- •Public Administration And Public Policy
- •Contents
- •Acknowledgments
- •About The Authors
- •Comments On Purpose and Methods
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Culture
- •1.3 Colonial Legacies
- •1.3.1 British Colonial Legacy
- •1.3.2 Latin Legacy
- •1.3.3 American Legacy
- •1.4 Decentralization
- •1.5 Ethics
- •1.5.1 Types of Corruption
- •1.5.2 Ethics Management
- •1.6 Performance Management
- •1.6.2 Structural Changes
- •1.6.3 New Public Management
- •1.7 Civil Service
- •1.7.1 Size
- •1.7.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •1.7.3 Pay and Performance
- •1.7.4 Training
- •1.8 Conclusion
- •Contents
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Historical Developments and Legacies
- •2.2.1.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of King as Leader
- •2.2.1.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.1.3 Third Legacy: Traditions of Hierarchy and Clientelism
- •2.2.1.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition of Reconciliation
- •2.2.2.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of Bureaucratic Elites as a Privileged Group
- •2.2.2.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.2.3 Third Legacy: The Practice of Staging Military Coups
- •2.2.2.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition for Military Elites to be Loyal to the King
- •2.2.3.1 First Legacy: Elected Politicians as the New Political Boss
- •2.2.3.2 Second Legacy: Frequent and Unpredictable Changes of Political Bosses
- •2.2.3.3 Third Legacy: Politicians from the Provinces Becoming Bosses
- •2.2.3.4 Fourth Legacy: The Problem with the Credibility of Politicians
- •2.2.4.1 First Emerging Legacy: Big Businessmen in Power
- •2.2.4.2 Second Emerging Legacy: Super CEO Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.4.3 Third Emerging Legacy: Government must Serve Big Business Interests
- •2.2.5.1 Emerging Legacy: The Clash between Governance Values and Thai Realities
- •2.2.5.2 Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters
- •2.3 Uniqueness of the Thai Political Context
- •2.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •3.1 Thailand Administrative Structure
- •3.2 History of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.2.1 Thailand as a Centralized State
- •3.2.2 Towards Decentralization
- •3.3 The Politics of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.3.2 Shrinking Political Power of the Military and Bureaucracy
- •3.4 Drafting the TAO Law 199421
- •3.5 Impacts of the Decentralization Reform on Local Government in Thailand: Ongoing Challenges
- •3.5.1 Strong Executive System
- •3.5.2 Thai Local Political System
- •3.5.3 Fiscal Decentralization
- •3.5.4 Transferred Responsibilities
- •3.5.5 Limited Spending on Personnel
- •3.5.6 New Local Government Personnel System
- •3.6 Local Governments Reaching Out to Local Community
- •3.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Corruption: General Situation in Thailand
- •4.2.1 Transparency International and its Corruption Perception Index
- •4.2.2 Types of Corruption
- •4.3 A Deeper Look at Corruption in Thailand
- •4.3.1 Vanishing Moral Lessons
- •4.3.4 High Premium on Political Stability
- •4.4 Existing State Mechanisms to Fight Corruption
- •4.4.2 Constraints and Limitations of Public Agencies
- •4.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 History of Performance Management
- •5.2.1 National Economic and Social Development Plans
- •5.2.2 Master Plan of Government Administrative Reform
- •5.3 Performance Management Reform: A Move Toward High Performance Organizations
- •5.3.1 Organization Restructuring to Increase Autonomy
- •5.3.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.3 Knowledge Management Toward Learning Organizations
- •5.3.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned
- •5.3.5.1 Organizational Restructuring
- •5.3.5.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.5.3 Knowledge Management
- •5.3.5.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.4.4 Outcome of Budgeting Reform: The Budget Process in Thailand
- •5.4.5 Conclusion
- •5.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •6.1.1 Civil Service Personnel
- •6.1.2 Development of the Civil Service Human Resource System
- •6.1.3 Problems of Civil Service Human Resource
- •6.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •6.2.1 Main Feature
- •6.2.2 Challenges of Recruitment and Selection
- •6.3.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.2 Salary Management
- •6.4.2.2 Performance Management and Salary Increase
- •6.4.3 Position Allowance
- •6.4.5 National Compensation Committee
- •6.4.6 Retirement and Pension
- •6.4.7 Challenges in Compensation
- •6.5 Training and Development
- •6.5.1 Main Feature
- •6.5.2 Challenges of Training and Development in the Civil Service
- •6.6 Discipline and Merit Protection
- •6.6.1 Main Feature
- •6.6.2 Challenges of Discipline
- •6.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •English References
- •Contents
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Setting and Context
- •7.3 Malayan Union and the Birth of the United Malays National Organization
- •7.4 Post Independence, New Economic Policy, and Malay Dominance
- •7.5 Centralization of Executive Powers under Mahathir
- •7.6 Administrative Values
- •7.6.1 Close Ties with the Political Party
- •7.6.2 Laws that Promote Secrecy, Continuing Concerns with Corruption
- •7.6.3 Politics over Performance
- •7.6.4 Increasing Islamization of the Civil Service
- •7.7 Ethnic Politics and Reforms
- •7.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 System of Government in Malaysia
- •8.5 Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization
- •8.6 Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening Decentralization
- •8.7 Reinforcing Centralization
- •8.8 Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization
- •8.9 Where to Decentralization?
- •8.10 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Ethics and Corruption in Malaysia: General Observations
- •9.2.1 Factors of Corruption
- •9.3 Recent Corruption Scandals
- •9.3.1 Cases Involving Bureaucrats and Executives
- •9.3.2 Procurement Issues
- •9.4 Efforts to Address Corruption and Instill Ethics
- •9.4.1.1 Educational Strategy
- •9.4.1.2 Preventive Strategy
- •9.4.1.3 Punitive Strategy
- •9.4.2 Public Accounts Committee and Public Complaints Bureau
- •9.5 Other Efforts
- •9.6 Assessment and Recommendations
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •10.1 History of Performance Management in the Administrative System
- •10.1.1 Policy Frameworks
- •10.1.2 Organizational Structures
- •10.1.2.1 Values and Work Ethic
- •10.1.2.2 Administrative Devices
- •10.1.2.3 Performance, Financial, and Budgetary Reporting
- •10.2 Performance Management Reforms in the Past Ten Years
- •10.2.1 Electronic Government
- •10.2.2 Public Service Delivery System
- •10.2.3 Other Management Reforms
- •10.3 Assessment of Performance Management Reforms
- •10.4 Analysis and Recommendations
- •10.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.2.1 Public Service Department
- •11.2.2 Public Service Commission
- •11.2.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •11.2.4 Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit
- •11.2.5 Administrative and Diplomatic Service
- •11.4 Civil Service Pension Scheme
- •11.5 Civil Service Neutrality
- •11.6 Civil Service Culture
- •11.7 Reform in the Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.2.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.3.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.3.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.4.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.4.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.5.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.5.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.6.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.6.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.7 Public Administration and Society
- •12.7.1 Public Accountability and Participation
- •12.7.2 Administrative Values
- •12.8 Societal and Political Challenge over Bureaucratic Dominance
- •12.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Constitutional Framework of the Basic Law
- •13.4 Changing Relations between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •13.4.1 Constitutional Dimension
- •13.4.1.1 Contending Interpretations over the Basic Law
- •13.4.1.3 New Constitutional Order in the Making
- •13.4.2 Political Dimension
- •13.4.2.3 Contention over Political Reform
- •13.4.3 The Economic Dimension
- •13.4.3.1 Expanding Intergovernmental Links
- •13.4.3.2 Fostering Closer Economic Partnership and Financial Relations
- •13.4.3.3 Seeking Cooperation and Coordination in Regional and National Development
- •13.4.4 External Dimension
- •13.5 Challenges and Prospects in the Relations between the Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •References
- •Contents
- •14.1 Honesty, Integrity, and Adherence to the Law
- •14.2 Accountability, Openness, and Political Neutrality
- •14.2.1 Accountability
- •14.2.2 Openness
- •14.2.3 Political Neutrality
- •14.3 Impartiality and Service to the Community
- •14.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Brief Overview of Performance Management in Hong Kong
- •15.3.1 Measuring and Assessing Performance
- •15.3.2 Adoption of Performance Pledges
- •15.3.3 Linking Budget to Performance
- •15.3.4 Relating Rewards to Performance
- •15.4 Assessment of Outcomes of Performance Management Reforms
- •15.4.1 Are Departments Properly Measuring their Performance?
- •15.4.2 Are Budget Decisions Based on Performance Results?
