Since its launch on Jan 2, the Pangkalan Data Utama (Padu) has received an onslaught of criticism from both the public and experts.
The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) set up Padu to streamline nearly 300 types of federal government data for delivering targeted subsidies efficiently.
But critics have uncovered data security flaws, with some demanding that Padu be suspended until these flaws are rectified.
The EPU has since responded with public statements, FAQs and a hotline to deal with public concerns.
However, the rough rollout has cast a shadow over public trust in Padu and targeted subsidies.
The Padu misstep should be a lesson on how to approach policy communication in Malaysia.
For policymakers
How policy is communicated affects its effectiveness.
In countries like Malaysia people experience a distance from governance and the decision-making process and have few opportunities to have their voices heard.
This only deepens mistrust towards the government.
This is captured in the power distance index by Hofstede Insights, which scores Malaysia an abysmal 100 out of 100, illustrating the inequality of power distribution between those with and without power in society.
Keeping the power distance in mind, policymakers must be more sensitive when navigating their policy communication.
Downplaying data security concerns and chastising the public for digital illiteracy only further creates an environment of distrust surrounding Padu.
There are genuine concerns regarding the sharing of personal, sensitive details among Malaysians, given the government’s track record for data breaches.
Policymakers and the government must think more clearly about the process to improve transparency and civil participation, reduce the “power distance” between the public and government, and ultimately make any future initiatives more receptive.
For the public
In public policy, perfection is a journey, not a destination.
Malaysia has long leaned on outsourcing digital government projects to the private sector, such as MySejahtera, the national single window for trade facilitation, and the renewal of foreign worker permits.
This practice has inadvertently sidelined public learning opportunities and interests, undermining the government’s effort to strengthen its capability in public service delivery.
Over time, increasing public criticism and delayed public service delivery reforms create a vicious cycle, reinforcing the habit of outsourcing rather than learning.
While the missteps surrounding Padu’s implementation are valid, Padu was built in-house by public service workers, signifying important steps towards bolstering the government’s in-house capabilities.
Strengthening public service capabilities through projects like Padu is a necessary step towards reducing our reliance on the private sector.
While this transition is not flawless, experts and the public should continue to provide constructive discourse while also encouraging the government’s pivot in this direction.
Ultimately, it takes time, trust and public support to enable the government to strengthen its capabilities to develop innovative policy tools for better public services.
In the UK, a public policy sandbox called Policy Lab was one of the ways to collaborate among the government, private sector and the public.
The sandbox allows stakeholders to test and refine bold policy tools and prototypes.
And in the case of Malaysia, it could help curb the government’s habit of outsourcing public services by continuously collaborating to provide better public services.
The lesson surrounding Padu is that we need to be both bold and generous in our journey of nation-building.
Closing the power distance between the rakyat and Putrajaya is a relationship that needs empathy, collaboration and honesty.
This is crucial to how we rethink our approach to policy development and public discourse when the success of initiatives relies heavily on these two key stakeholders.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.