Administrative reform in Malaysia: Recent trends and developments

Abstract

During the past two decades, the public bureaucracy in Malaysia has undergone substantial reforms. Broadly aimed at excellence in the public service, these recent reforms are in many respects similar to those introduced in other countries under the new paradigm of "managerialism". This article analyses the present trends of reforms in Malaysia and comments on some concerns and emerging issues. It shows that while these reforms have generally improved the delivery of public services, public administration in Malaysia continues to suffer from such problems as a weak system of accountability, growing incidence of corruption and mismanagement, absence of decentralisation and community participation, and non-enforcement of rules and regulations.

A Vision for Malaysian and Other ASEAN Researchers to Contribute to the International Agency Theory-based Literature

“…The objectives were to eradicate poverty and to restructure society so as to eliminate the association between ethnicity and economic function. The National Development Plan, formulated in 1990 was espoused to maintain the objectives of the NEP during the era of 1991-2000 (Siddiquee, 2002). The other objective of the National Development Plan was to mix these ideologies for nationbuilding and to increase the overall size of national wealth (Gomez, Vision for Malaysian & ASEAN Researchers to Contribute to Agency Theory-based Literature 2009; Gomez et al, 2018).…”

“…It involved the close cooperation between public and private sectors as a means to fuel the economic and social development of the country. The programme had been designed to deliver complementary benefits to the respective sectors, where the private sectors would experience increased growth and profitability and the public sector would accrue more fiscal revenue and an increased attainment of its missions (Siddiquee, 2002). This inter-sectoral cooperation also had other dimensions such as government entities depending on the private sector for political donations and the private sector entrepreneurs depending on the government for bumiputera employment and subscriptions to equity raisings (which are legal requirements) as well as licensing and trade permits.…”

“…As a result of this, inter-ethnic patronage and communication has become a critical success factor for federal politicians in Indonesia (Aspinall, 2011). Hence, the social policy goal of eliminating the association between ethnicity and economic function is less important in Indonesia than in Malaysia (Siddiquee, 2002;Aspinall, 2011). It seems unlikely that in Indonesia, policies of companies subjected to government shareholding would be influenced by the requirement to provide a steady income stream to indigenous beneficiaries.…”

Unique determinants of abnormal earnings growth in Malaysia

“…The goals were to eliminate poverty and the association between ethnicity and economic function. Affirmative action strategies were pursued to increase bumiputera involvement in economic activity (Siddiquee, 2002(Siddiquee, , 2006.…”

“…Malaysia is characterized by close cooperation between the public and private sectors to facilitate economic development (Siddiquee, 2002(Siddiquee, , 2006. The 1980s and 1990s saw privatization of state enterprises, via private placements, with portions of shares reserved for government-related institutional investors (Suto, 2003).…”