Here’s me at the MACC talk on December 7th, The Light Hotel, Seberang Jaya, with the fella that says he’s the one responsible for investigating complaints about corruption.
The Key Takeaways (for me) are :
- Once an act that is considered “corruption” has been committed there’s no way to plead ignorance, to back-track or to “repair” the situation. No second chances and “ignorance of the law is not a defence.”
- People who are inclined to commit an act that is out of integrity and out of “professional ethics” will find all kinds of creative “leeway” to justify the original intent. It is our human nature.
- There’s no such thing as an “innocent” error especially when submitting claims. An “additional 0” or being imprecise about a wording or filling in ghost-attendees just to qualify for a requirement – they’re jailable offences.
So, let’s see what I can recall about the talk….
Let’s go through each of the circles.
1 & 2 goes together : because it takes two to tango.
What’s “soliciting” ? – I was surprised that complimenting someone on something that they have is considered “soliciting”. I know that is true of Arabic culture and some other cultures where you cannot actually SINCERELY compliment someone for their blessed life i.e. beautiful jewellery, handbag, furniture, home renos. I once heard from a Malaysian Malay person that you can’t even compliment someone’s cat or they would be obliged to give it to you!
This was a big shocker for me because I have a very natural tendency to unabashedly compliment people for things that I believe required either personal attention, sustained effort, good fortune or collective social capital or a combination in order to achieve. For example, now that I am “midlife”, I do not take hair and teeth health, good skin, posture and “energy to get things done” for granted. Those are things I have made sacrifices to have or to regain. They cost things like sustained effort, opportunity costs, the goodwill of those I keep company with. Even being able to show up in a clean and pressed outfit , to be able to wake up and show up on or before time for an event – those are things that I genuinely feel deserve to be highlighted. And those are only the non-tangibles.
I genuinely love people who make effort in haircuts, fashion, fabric / textile or men who go for “haifu”, eyebrow embroidery or a tailor-made / bespoke suit. It costs both time and money to save up for a suit and to go for the multiple fittings. It’s an eye that my late father and grandfather bestowed in me – about men’s grooming (hair, facial hair, body shape), suits, shirts, ties and shoes. And a WATCH. For females, I admire those who have spent the last few decades taking supplements or having a procedure for dark circles / eyebags, wrinkles, etc. The things I admire and love about people are clearly more than skin-deep. It’s just that when it comes to first impressions, those things are immediately obvious. As much as I can, I find things to appreciate in others because familiarity breeds contempt, it is easier to find fault and criticise, and we want to be able to see the best in people any chance we get.
I celebrate others having nice cars and watches and bags because it requires taste, appreciation of a craft and the competence to earn and be willing to spend on that craft. The list can go on! The world is a display of people’s imagination, sustained effort, talent and unique perspective and experiences. This “sweet mouth” is something I have always remembered having – I delight in the success, achievements and possessions of others. By appreciating others owning it, I don’t need to own it myself because the delight is there. “Bless that which you want.” I believe that people deserve to be seen for the best that they are. But I can understand how “complimenting” can be seen as “flattery with an agenda” because I have been dealt many so-called compliments that are actually throwing shade at me. It is a very sad state we’ve come to – that we cannot just take things at face-value and we have to keep thinking about “hidden agendas”.
I would like to protest but I think they’ve thought through the perils of “personal soft power”.
I would like to DOTH PROTEST that complimenting someone for what they have is considered SOLICITING. If you want something – be DIRECT and ask for it. Forget about being “indirect” or genuine and sincere compliments for a moment. Let’s just focus on THE ASK. In any sales training or sales closing, you are going to have to do The Ask. Even in dating, you have to do The Ask. As Harv Eker says, “If you don’t ask for it, the answer will always be NO.” The Ask is one of the 7 Aspects of Power that I had to help my older son learn. 7 Aspects of Personal Power is a story for another time but the inability to ASK for your need to be met leads to a darkness in humanity.
