Like all concerned Malaysians, I am eagerly following the "follow-through" on the annual Auditor General's Report. In fact, because of our genuine concern for related issues, about three years ago, three of us ex-Public Servants, paid a personal visit to Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, the Auditor General and our good friend.

NONE We spoke as three tax-paying citizens who were concerned about how our public funds were being "disbursed without good stewardship and good processes of due diligence." We communicated some real life experiences, based on our past public service experience. Between us we had 100 years of them. The Auditor General gave his word that he would address all relevant issues.

Therefore, I congratulate the AG for two things: highlighting abuse of due processes and wastage of public funds, and second for timely reporting of real life issues; most of which are within our memories and many of the actors are still on the scene; even if retired. I also want to further congratulate the Chief Secretary and Public Services Chief for reiterating that "the guilty parties must face the music."

Finally, allow me to recognize two of our most committed "citizen-fighters," Nadeswaran and Terence Fernandez, for their unending desire and longstanding preserve to "keep up the good fight." They both have single-handedly or double-handedly worked as a team; as good, if not better, than the best doubles badminton pairs we have ever had!

Being an ex-sportsman myself, teamwork is all about such winning, but winning also includes good leadership, spiritual tenacity and courage, and the almost fearless faith which believes that the good will ultimately prevail.

With that backdrop, therefore, allow me to now respond to Terence Fernandez's question in his column of the Sun, "Who calls the shots?"

He argues for the good and able leadership of the current KSN and KPPA on this matter of good accountability and appropriate responsibility, based on the able reporting about abuses by the current AG. But, then with some trepidation of faith Terence questions if there is an unstated assumption about all the good reporting?

Let me quote his words: "But having said that, there is an unspoken bit about the AG's Report and the response of the PSD Chief (or KPPA). At the bottom of every official letter is the line ‘( Saya ) Yang menurut perintah . (SYMP)' It could be an escape clause to dodge accountability and pointing to the higher being in the event of a major boo boo."

Well Terence, my response on the matter of the SYMP is below.

All authority always belong to the author. The author of the Annual Budget is Parliament, even if drafted and tabled for the Minister of Finance mostly by public servants. Therefore, ultimate financial authority for all spending belongs to the Parliament and her membership. The Public Accounts Committee is the most important follow-through element in all this! But the more important question is where is this delegated authority located in terms of "operational responsibility and accountability for the duration of the budget period?"

There is zero doubt on this matter in all finance procedures! It always resides with the "Controlling Officer" who absolutely holds both the authority to sign-off expenditure and be 100% held accountable for the operational expenditure, in the interim. The interim period is the time-frame Parliament has authorized for such expenditure, usually for a one year term. The AG's Report covers this same period. That is also why the PAC must review the AG's Report and make recommendations to the Parliament on "how the authorized monies were spent."

If there was any shade or inkling of abuse, the PAC must recommend appropriate action, including reprimanding the Minister concerned, if necessary, with a one ringgit symbolic cut in salary. Therefore the buck starts and stops in Parliament, and with the absolute interim responsibility "assigned or delegated to the Minister of Finance and his Controlling Officers."

Allow me to quote two real life cases to make my point. When Adolf Eichmann was charged with murder at the Nuremburg Trials; he claimed he was "only following instructions in the murders committed." In our language, it is SYMP or Saya Yang Menurut Perintah ." The Trial Judges found Adolf Eichmann guilty of murder! Murder is murder, even when instructed by bosses!

Likewise in Malaysia, I am sorry to state this: the Controlling Officers have no recourse to say that "they were only following orders." The Treasury Instructions and Financial Procedures Act are very clear about the rules and due process. And the AG's Report is always a compliance or non-compliance report. If there is non-compliance, like murder at the Nuremburg Trials, it is wrong, even if under orders from bad and blind Generals!

The second case was the only time I had to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. I was the Registrar of INTAN then. We were highlighted in the AG's Report for a violation and invited to come before the PAC. The year was 1980, and the violation occurred in 1975 or 1976. I was only a training officer at INTAN when the violation happened. Nonetheless, because I was Registrar by 1980 and executive agent for the Controlling Officer, I was hauled to answer with the then Controlling Officer, who was then the Mayor of Kuala Lumpur.

The person, a very charismatic and colorful Senior Officer, gave the PAC sincere and genuine answers to all their questions and apologized for the small oversight for lapses in the administrative records but assured them that no monies were lost. The PAC on that day, led by the late P Patto congratulated my ex-boss and the NST carried the story that the PAC was happy for the first time with good and honest answers by a senior public servant!

Good controlling officers are fully accountable and responsible to the Parliament. No excuses are needed or necessary. The AG's Report focuses always on lack of compliance, not fault-finding. When faults are admitted and there is a sincere intent to make things better even the PAC takes a positive view. But, the real problem starts when the AG's Report is not treated seriously even by the PAC. Then, even controlling officers may feel they are "protected even in non-compliance." That is when the close-one eye culture takes root in the public services.

To my mind that is what has happened over the last 20 years or so; slowly but surely, Ministers abused Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and allowed the Cabinet to become the absolute authority on all matters. Even Prime Ministers tabled Cabinet Papers through the backdoor on major decisions vide "Information Papers" as opposed to full-fledged Cabinet Papers, which have a very clear due process." Slowly but surely the abuse of Parliamentary Authority has contributed to the rise of an Executive State in Malaysia.

Based on the Westminster System of Parliamentary Governance, when the Public Servant signs-off, "I, your obedient servant," he does it in the name of the King of England and not in the name of the Minister held responsible to Parliament. Therefore, the equivalent in Malaysia is that either the Public Servant signs-off on behalf of Parliament and their clear budget instructions given, or on behalf of the Yang DiPertuan Agong as the Head of the State. It is never on behalf of blindly following bad or poor instructions by the Minister of the Government.

May God bless Malaysia as we seek to understand the real meaning of responsibility and accountability!