- •15.4.5 Overall Evaluation
- •15.5 Measurability of Performance
- •15.6 Ownership of, and Responsibility for, Performance
- •15.7 The Politics of Performance
- •15.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Structure of the Public Sector
- •16.2.1 Core Government
- •16.2.2 Hybrid Agencies
- •16.2.4 Private Businesses that Deliver Public Services
- •16.3 Administrative Values
- •16.4 Politicians and Bureaucrats
- •16.5 Management Tools and their Reform
- •16.5.1 Selection
- •16.5.2 Performance Management
- •16.5.3 Compensation
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 The Philippines: A Brief Background
- •17.4 Philippine Bureaucracy during the Spanish Colonial Regime
- •17.6 American Colonial Regime and the Philippine Commonwealth
- •17.8 Independence Period and the Establishment of the Institute of Public Administration
- •17.9 Administrative Values in the Philippines
- •17.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Toward a Genuine Local Autonomy and Decentralization in the Philippines
- •18.2.1 Evolution of Local Autonomy
- •18.2.2 Government Structure and the Local Government System
- •18.2.3 Devolution under the Local Government Code of 1991
- •18.2.4 Local Government Finance
- •18.2.5 Local Government Bureaucracy and Personnel
- •18.3 Review of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its Implementation
- •18.3.1 Gains and Successes of Decentralization
- •18.3.2 Assessing the Impact of Decentralization
- •18.3.2.1 Overall Policy Design
- •18.3.2.2 Administrative and Political Issues
- •18.3.2.2.1 Central and Sub-National Role in Devolution
- •18.3.2.2.3 High Budget for Personnel at the Local Level
- •18.3.2.2.4 Political Capture by the Elite
- •18.3.2.3 Fiscal Decentralization Issues
- •18.3.2.3.1 Macroeconomic Stability
- •18.3.2.3.2 Policy Design Issues of the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.3.2.3.4 Disruptive Effect of the Creation of New Local Government Units
- •18.3.2.3.5 Disparate Planning, Unhealthy Competition, and Corruption
- •18.4 Local Governance Reforms, Capacity Building, and Research Agenda
- •18.4.1 Financial Resources and Reforming the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.4.3 Government Functions and Powers
- •18.4.6 Local Government Performance Measurement
- •18.4.7 Capacity Building
- •18.4.8 People Participation
- •18.4.9 Political Concerns
- •18.4.10 Federalism
- •18.5 Conclusions and the Way Forward
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Control
- •19.2.1 Laws that Break Up the Alignment of Forces to Minimize State Capture
- •19.2.2 Executive Measures that Optimize Deterrence
- •19.2.3 Initiatives that Close Regulatory Gaps
- •19.2.4 Collateral Measures on Electoral Reform
- •19.3 Guidance
- •19.3.1 Leadership that Casts a Wide Net over Corrupt Acts
- •19.3.2 Limiting Monopoly and Discretion to Constrain Abuse of Power
- •19.3.3 Participatory Appraisal that Increases Agency Resistance against Misconduct
- •19.3.4 Steps that Encourage Public Vigilance and the Growth of Civil Society Watchdogs
- •19.3.5 Decentralized Guidance that eases Log Jams in Centralized Decision Making
- •19.4 Management
- •19.5 Creating Virtuous Circles in Public Ethics and Accountability
- •19.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2 Problems and Challenges Facing Bureaucracy in the Philippines Today
- •20.3 Past Reform Initiatives of the Philippine Public Administrative System
- •20.4.1 Rebuilding Institutions and Improving Performance
- •20.4.1.1 Size and Effectiveness of the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.1.2 Privatization
- •20.4.1.3 Addressing Corruption
- •20.4.1.5 Improving Work Processes
- •20.4.2 Performance Management Initiatives for the New Millennium
- •20.4.2.1 Financial Management
- •20.4.2.2 New Government Accounting System
- •20.4.2.3 Public Expenditure Management
- •20.4.2.4 Procurement Reforms
- •20.4.3 Human Resource Management
- •20.4.3.1 Organizing for Performance
- •20.4.3.2 Performance Evaluation
- •20.4.3.3 Rationalizing the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.3.4 Public Sector Compensation
- •20.4.3.5 Quality Management Systems
- •20.4.3.6 Local Government Initiatives
- •20.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Country Development Context
- •21.3 Evolution and Current State of the Philippine Civil Service System
- •21.3.1 Beginnings of a Modern Civil Service
- •21.3.2 Inventory of Government Personnel
- •21.3.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •21.3.6 Training and Development
- •21.3.7 Incentive Structure in the Bureaucracy
- •21.3.8 Filipino Culture
- •21.3.9 Bureaucratic Values and Performance Culture
- •21.3.10 Grievance and Redress System
- •21.4 Development Performance of the Philippine Civil Service
- •21.5 Key Development Challenges
- •21.5.1 Corruption
- •21.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.2 History
- •22.3 Major Reform Measures since the Handover
- •22.4 Analysis of the Reform Roadmap
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •23.1 Decentralization, Autonomy, and Democracy
- •23.3.1 From Recession to Take Off
- •23.3.2 Politics of Growth
- •23.3.3 Government Inertia
- •23.4 Autonomy as Collective Identity
- •23.4.3 Social Group Dynamics