But MACC is MACC. A person can report me for SOLICITING if I compliment them for something. They can even ENTRAP ME by offering me the thing I complimented them upon so that they can REPORT ME TO MACC. I strongly disagree with the criminalisation of solicitation because the simple solution to “solicitation” is just to clearly and emphatically say “No”. To incentivise Malaysians to entrap others who solicit creates an Authoritarian 1984 Orwellian dystopia.
As a lady, how many times throughout my decades of eating salt do you think I have been faced with “solicitation” and “harassment” ? I understand the slippery slope because the person who SOLICITS or OFFERS might not give you the option to say NO. They may even penalise or deny you what you have a fair opportunity to access or have qualified yourself to receive i.e. significantly increase your direct or opportunity costs. And this is where POWER, be it personal or legal-rational, comes into the picture. When an OFFER becomes a blackmail, threat / HARASSMENT, then that should be criminalised. An answer, ideally, should be either a flat out “no” or it’s a “let’s negotiate the terms”. But we already know that there’s a segment of the population, known for their “Narcissistic Abusive” traits, who are like 2-year old toddlers that simply will not take “no” as a boundary. People with “dark triad traits” take “no” as a narcissistic injury, no matter how rationale your reason is or how gentle your approach is. It’s never about you and what is safe for you, it’s about them and how they want to “win”.
MACC and “powers that be” have clearly thought out the trajectory of the “soft problems of relational and personal power” – that power is seldom balanced between individuals, what more when those individuals represent offices and positions versus those handicapped by socio-cultural backgrounds, gender, etc.
For most Trainers and Training Providers, unless there’s a vindictive agenda, I doubt we want to get involved in the business of policing the corporate sector on behalf of MACC. It is true that we may be at risk of being OFFERED a “cut” from the “claw-back” by employers or their agents (i.e. their HR or gatekeeper) or “profit-sharing” (laughable that they use the word profit-sharing in the context of the claw-back, it’s an abomination of the capitalist definition of “profit”).
The New Risk To Training Providers and Trainers :
But here’s the new risk : If they are unhappy that we rejected them with a NO, they will REPORT US FIRST that they offered us, to cover themselves, just in case we report them first. What a bloody pain, isn’ it?
As for submitting false claims :
As a newly registered Training Provider I have not submitted claims under my own TP or for any other trainer but I have had another TP submit claims in order that I get paid. From my understanding, we invoice the client, the client agrees on the price, and then we invoice HRDC. And the employer does a similar procedure to have funds released. I honestly do not see room for submitting false claims when it comes to SBL-Khas or Employer Specified Training unless there’s a typo with one less or one extra “0” or typos in names of participants / IC number. This is where we need a second pair of eyes to practice diligence.
There’s probably more room for this under the PENJANA projects where Training Providers were openly advertising for people to sit-and-eat through a training or just provide their name and I/C number in exchange for saying they’ve attended a training. I was honestly tempted to join many of those trainings – free food and free learning!!!
Let’s be Wide-Eyed : It’s no longer “business as usual”. – Here are the cultural norms of doing business in Malaysia that’s considered a jailable offence. Let’s consider ourselve informed!
- Sending hampers, giving angpows, mooncakes, kuih raya, set tudung, giving novelty gifts to people you do business with. – NOT ALLOWED.
- Sending “premiums” like calendars, diaries, etc to people who buy from you. – NOT ALLOWED.
- Buying meals for, paying for entertainment, vacations for the person of their family.- NOT ALLOWED.
- Offering people, their associates or their families, cash or kind (vouchers, things redeemed from points, introductions to facilitate entry for a kin) as part of them having assisted you in a deal or proxy to a deal.
- Giving clients products with your company’s name or logo on it (free product placement or unpaid advertising taking up real-estate and eyeballs)
- If an employee, trainer or an agent acting as a representative enabling the transaction between HRDC training provider and the employer offers / receives a bribe in the course of engaging a training – the TP will be held liable.
In other words, if you are a Training Provider, you need to have a very high degree of being able to trust the people, trainers and other Training Providers you cross-sell with. In general, I don’t see much of a problem with #7 because as the Training Provider, we do need others to help us cross-sell and up-sell. What are the risks? Would a trainer offer “kickbacks” to the gatekeeper or agent acting on behalf of the Employer? The trainer is actually the best person to up-sell more of his / her own courses or to cross-sell other courses that a Training Provider carries. In general, a HRDC trainer is sufficiently well-paid enough for a day’s training. If being paid as a trainer, speaking for myself, is not enough, then perhaps there are other parallel or more lucrative opportunities outside of being a HRDC trainer that can also be pursued that does not have to incur professional risk to oneself.
The Training Provider can also include a T&C in the Training Agreement, that by accepting the terms of the training, the Employer declares that they have not been personally offered nor offered any incentive to the trainer. And in issuing the offer letter to the Trainer to deliver the training, the Training Provider can also include that statement to be signed off on. “Sales” is really about Speed and Trust and being fulfilled in knowing that closing a sale means being able to help more people.
Points 1 – 6 above considered, doing ANYTHING to buy goodwill and a relationship with someone who will return the favour in some other way – it’s BRIBERY and corruption.
This Will Get Me Haters but I err on the side of where I stand on this.
For too long, the Malaysian economy has suffered because power distance and “gift giving cultural norms” that are based on “soft power hierarchies” have thwarted the applications of higher-value sales and marketing endeavours. Malaysians sugarcoat bribery as “marketing” and “public relations”. Putting one’s company name on a pen, for example, and giving it to a client – that’s not “marketing”. It’s technically “product placement” (advertising) and the reason it is not ethical is simply because “advertising space for rent” or “eyeballs and traffic for purchase” is not a monetizing product offered by the Target Audience where the “pen or calendar” is placed at.
One of my key takeaways from attending LimKokWing as a Business Comms student (Advertising, Marketing and PR) is that the basic idiot enrolled in that course has to know the difference between Advertising and all the things that fall under it, and Marketing – the specific problems that they solve and the specific capabilities required. I never paid much attention to PR because it looks like the Disaster Clean Up Crew – i.e. get paid to lie without getting it being used against you in court. Later in my young adult life, I had the good fortune of being groomed to enjoy “sales” as an ethical, moral and fulfilling job.
Because of the limitations that have already been imposed on me by my formal education and formal mentoring in sales I find it very unsettling the way Malaysians throw around the words “advertising, promotions, sales, marketing, branding”. Is it a matter of unconscious incompetence or conscious incompetence?
Which brings me to my final thought on this….
Formal education and formal training does matter when it comes to creating limitations and refining definitions. For a great majority of participants in the monopolistic competition (a) labour and (b) laissez-faire market, the barrier of entry is low. Therefore, sans legal-rational regulations and regulatory enforcements, we can only count on individuals opting in and choosing their behaviours based on their current (Kohlberg’s) stages of morality. The social capital cost or gains of individuals opting-in at a lower or higher level stages of morality is cumulative. Even if there are no frameworks and structures to continuously and comprehensively collect and tabulate data on the behaviours of individual and “culture” as players and actors in a free-market, the cost to socio-economic development and quality of life is real.
Training Providers whose Business Model is to formalize “informal” adult pathways to knowledge acquisition really have no room to conduct ourselves as people who “cannot possibly know any better” when it comes to our playing field. Using the SAQA framework and level descriptors of learning achievements as the context, at Level 10, this is what it says : “Accountability, in respect of which a learner is able to demonstrate an ability to operate independently and take full responsibility for his or her work, and where appropriate to lead, oversee and be held ultimately accountable for the overall governance of processes and systems.”
As the commercial and administrative arm assisting trainers to meet the training needs of the Malaysian workforce, we as HRDC registered Training Providers have zero wriggle room when it comes to Accountability. At least, that was my takeaway from the talk.
Leave your comments no matter how scathing they may be!