Why government services keep failing the people who need them most

There appears to be little accountability in some segments of the civil service today, with some government departments failing to serve people most in need of recourse.

So are we surprised when a police station is unable to prioritise between its sworn duty and a dress code?

Many people often get easily agitated about the economy and various political issues. But the repeated failures and the cracks in the civil service system get far less attention.

When government delivery systems fail, when an aerotrain repeatedly fails to run between terminals at KLIA, or when we are no longer able to tell the difference between the hand that is supposed to protect from one that shoots civilians and steals, then we are in serious trouble.

When the country’s civil service delivery system fails, the long-term impact on the country and the ordinary people is serious.

To comprehend this chronic network of failures, let’s follow a specific case study concerning the Pahang land office.

For context, the piece of land in question is owned by a non-profit organisation involved in promoting education.

Several years ago, the land office revised its land tax rates (cukai tanah) to unreasonable heights. In one case, there was a 2,198,285% increase (from RM20 to around RM439,677) and in another, a 1,164,390% increase (from RM20 to around RM232,898).

Such hikes in tax rates of more than a million times are not only unreasonable but irresponsible as well, because they affect businesses and public morale.

Even corporate landowners and organisations will not be able to afford these rates, not only because they are ridiculously high but because they need to have factored them into their annual budgets well in advance.

When government agencies make decisions on a whim, without warning, they are likely to cause financial stress and uncertainty.

Such unilateral whimsical decisions, whether they are by state governments or federal agencies, warrants some serious scrutiny.

What are the criteria used to come up with these new decisions? What are the processes of dissemination of information and the timeframe to prepare the public or the targeted clients before these decisions are implemented?

Does the delivery process include channels for support, complaints and feedback?

And finally, if there are channels, then are they real and active with attending officers invested to take immediate action?

In the case of the landowners in Pahang, when faced with such ridiculous tax rates, they at first approached the district offices in Bentong and Kuantan. They were not given any clear explanation for the increase, probably because they did not have any.

When these landowners attempted to contact the various state and federal offices for assistance, advice and intervention, including the government’s chief secretary, the official hotlines were delayed or unresponsive.

Finally, they were forced to resort to legal channels to resolve the issue. After long delays, the matter finally reached the Temerloh High Court, which instructed the authorities to come up with a more reasonable (munasabah) tax amount.

Unfortunately, because the issue had dragged on for years, late-payment charges have kept increasing and accumulating. These and the legal fees added more pressure on the landowners and their businesses.

This nightmarish experience simply illustrates how difficult it is for ordinary people to get support from the system and its relevant pipeline, even when they follow all the right ‘processes’.

Can such irresponsible and unresponsive delivery process systems be healthy for businesses, let alone for the nation’s economic growth?

So here are some serious questions that we need to ponder on. Has the government delivery process gone rogue? Are we declining in our ability to prioritise people over mysterious whims and bottlenecks that suddenly seem to strike the public when they go to government service counters for services or to obtain permits, licences and reports?

Don’t we have sufficient guidelines, checks and balances from within the government machinery, to provide high-quality civil service? Why can’t we have a responsive system that is approachable, responsible and reasonable in dealing with the public? Why can’t we institutionalise reliable and adequate hotlines and official platforms for support, consultations, feedback and dialogue?

We will also need to ask if the quality of our civil service is moral and principled…for all its obsession with moral policing.

Perhaps not, if we consider how Teoh Beng Hock’s death in 2009 at a government facility remains unresolved. Or how we are still unable to locate the whereabouts of M Indira Gandhi’s ex-husband, who remains missing with the couple’s daughter, despite a Federal Court order. Or how fatal police shootings continue, yet without independent oversight bodies to investigate and ensure accountability.

However, it is worth noting that some departments, such as Immigration and the Inland Revenue Board, have made genuine improvements in aspects of their counter delivery systems. These should be acknowledged and used as models for reform elsewhere.

In countries like China and India, civil servants take pride in the quality of the work they do. In China, there is a high price to pay as a consequence for ineptness and corrupt practices. But here, we seem to reward ineptness and even promote those responsible to positions of more power. 

So today in Malaysia, whether it is a state government dealing with land taxes or schools where serious issues have emerged – there are deep inherent weaknesses that compromise the efficiency, efficacy and the quality of the civil service.

And also somewhere in the shadows, we wonder if race, religion and even a lack of meritocracy have compromised the interpretation of what is fair and just in the way decisions are made and applied by certain sectors of the civil service. 

Good governance is not only about big national policies. It is also about the little things, of how offices, departments and local agencies treat the public in everyday matters.

In view of these systemic challenges, we welcome the government’s decision to establish a national ombudsman, with the bill expected to be tabled in early 2026. This independent body – with its broad mandate covering maladministration, misconduct, whistleblower protection and freedom of information – could provide meaningful oversight and accountability. We hope it will go some way in reducing some of the problems outlined above and provide meaningful checks and balances that have been sorely lacking.

We also call for the swift implementation of the long-awaited reform to separate the attorney general and public prosecutor roles. This separation is crucial for ensuring prosecutorial independence and boosting public confidence in the justice system.

Finally, we urge the government to establish the independent police complaints and misconduct commission (IPCMC), as originally recommended by a 2005 royal commission of inquiry into the workings of the police.

Unlike the present Independent Police Conduct Commission, which can only make recommendations, the IPCMC would have the disciplinary authority necessary to hold errant officers accountable. After two decades of waiting, the people of Malaysia deserve robust, independent oversight of the police force.

K Haridas
Co-editor, Aliran newsletter
13 December 2025

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: