inTEGRITY

The Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Samsuddin Osman said on April 23, 2005 that Malaysia will have its own home-developed national integrity index (NII) with components such as corporate governance, fundamentals of family and community institutions, quality of life and courtesy.

"We are working on it and it will be established in November," The Star in its report headlined Integrity index to be developed yesterday quoted Samsuddin as saying at the first anniversary of the launching of the National Integrity Plan (PIN) and the Malaysian Integrity Institute in Kuala Lumpur.

The NII would cover all levels of society, from the public to the private sector.

"We hope the index will provide foreigners, especially investors, with an indicator of the integrity of the country," he added. (Desiderata's emphasis)

Samsuddin said that all this while, Malaysia had used the Corrution Perception Index issued by Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) as its benchmark for integrity. (Incidentally, TI has a Malaysian chaper.)

He was of the opinion that TI may use criteria that are not quite relevant to our situation, and hence the TI index might not be suitable for us.

I don't have a problem with the Governmnet's emphasis on promoting inTEGRITY, which universally implies the positive values of honesty, transparency and accountability, especially of paramount importance in international business and foreign investment flows into Malaysia.

But using the excuse that TI's index might not cater to local needs and therefore "not suitable" is like trying to change universally accepted standards, akin to a case of "re-inventing the wheel". Who is going to change to using, or even first recognising as usable, Malaysia's national integrity index, you representing a nation of just 25 million people? Are you aware that the total capitalisation of the whole Bursa Malaysia's companies amount to less than the net worth of one American tycoon's company --Microsoft belonging to Bill Gates?

Things that our honourable Chief Secretary need to ponder over before proceeding on a project that is going to use up lots of human resources, time and energy which could be better used in improving all the public and private systems that are already in place. Hey, next are we going to re-define Gross Domestic Product using our own criteria to suit Malaysia's conditions because out leaders feel the world is not heeding Malaysia's special needs? Let's get out of the proverbial coconut shell before another economic tsunami wraps us all in an eclipse we may never emerge from!

I now turn to last night's TV3 finale of the "The Apprentcie" (season 2) -- where it was a neck-to-neck battle of wits and business savvy-spiritedness between law graduates Kelly Perdew and Jennifer Massey. Kelly chalked up a fantsatic record in the US armed forces, with a glowing testimony given by his superior officer who held the view "Kelly could rise up to the very top (in one of Donald Trump's companies)" and that he would be proud to serve under him (his subordinate in the army!)

Jennifer also had a fantastic record to show -- graduating top of the class at two prestigious universities, rose to the top at a US leading law firm (she currently serves in), and again earning an equally glowing report from her current superior colleague.

The battle to be The Don's apprentice was so tight and close that Mr Trump had to use a novel method-- garnering a live audience's feedback, including the views the other 14 "fired" competitors, and significantly, of several top Fortune 500 companies' CEOs. The overwhelming support of expressed views pointed to Kelly's advantage. All the opinion-makers said the two candidates indeed were outstanding in their own right. Their views crossed gender lines because at no stage could one detect any gender bias in their ratings.

The "roped in" judges gave several character traits common in their assessments -- both Kelly and Jennifer showed leadership qualifies, commitment, discipline, and ability to adapt to meet problems that arise in an asssignment, different degrees of "fire" (abrasiveness was one trait attributed to the female contender), could deliver on the tasks at hand, especially the final one involving organising a Polo event (Kelly) and a basketball event (Jenny) to raise funds for charity.

Humility to acknowledge mistakes

One feature that was considered a "weakness" observed in both contenders' final task was the "personal" interaction (rather lack of) with key people who ought to have been given due respect -- in Jenny's case, not personally attendig to key VIPs (including the sponsors) associated with the charity event, not present to "farewell" the boss after the basketball game; and Kelly too not personally talking to the key personalities at important times. One difference I noticed that when asked for their "defence", Jenny was overly defensive giving reasons for her "absence" (coming across as not acknowledging her lapses) while Kelly did nod his recognition of his omissions, and humble enough to openly acknowldedge his mistakes. I believe this "openness" in humility gave him an edge, which could have shifted the balance (my humble view, of course).

I think the "fire" referred to was all about PASSION, which ranked high in all the assessments given. There is no need to say more but add that where there is passion in an endeavour, it becomes a joy, not a labour. (Not my original thought, 'tis wisdom often proffered by successful people throughout the ages and world.)

The outstanding trait -- present in both finalists Kelly and Jenny -- is definitely, inTEGRITY.
I wrote it such "in" to show that this comes from within the person. Intangible no doubt, but it will finally surface, sooner or later, and it makes the world of difference as to whather one wins the battle -- in the corporate, family or friendship circles. This characteristic is among the desiderata of "towering" character, and must surely belong to those who possess the "glow" that their colleagues and associates talk about. I'd be damned mighty proud to be in Kelly's or Jenny's shoes -- we can always dream and aspire, can't we?

People worldwide look for the same values -- let's not kid ourselves re-defining certain universally-held values to suit our circumstances. That is called "rationalisation", Tan Sri Samsuddin.