. We see newer demands for better service delivery and new battlefronts, calling for excellence, quality and the pursuit for ISO standard in our processes and delivery of services.

And as the push and urgency of service delivery becomes critical, a new set of challenges come into play - the call for public sector governance as is the need for good corporate governance. Today, the buzzwords are accountability, responsibility, integrity, transparency and many more value-creative and value-laden words. Against these new backdrop, it is recognised that the roles of the bureaucrats, technocrats and public administrators - specifically the Residents, DOs and SAOs - and in fact all of us in the public service need to be reviewed. Hence, this editorial is considered a revisit of the continuously evolving and revolving roles that we play, be it in the historical, inter temporal, spatial or professional contexts. The historical viewpoint is important. Lest we forget we need to ask ourselves whether Residents, DOs and SAOs and all officers are close to the people (the beneficiaries) today, as in the past.

We clearly see the need to be knowledgeable in administration, laws and so on. We have seen brave and brinkmanship roles during the insurgency in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These roles are still necessary in the face of security problem posed by illegal immigrants near border areas. There is a big battle ahead of us. We have seen the planning and development roles being displayed. We have witnessed managerial and entrepreneurial roles thereafter. We have seen ethical roles coming back in vogue. Let us therefore ponder again at our new roles particularly in project planning and implementation, security and defense, policy analysis and so on, in today’s context.

And what of the technical departments? JKR, DOA, DID, Lands and Surveys, and a host of others? What roles, changing or evolving, have we seen? Take for instance the case of JKR in the State where its role has evolved from being merely builders to managers today. It is of course recognised that each technically-oriented department will equally face the same set of technical questions within its purview. Previously, JKR was known as the one and only technical department to be referred to. Just as in matters of law, legislation or any legal issues where the reference to the State Attorney General’s Chambers was imperative, or in matters of finance where the State Financial Secretary’s advice was sought, in almost all technical matters, JKR’s advice was also sought from its engineers, quantity surveyors, architects and their retinue of technical experts. Thus whether you want to construct a building, procure vehicles and equipment, seek consultancy services and so on, it was all JKR - the sole authority on technical matters. JKR officers were the technical advisers, project directors, co-ordinators and managers rolled into one. As work becomes broadened and diverse, it was apt to ask whether this concentration of responsibility was leading to efficacy and efficiency of performance. Looking back and with the advantage of hindsight, it is necessary to examine whether the client departments have sufficiently explore their real needs - shapes, sizes, capacity, objectives and so on - or were these left to the technical departments to decide?

The point to be stressed in the latter case is the need to look at matters from various perspectives. For example, there will always be the technical engineer perspective vis-a-vis the social engineer perspective. While the former perspective would be technically-focused, quantitatively defined and perhaps skewed, the latter’s perspective would be guided by other non-measurable, non-parametric and non-quantifiable social criteria, indicators or norms. Thus, in building a road to connect two destinations, it is critical that adequate attention be paid to the larger macro and regional needs of the area. The decision will not merely be determined based on technical choices of pursuing the most direct route or only based on the most technically feasible way of constructing the road without sufficient regard to the other factors.

In conclusion, whether one calls oneself an administrative officer, bureaucrat or a technocrat in the Sarawak Civil Service, this Editorial wants to stress the need to be mindful of the following pertinent issues:

• Know the state economy, its administration, its past history and lessons that can be learnt

• Know the past issues - how and why events and phenomena occurred.

• Pick up the skills of past administrators, technocrats and officers, apart from injecting new skills and innovation

• Know your General Orders, Treasury Instructions and procedures, Acts of Parliament and State Ordinances

• Know your subject in breadth and in depth

• Undertake ground visits and submit your reports

• Mix and mingle with the people at the grassroots level

• Be that “Operation Room” Director

• Minimise the perennial excuse that the Transport and Travelling (T&T) allocation is inadequate

• Feel the pulse of development in the Divisions, Districts and Sub-Districts

Thus, in remembering old roles and addressing the challenging new roles of bureaucrats and technocrats in the Sarawak Civil Service, we must take stock of the cumulative knowledge, experience and wisdom of past administrators and technical officers and enmesh them with the present managerial approaches. We believe this marriage can further enhance the dynamism of our Civil Service.