Balancing Duty and Reputation

 

Here is a Star newspaper report I read yesterday.

On June 19, 2025, a circular issued by Tan Sri Wan Ahmad Dahlan Abdul Aziz, Director-General of Public Service in Malaysia, titled Prohibition on Making Public Statements Under Subregulation 19(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 [P.U. (A) 395/1993], reminded civil servants to refrain from making public statements—oral or written—that could undermine government policies, decisions, or public perception. This directive emphasizes the importance of professionalism and loyalty among civil servants, such as those in the Sabah State Integrity Department, in maintaining public trust in government institutions.

This guidance raises an important question: How can civil servants, particularly those in oversight roles like the Integrity Department, proactively address disputes to prevent escalation to court, where public proceedings could highlight administrative shortcomings? For example, in my case, I have sought resolution since November 2022,  regarding an occupancy certificate issued by Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK), allegedly based on a fabricated as-built survey. Despite escalating the matter to the Sabah State Integrity Department in February 2025, and a meeting with DBKK on June 11, 2025, attended by Integrity Department officers, no resolution has been achieved. Additionally, a notice of demand from a lawyer claiming to represent Rosemary Ahping and Della E. Sinidol of the Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar (LPPB) remains unverified due to Puan Rosemary Ahping’s lack of response to my inquiries, hindering a potential complaint to the Sabah Law Society.

To avoid legal action against the developer, architect, LPPB, the Land and Survey Department (LJS), and DBKK, civil servants and local authorities should prioritize transparent and timely resolution of such issues. Proactive measures—such as internal reviews, mediation, or cooperation with statutory bodies like LPPB and LJS—could address disputes efficiently, upholding public trust without the need for court proceedings that may draw scrutiny to administrative processes. Moving forward, fostering professional communication and robust mechanisms for dispute resolution will benefit both the government and the public.