- •23.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.2 Functions and Performance of the Commission Against Corruption of Macao
- •24.2.1 Functions
- •24.2.2 Guidelines on the Professional Ethics and Conduct of Public Servants
- •24.2.3 Performance
- •24.2.4 Structure
- •24.2.5 Personnel Establishment
- •24.3 New Challenges
- •24.3.1 The Case of Ao Man Long
- •24.3.2 Dilemma of Sunshine Law
- •24.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.2 Theoretical Basis of the Reform
- •25.3 Historical Background
- •25.4 Problems in the Civil Service Culture
- •25.5 Systemic Problems
- •25.6 Performance Management Reform
- •25.6.1 Performance Pledges
- •25.6.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.7 Results and Problems
- •25.7.1 Performance Pledge
- •25.7.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.8 Conclusion and Future Development
- •References
- •Contents
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.2 Civil Service System
- •26.2.1 Types of Civil Servants
- •26.2.2 Bureaucratic Structure
- •26.2.4 Personnel Management
- •26.4 Civil Service Reform
- •26.5 Conclusion
- •References
Performance Management Reforms in Malaysia 207
practices, including keeping strictly to quality standards already set in place. Numerous reform measures will amount to little if these are poorly implemented, in particular government must ensure that performance management is not perceived to be ethnically biased, instead recognizing a system of meritocracy when evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of employees and staff.
10.5 Conclusion
It is important to note that performance management reforms have to be synchronized and equally matched with the political will to execute them. The last decade has seen numerous attempts at enhancing public administration. In recent years, however, Malaysians have acutely observed the manner in which public administration regulations are hampered by political influence. True reform places at its highest objective the need to implement programs efficiently, professionally, and effectively. Malaysia’s international ranking within corruption indices has fallen, and the continuation of this trend will have a detrimental effect on efforts to improve public administration performance.
There are increasing calls for the independence of institutions in the country, which also has a direct implication on the effectiveness of the civil service. Future public administration reforms could do well in focusing on the areas highlighted in the above section. In a dynamic and changing environment, the Malaysian government has a wide menu of options available in institutionalizing such reform practices. Some fundamental reforms that have been recommended here include enhancing the work of PEMUDAH, expanding on IT tools, having clear vision and consolidation of public administration reform practices, putting in place systems of public accountability and transparency, legislating access to information as a principle, reforming the civil service, using meritocracy and need in place of ethnically based policy, and communicating these reforms effectively both internally and externally. All levels of the civil service need to be conscientized to both the reasons and detail of reform measures. Finally, in order for substantial reform to amount to actual results, it is imperative that the Malaysian government first sorts out its fundamental and systemic flaws. Only then will any regulation, circular, policy, and legislation take full effect independently. Prime Minister Najib’s calls for the KPI and NKRA policies would see the successful implementation of public administration efficiency only with equal commitment toward integrity. With the fundamentals in place, it will then be possible for Malaysia to continue its past accomplishments of top quality performance management standards at all levels of its public administration.
References
1.Jomo, K.S., Industrialising Malaysia, in Jomo, K.S. (ed.) Industrialising Malaysia: Policy, Performance, Prospects. London: Routledge, 1993, 14–39.
2.Awang, Z.H., Response of public administration system of Malaysia to global challenges, in Salleh, S. and Carino, L.V. (eds) Globalisation and the Asian Public Sector. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre, 1995, 20.
3.Mahathir, M., Malaysia incorporated and privatisation: Its rationale and purpose, in Gham, M.N.A., Wang, B.T.H., Chia, I.K.M., and Gale, B. (eds) Malaysian Incorporated and Privatisation, Towards National Unity. Subang Jaya: Pelanduk, 1984, 1.
4.Sarji, A., The Civil Service of Malaysia: Towards E ciency and E ectiveness. Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia, 1996a, 5.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
208Public Administration in Southeast Asia
5.Siddiquee, N.A., Public management reform in Malaysia: Recent initiatives and experiences.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 339, 1996.
6.Malaysian Administration Modernisation and Mangement Planning Unit, http://www.mampu.gov. my/mampu/sejarah1. Accessed 2007.
7.Abdul Karim, M.R., Improving the Efficiency of the Public Sector: A Case-Study of Malaysia, Twelfth Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Programme in Public Administration and Finance, New York, United Nations, 31 July–11 August 1995.
8.Mohd Noor, K. and Mohamed, A.Z., Getting ethics and values right, in Mohammad Rais Abdul Karim (ed.) Reengineering the Public Service. Leadership and Change in an Electronic Age. Subang Jaya: Pelanduk, 1999, 319–36.
9.INTAN. Tonggak Duabelas [The Twelve Pillars]. Kuala Lumpur: INTAN, 1992.
10.Government of Malaysia (GOM) The Civil Service of Malaysia – Strengthening the Administrative Mechanism. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Bhd, 1998.
11.Triantafillou, P., Machinating the responsive bureaucrat: Excellent work culture in the Malaysian public sector. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 24(2), 185, 2002.
12.Abdul Karim, M.R., Administrative reforms and bureaucratic modernisation – the need for new strategies in productivity improvements within the public sector. INTAN Journal (Administration & Development), 3(1), 52, 1988.
13.Government of Malaysia (GOM), The Civil Service of Malaysia – Strengthening the Administrative Mechanism. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Bhd, 1998.
14.Abdul Karim, M.R., Improving the Efficiency of the Public Sector: A Case-Study of Malaysia, Twelfth Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Programme in Public Administration and Finance, New York, United Nations, 31 July–11 August 1995.
15.Abdul Karim, M.R., Administrative reforms and bureaucratic modernisation – the need for new strategies in productivity improvements within the public sector. INTAN Journal (Administration & Development), 3(1), 52, 1988.
16.Shafie, H., Malaysia’s experience in implementing the new performance appraisal system. Public Administration and Development, 16(4), 341, 1996.
17.Xavier, J.A., Managing for accountability, in Karim, M.R.A. (ed.) Leadership and Change in an Electronic Age. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications, 1999, 337–60.
18.MSC Malaysia: E-Government, http://www.msc.com.my/rakyat/E-Goverment.html. Accessed December 28, 2007.
19.Sarji, A., Civil Service Reforms – Toward Malaysia’s Vision 2020. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications, 1996, 35.
20.Siddiquee, N.A., Public management reform in Malaysia: Recent initiatives and experiences.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 339, 1996.
21.Rahman, A., Public service innovations in Malaysia, in Salleh, S.H. (ed.) Public Sector Innovations – The Asian Way. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre, 1996, 63–112.
22.Sarji, A., The Chief Secretary to the Government. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications, 1996, 11.
23.PEMUDAH: The Special Task Force to Facilitate Business, 2008 Annual Report, “Public-Private Sector Collaboration: Towards a Globally Competitive Malaysia”.
24.Sarji, A., The Chief Secretary to the Government. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications, 1996, 12.
25.Common, R., Public Management and Policy Transfer in Southeast Asia. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001, 52.
26.Sarji, A., The Chief Secretary to the Government. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications, 1996, 14.
27.Doing Business 2009, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.
28.Doing Business 2009, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.
29.The Global Competitiveness Report (TGCR) 2008–2009. World Economic Forum, 2008.
30.IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) 2009. IMD, 2009.
31.IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) 2007. IMD, 2007.
32.Doing Business 2008. World Bank Group, 2008.
33.Corruption Perceptions Index 2007. Transparency International, 2007.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Performance Management Reforms in Malaysia 209
34.The Global Corruption Barometer 2007. Transparency International, 2007.
35.Komo, S.K. (ed) Privatising Malaysia: Rents, Rhetorics and Realities. London: Westview Press, 1995, 31.
36.Haque, M.S., Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(4), 573, 2000.
37.Siddiquee, N.A., Administrative reform in Malaysia: Recent trends and developments. Asian Journal of Political Science, 10(1), 105, 2002.
38.United Nations Convention against Corruption. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations General Assembly, 2003.
39.Ramkumar, V., Our money, Our Responsibility: A Citizens’ Guide to Monitoring Government Expenditures. The International Budget Project, 2008, 3.
40.Open Budget Index 2008, International Budget Partnership, 2008.
41.PKFZ still getting investment enquiries: Port Klang, Business Times, June 10, 2009.
42.Wong, S.C., Corporate “bail outs”, in Wong, S.C., Jomo, K.S. and Kok, F.C. (eds) Malaysian “Bail Outs”?: Capital Controls, Restructuring and Recovery. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2005.
43.Selangor to Enact Freedom of Info Law. The Star, May 19, 2009.
44.Towards a More Representative and World-Class Civil Service, Recommendations for the 9th Malaysia Plan, Centre for Public Policy Studies, 2006.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC