INTRODUCTION

Since the 1990 announcement of the e-Government initiative for Malaysia, tremendous effort has been made to enhance service delivery via electronic means. Most apparent is the construction of facilities and amenities to support the electronic flow of information to the public. Unfortunately, institutional and organizational progress was not equally robust. This deficit has lessened the effectiveness of information delivery to a certain extent. Another factor, which slowed the progress of e-information delivery, was the unequal accessibility and affordability of computers and Internet services. Access to computers is important because not only are computers information devices in their own right, but also because access to computers is the main factor for evaluating access to Internet. Access to Internet is important because it is the electronic linkage to e-services. On the ground, the visibility of e-services at first tier level agencies, that is, ministerial departments, reveals the disparity in access to Internet. The disparity is also apparent when one looks at agencies requiring minimal inter-agency collaboration and integration. In general, there has been only partial achievement of the core objective of e-Government, which is to deliver services to the public effectively and efficiently. To substantiate these observations, this study examined the e-Government rankings produced by three institutions, the United Nations, Brown University and Waseda University. Interestingly, these institutions gave Malaysia varying rankings. One explanation for the variance was the use of differing definitions and methodologies. Knowing this fact, one should use e-government rankings with reservation.

The current research has two aims: First, to explore the nature of e-Government challenges and achievements from within Malaysia; and second, to review and understand e-Government rankings given to Malaysia by international research institutions.

To address the first aim, web surveys were carried out on 71 agencies within Malaysia’s 281 ministries (this occurred after the Brown University Survey). In addition, questionnaires were distributed to probe accessibility, administrative, and management policy matters. Detailed probing was performed on 7 e-Government pilot projects. This exercise adopted some of the Waseda and the United Nations’ approaches. Finally, references made to the Information Communication Technology (ICT) national policy, budgeting and strategies, were collected from various sources namely, Malaysia’s Five Year Plans, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) reports, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank reports. 

To address the second aim, the study explored the e-rankings of Malaysia as determined by the three institutions. The exploration began by outlining the objectives and the criteria used by each of the named institutions in producing e-Government rankings. Malaysia’s placement in the rankings as assigned by each of the three institutions was compared at two levels. The first level of investigation involved the comparison of the three institutions’ rankings. The second level of investigation looked at the rankings from a human and economic development perspective. Malaysia’s Human Development Index (HDI) position was compared to the positions of those countries that were given the same e-Government ranking as Malaysia by the three institutions. However, before discussing Malaysia’s e-Government in relation to other e-Government development, a brief account of e-Government development process from various perspectives, is outlined below. 

MALAYSIA e-GOVERNMENT

Malaysia’s e-Government initiative was launched to improve government internal operations, that is, the speed and quality of policy produced, coordinated, enforced and implemented. Secondly, the initiative aimed to enhance the convenience and accessibility of interactions between government and citizens, and between government and businesses. In line with this aim, government therefore must improve its internal communications, and this is allied to many elements, some of which are infrastructure, telecommunication lines, human factors such as skill and culture, organisational structure, and institutional factors, such as understanding between agencies.

There is no definitive date as to when the Malaysian e-Government initiative was launched. A possible date is 1996 following the launching of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC). This e-Government initiative was one of the seven (Telehealth, Multi-purpose Card, Smart School, R&D Cluster, Technopreneur Development and E-Business) flagship applications introduced to set off the development of MSC.

Broadly speaking, the structure of e-Government consists of two key committees. There is a steering committee with representatives from key policy level agencies. The steering committee’s function is to provide policy direction and approval for e-Government programmes and activities and to monitor implementation progress of e-Government projects including pilot projects. The Government IT and Internet Committee’s (GITIC) function is to facilitate and coordinate ICT development in the public sector. In addition to the two committees, there was a strategic team established to review/study the setting of Malaysia’s e-Government.

Infrastructure Supporting Malaysian e-Government Applications

While people were starting to learn about Malaysian e-Government in the 1990s, the framework to support the applications had already commenced as early as the 1980s. Advancement of technology enhances the creation and dissemination of information, which in turn improves public knowledge for the betterment of individual livelihoods and national development. Thus, as people in Malaysia became more aware of the potential benefits of e-Government, they increased their demands for integrated government that would promote efficient and effective service and goods delivery. For example, in the case of land data, many user communities have come to realize that the disorganized geo-spatial information is the main cause for ineffective planning and development mishaps. In response to the demands, the government has pushed relentlessly towards system integration and the doing away of stand-alone systems.

One concerted effort towards integration came via the construction of a telecommunication infrastructure. This infrastructure could support inter- and intra-governmental agency communication and introduced the Government Integrated Telecommunications Network (GITN); please see Figure 1. The implementation of GITN set in motion the e-Government applications. It enables the integration of networking and the channeling of information flow in the public sector and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of inter-departmental and intra-departmental communication.

Figure 1: GITN Infrastructure

 

Source: Nik Azmin Nik Hussain, 2006

E-Government Hub

Through the development process, the Malaysian government has learned of fundamental administrative innovations, such as the establishment of one-stop-shops that offer a range of services from agencies to departments to citizen groups. The services can be offered either over the phone, or via the Internet, or via ‘front of house’ office service. However, these establishments cannot work without the necessary investment in IT. The government has spent approximately US$9 billion of public funds to develop the country’s IT infrastructure and amenities (EPU, 2006).

Among the key expenses was financial support to the Putrajaya Campus Network (PCN). The core technology of PCN is Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), which has the capability of integrating voice, video and data into a single network. The bandwidth available at the core of PCN is OC-3 or 155 Mbps. Shared Services Outfit (SSO) provides the planning and operations arm for PCN. SSO manages the migration of Government agencies and ministries to Putrajaya, ensuring that the new buildings’ network designs integrate well with the existing PCN. SSO also performs the daily monitoring and maintenance of PCN to ensure network availability to its present users. Operationally, PCN currently supports approximately 16,000 users for 58 government agencies and ministries.

E-Government Infrastructure: Telecommunication Services

Malaysia telecommunication services started in 1974. Known then as Jabatan Telekom Malaysia (Department of Telecommunications Malaysia) - now TMNet- it was the main service provider. Over the years, few other service providers received licences. While five operators now have licenses, TMNet still controls the fixed line sector. At the end of 2000, TMNet owned 4574 million of Malaysia’s 4628 million fixed lines in service, accounting for 99 percent of the market. TMNet services however lessened during the Asian financial crisis. In the years following the crisis, there was market saturation with mobile phones and the associated changes to consumer behaviour.

The Malaysian mobile phone industry has gone through several up and downs since its introduction in 1985. Like fixed line telephone, the industry stagnated during the financial economic crisis but managed to rebound by 1999. Growth has been such that the number of mobile subscribers surpassed the number of fixed telephone users in 2000. The Wireless Access Protocol (WAP) mobile phone service began in 2000, while General Packet Radio Services (GPRS) commenced in 2001. During the 1980s and 1990s, telecommunication operators competed intensely for mobile services. Competition reached its peak following the launching of five new GSM networks in 1995. By the end of 2000, Malaysia had 8 cellular networks owned by five companies.

After recovering from the economic crisis, cellular phone subscribers increased to 72 per 100 inhabitants. However, the penetration rate for fixed line remained low at 16.1 per 100 inhabitants. The MCMC’s survey found more than half of the respondents (57.5%) reported that they do not have a fixed line in their residence. Of those with fixed lines at home, as many as 50.7 percent reported an inclination to use the hand phone over the fixed line phone. MCMC concluded that the reason for not owning a fixed line was cost related (MCMC, 2004). The finding was however not in line with Minges and Gray’s (2002) observation. According to them, the cost of owning a telephone was less than two percent of household income. MCMC suggested that the real reason is probably related to the cumbersome requirements for fixed line application and the pull from mobile phone. There is no clear factual evidence to support the findings of either party. But the pull from mobile phone due to it size, flexibility, number of services available - sms, voice etc – and of course it’s transportability, may well explain the preference for mobile rather than fixed line phone.

E-Government Infrastructure: Internet

The incumbent Telekom Malaysia Berhad has a strong hold over Internet development also. JARING (Joint Advanced Integrated Networking) was Malaysia’s sole Internet Service Provider for Malaysia until July 1996 when Telekom Malaysia Berhad, later to be called TMNet, received a license. The market remained a duopoly until the year 2000 when additional licenses were granted. However, while there was a liberalization of the ISP market TMNet remained the strongest player. In June 2001, TMNet had 1.05 million subscribers, claiming 70 per cent of the Malaysian market and making it the largest ISP in South East Asia.

Despite having the technology, Internet penetration was low. There were several attributing factors. Malaysia has the second lowest dial-up Internet prices in South East Asia just above Singapore. To some ISPs, the rate is not cost effective, especially since they have to cater for all parts of Malaysia. Another reason is a low level of local broadband access to the Internet. Apart from the business sector, few homes or small businesses had high-speed access at the end of 2000. Several factors contributed to this situation. First, there was limited wireless technology. Secondly, while on the one hand the TMNet Internet service was unreliable, on the other hand alternative ISPs were not willing to invest in infrastructure to support Internet services. Instead, they depended on TMNet infrastructure and this to some extent discouraged TMNet from improving its infrastructural capability. Thirdly, for TMNet to permit its competitor ISPs to use its infrastructure was highly cost ineffective and inconsistent with its development plan. Resultantly, the decision making of the telecommunication regulator MCMC came under question. According to TMNet, MCMC was too lenient towards promotion of independent telecommunication infrastructure for competing ISPs. Fourthly, according to TMNet officers, Streamyx subscribers lacked knowledge of network interface. Often residential/office configuration and network hardware connections were the source of Internet disruption or problems and not the TMNet line.  

Therefore, although the number of Internet subscribers more than doubled, penetration was low. For example, in 2004 Internet penetration per 100 inhabitants was 1 percent. In 2005, there was another doubling of subscribers, lifting broadband penetration to just over 2 percent. In 2006, there was an 80 percent expansion, which lifted penetration per 100 inhabitants to just over 3 percent. This represented a household penetration of around 11 percent. Malaysia remained well behind the regional leaders where broadband household penetration was typically running at above 50 percent.

The following section looks into the e-Government profile of Malaysia based on the findings of the Brown University, Waseda University, and the United Nations. The initial date of commencement of the e-Government survey varies among these institutions. The Brown University has data from as far back as 2001 and the United Nations from 2002. The Waseda University Institute of e-Government however commenced its study in 2004. Therefore, for the purposes of comparison and synchronization this study chose 2004 as the comparative start point for all three institutions.

MALAYSIA e-GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

Studies of International Institutions for e-Government

The Centre of Public Policy, Brown University survey (West, various years) studied the features that are available online at national government websites. The study analyzed websites’ material. This included: contact information that would enable a citizen to find out who to call or write to at an agency to resolve a problem; material on information services and databases; features that would facilitate e-Government access by special populations such as the handicapped and non-native language speakers; interactive features that would facilitate outreach to the public; and visible statements that would reassure citizens about privacy and security over the Internet. The study involved 2,288 national government websites from 196 nations around the world including a wide variety of political and economic systems offices. It included executive offices (such as a president, prime minister, ruler, party leader, or royalty), legislative offices (such as Congress, Parliament, or People's Assemblies), judicial offices (such as major national courts), Cabinet offices, and major agencies that serve crucial functions of government. Functions such as health, human services, taxation, education, interior, economic development, administration, natural resources, foreign affairs, foreign investment, transportation, military, tourism, and business regulation.   

The Waseda University Institute of e-Government approach (Waseda, various years) focused on the core of the administrative and financial reform, that is, its effectiveness, productivity, and usefulness to the citizens. The study used six areas and 28 indicators. The first area was network preparedness, which included Internet users, broadband users, mobile users, personal computer users, and security systems. The second area required interface functioning applications including online applications, e-tender system, e-tax system, e-voting system, e-payment system and user-friendly interface. The third area, management optimisation, included EA-ICT investment, system optimisation, integrated network system, administrative and budgetary systems, and public management reform by ICT. The fourth area, homepage indicators, included updating frequency, public disclosure, link navigation system, multi-language correspondence. Finally, the fifth area was, chief information officer (CIO), and its indicators included introduction of CIO, Human Resource Development (HRD) for CIO, supporting body for CIO, role and function of CIO, and promotion of e-Government, that is, priority of e-Government planning and strategy, promotion activities, legal framework, and evaluation system.

The United Nations survey (United Nations various years) incorporated human capacity, citizens, including young and old, business and commerce, politicians, public administrators, programmers, end-users, infrastructure development and access to information and knowledge. The study looked beyond the availability of online services. It looked at the methods of delivery and the capacity of a country to absorb content and services. It applied components of subjective and normative research asking questions of what is, and what should be? The broad objective of the United Nations e-Government index is to offer insights into e-Government development strategies and themes among regions and across regions. Specifically, their survey aimed to provide a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments in the use of e-Government and ICTs as tools to deliver public services. Secondly, the survey aimed to be a benchmarking tool for monitoring countries’ progress towards higher levels of e-Government service delivery.

E-government Ranking for Malaysia

Scores produced by the three institutions carry different meanings. Apart from different emphasis on study objectives, the surveys used different methodologies. This fact notwithstanding, output of each study enhances understanding of a country’s e-service performance.

The Brown University survey placed Malaysia at rank 84 in 2004. Ranking dropped to 154 in 2005 moved up remarkably to 39 in 2006 and improved further in 2007. Rankings provided by the United Nations were generally constant, placing Malaysia at rank 42 in 2004 dropping one point in 2005 and 2006 and moving it up 10 points in 2007. Similar to the United Nations, scores given by Waseda University did not oscillate much. Malaysia was at rank 9 for two consecutive years dropping a few points in 2006 and 2007, Table 1. 

Table 1: E-government Ranking for Malaysia, 2004-2007

Brown University Findings

In 2004, Brown University’s rating for Malaysia’s e-government performance was comparable to The Sudan, Andorra, El Salvador and Afghanistan. In 2005, Malaysia’s rating was comparable to Rwanda, Mauritius, Samoa and Kenya. These ratings imply that despite a comfortable income and reasonable HDI, Malaysia was not using its income to improve e-services. Conversely, The Sudan and El Salvador, for instance, despite their low GDP and low HDI rating were allocating attention to e-services. In 2006 and 2007, Brown University’s rating indicated that Malaysia’s performance improved incrementally placing it at rank 39 and 25 respectively. This improvement places Malaysia’s performance as comparable to advanced countries like Finland and the Netherlands.

Subsequently, elements that constitute the ranking were checked. The 2004 survey reported a score of 100 percent on online services; it dropped to 0 percent in 2005, moved-up to 44 percent in 2006 and dropped to 63 percent in 2007. Similar irregular shifts were found in publications and databases. Databases scored 0 percent in 2004 and 2005, increased to 44 percent in 2006 and dropped to 25 percent in 2007. A summary of Brown University’s survey pattern for Malaysia is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Malaysia’ Performance for the period 2004-2007 (Based on Brown University E-government Survey)

Source: West Various Years

Waseda University Institute of E-government Findings

Malaysia’s e-service was placed at rank 9 in 2004 and 2005; this grouped Malaysia with Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Singapore, Canada, and the USA. In 2006 and 2007 ranking dropped to 14 and 15 respectively, but Malaysia remained among the ICT advanced countries. Overall, all four surveys of the Waseda place Malaysia among countries with high GDP Per Capita, that is, among countries with GDP Per Capita of approximately 50 percent more than Malaysia. This finding says that Malaysia has performed relatively well in converting available economic resources towards ICT development, in particular enhancing its e-services to the public. Indeed these results disagree with the Brown University’s findings.

United Nations Findings

The United Nations placed Malaysia in rank 42 in 2004, 43 in 2005 and at 34 in 2007. All three surveys place Malaysia among countries with equivalent HDI ranking as well as income level.

Analysis of the Three Rankings

Of the three studies, the Waseda University and United Nations portray the most reasonable view of Malaysia’s e-government performance. The Brown University findings on the other hand placed Malaysia’s performance extremely low in comparison to its investments and programmes. One would think the cause of such findings was the methodology used, which appears overly simplistic in comparison to that of Waseda and the United Nations. Notwithstanding this technical explanation, the writer has taken the initiative to verify the three institutions’ findings based on activities and investments during the survey period – 2004 to 2007. 

Based on the Fifth Malaysia Plan Report (2004), ICT investments and implementation were progressing steadily during 2001 to 2005. According to the Plan in those years, 2001-2005, government embarked on efforts to position Malaysia as a regional as well as an ICT and multimedia hub. Among the action taken was the promotion of a competitive environment for ICT and multimedia industries. The effect of the initiatives was the growth of many advanced value added services, including voice, data and text based applications as well as market expansion for electronic based contact and data centres. The spill over extended to companies operating in the multimedia super corridor and pushes for tariff upgrading for leased line communication services. Internet backbone infrastructure was also increased (by JARING) to 2.5 gigabits per second transmission speed.

The Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) also reported completion of ICT infrastructural expansion to rural and remote areas. In terms of basic telephony, such as Internet services, the government allocated the Universal Service Provision (USP) fund. The fund enables a considerable number of districts as well as rural schools access to fixed line. The plan also reported ICT expenditure provided to various economic sectors for ICT systems and processes, as well as the increment improvement of web-based applications.

Usage of ICT also expanded into the government sector. One of the expansion efforts was the introduction of the ICT strategic plan to improve linkages between government agencies, businesses and citizens. Online education and training were also undertaken during the Fifth Plan period. One of the actions was the introduction of the Malaysia Grid for Learning (MyGfL), which served as a repository and directory for sharing of digital content. In addition, the National e-Learning Consultative Committee (NeLCC) was set up to provide direction and monitor initiatives pertaining to formulation and implementation of strategies and programmes.

These efforts improved Malaysia’s e-government development. Waseda University in line with its methodology picked up these variables as positive development indicators. The variables were also considered in the United Nations survey. In line with its methodology, the United Nations study also explored beyond counting availability and probed into the effectiveness of service delivery to the public (G2B and G2C), as well as usefulness of the e-service to the public (G2B and G2C). As discussed in the earlier part of this paper, due to various technical and institutional reasons, Internet penetration in Malaysia is still low despite extravagant expenditure on infrastructure. The biggest portion of the budget is aimed at enhancing ICT, which has continuously emphasized closing the digital divide and upgrading accessibility to the citizens in general. Aggressiveness in promoting ICT has not achieved the level of effectiveness in line with e-service requirements.

Even so, this state of development does not imply that performance was static or badly performing as indicated by Brown University findings. The following section examined the status on the ground from the perspectives of users and managers, and through the examination of 28 ministerial websites.

SAMPLE STUDY

The exploration of e-service performance utilised some aspects of the Brown University, the Waseda University and the United Nations’ approaches. The objective of this section is to rationalize the three institutions findings from local perspectives of e-government development in Malaysia. This section outlines the approaches that were taken to produce information for this section. Overall, 71 officers participated in a questionnaire survey carried out in the 28 ministries. The questionnaire collected information on structure, means of communication within the organization and with other organizations, administrative issues covering matters on accessibility to computers, Internet and Intranet. Interviews were also carried out on 7 pilot project managers. Finally, web searches were carried out on the 28 ministries’ websites.

Status of Accessibility  

The basic communication media of e-government is accessibility to a computer and the Internet. According to the survey sample, 80.3 percent of ministries’ staff had access to Internet. At department level, 13 percent had no access and 4 percent of departments were still without Internet access. With regard to websites, all 28 ministries have a website. However, the stages of development among the 28 websites vary. 85.9 percent of departments within ministries have an official website. Among departments without a website, 10 percent were planning to have it and less than 2 percent had no plan to develop a website.

Corresponding to the above questions, this study looked into the development level of the ministerial websites. In line with the United Nations definition, a service is an e-service when its entire transaction occurs online. This study found only five ministries offering online services. These were the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Higher Education, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Ministry of Information, Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as Internal Security. Most ministries were offering access to a range of services within their ministries and linkages to other government institutions. They offered specialised databases, downloadable forms and applications, but they do not allow forms to be submitted online. In accordance with the United Nations’ categorisation of e-government development, the majority of ministries were in stage 2 of e-government development or having enhanced web presence. There were no ministries at stage 1 the emerging web presence stage, or stage 4 the transactional, or stage 5 the seamless web presence stage.

Level of Effectiveness

All ministries were at either level 2 or 3 implying they all carry the basic features like contact details (telephone, address, email, etc.), links to government sites, office location and a staff directory. This study also found 83 percent of websites email effectively, allowing comments, feedback, and queries to officials. A search feature was also common, allowing web visitors to search for information, such as names of relevant officers, areas of interest, etc. before proceeding with their official communication or transaction. The outreach feature avenue allowing two-way communications between citizens and officials and official to citizens was also common. This study also checked on responsiveness to email. Thirty percent of 28 ministries replied within the same day, 50 percent within a few days and the remainder took more than 30 days.

News on current and up-coming events were considered as essential for creating awareness on the ministries’ activities and where necessary draw in participation; all sites offer this approach. Most sites offer specific ministry-related publications and general relevant government policies and guidelines for viewing and downloading. Furthermore, all web pages were bilingual using Malay and English languages, the Ministry of Tourism also offer a greetings message in Mandarin.

All sites have no links to commercial products or services except to government-linked companies. For example, the Ministry of Tourism has linkages to government hotels. However, these links only offer room reservation. In short, things advertised on government websites were products of ministries and its subsidiaries. For example, the statistics Department of the Prime Minister’s Department offers for sale publications on population and business census. The Department of Mapping Malaysia, under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment offer digital and analogue maps for sale. To date, online purchase transaction has not materialized, because legislation on Internet security is still in its infancy. Privacy and security signage pasted on all ministries’ sites were merely formality.

Having completed the website findings, this study examined staff’s general perceptions of Malaysia’s e-government prospects; please see Table 3.  Except for a few, the majority expressed belief that their offices are committed to e-government development. This view is in line with an initiative taken by the government to move towards fully integrated web presence.

Table 3: Priority of E-government

Strategies that aimed towards materializing the initiative were already being underlined in the Ninth Malaysia Plan (for year 2006 to 2010). Among these strategies is the strengthening of ICT development in government-linked companies. This initiative was established to effectively promote public agencies’ products and services to the wider market via their government-linked companies. For example, small and medium enterprises are given ICT-related financial funds by the Malaysian Technology Development Corporation (of the Ministry of Entrepreneur and Co-operative Development) as well as the Small Medium Industries Development Corporation (of the Ministry of Trade and Industry) to accelerate their production of their services. Furthermore, in the plan period 192 ICT-related R&D projects were approved under the Intensification of Research in Priority Areas (IRPA) programme amounting to USD 15 million. Some of the projects already approved are network monitoring, wireless communications and grid computing infrastructure.

SUMMARY

The United Nations e-government survey looks beyond the availability of online services. It also looks at the methods of delivery and the capacity of a country to absorb content and services. The study explored the questions of what is and what should be e-government. The index it produced is a composite of three indices: the web measure index, telecommunication infrastructure, and the human capital index. The Waseda University Institute of e-government focused on administrative and financial reform, that is, on effectiveness, productivity, and usefulness of e-services to citizens. Six areas were investigated to produce its e-service index. The Brown University evaluated national government websites for the presence of features dealing with information availability, service delivery and public access. The focus of all three studies was on the performance of e-government in delivering services to the public. However, the depth of each study differs in intensity. Therefore, because of this element, e-government ranking produced by these institutions cannot be straightforwardly compared.  

The state of ICT development and e-services of 28 ministries explored in the current study was subsequently used to evaluate the findings of the three institutions. The Waseda University usage of six areas placed Malaysia among countries with high GDP per Capita and simultaneously among countries with high ICT investment. This finding is in line with Malaysia’s pattern of development. The Malaysian e-government became public knowledge in the 1990s, but the framework to support the applications commenced as early as the 1980s. From this period on government pushed relentlessly towards supporting inter- and intra- governmental agencies’ communications. The government has spent for IT infrastructure and amenities approximately US$ 10 billion.

The United Nations study places Malaysia in the mid-range level; comparatively aligned with its HDI and telecommunication infrastructure indices. Combinations of these indices reflected the performance of e-services. Generally, only a handful of public offices’ websites was offering online services. The majority of websites were still limited to offering one-way information to the public. This finding shows there are communication barriers that need improvement. There were some departments within ministries still without websites. There were also deficits in accessibility to Internet among departments and street-level officers. Communication devices among citizens were only partially sufficient. IT infrastructure and amenities is spreading to rural and remote areas but this has been slow. IT strongholds are still located within the administrative capital of Putrajaya and major urban centres.  Besides, Telecommunication industries were not able to balance the corporate interest against the interests of customers. Internet hook-up cost therefore is relatively high for a large sector of the society. Quoting Spears et al (2000) this situation is called the ‘triple A’ vision of Internet – affordability, access and anonymity, is not affordable enough, accessible enough or anonymous enough for everyone.

The Brown University surveys painted a different picture for Malaysian e-services. In 2004, online services were rated at the top - 100 points - however, it drastically dropped to zero in 2005. This implies that in 2004 surveyed websites were fully online and in 2005 these sites totally stopped providing online services.

Overall, the United Nations’ has given a realistic picture of Malaysia’s present e-government standing. Citizens in urban areas are still squabbling over unreliable Internet access. Citizens in remote and rural areas generally are still waiting for access. Rigorous effort is being undertaken by the telecommunication industries and regulatory agency to bring Malaysia‘s e-government development to a higher path. However, for the present time, the digital divide between those with and without Internet access is still apparent.  

According to the people that run the e-government programme, there is cultural resistance to e-government development. The resistance comes from a lack of confidence in new technologies among users. As Spears et al. indicated the government has not been able to show clear benefits in terms of time, money, or an increase in quality from e-service delivery, and the possible transaction costs that may result from such change.

The transaction costs of change, of transition to using an electronic medium, can create a strong initial barrier for citizens to adopt electronic communication with government, as indicated by some studies (Burrows, 2000; Spears et al., 2000; Thomas and Wyatt, 2001). For people to change, an established way of doing something (such as filing a paper income tax form) and instead adopting a new technology or channel of communication (such as sending in an electronic tax form) there is a substantial immediate cost. That is, the cost of finding relevant information, the time and possibly frustration costs of learning a new way of doing things, the cost of putting right any mistakes produced by unfamiliarity and so on.

Institutional barriers relates to organisational mental and legal background. Mental resistance refers to public servants, especially those at street level who are motivated to resist the downgrading of their jobs through information infrastructures, and through a knowledge management approach, which does not allow them any form of discretion. Legal resistance comes from the fact that ICTs lead to blurring of boundaries between organizations. When information is shared between parts of public administration, responsibility for the authenticity, accuracy and integrity of the information also becomes blurred. In addition, the boundaries of the jurisdictions, that is, the exclusive authority of an actor as a unified entity to determine rights and obligations of citizens in a task domain with a certain degree of discretion for which this actor is legally and politically accountable also become blurred. Therefore as NOA (2002) put it, some organisations cannot ‘let go’ of the traditional formal delivery approach. This is because people can be unwilling to cooperate, because different rules of thumb and directives govern people in differing organisations. Having made obvious the state of Malaysia’s e-government development, it is now incumbent upon the author to ask what could make things better.

CONCLUSION: WHICH PATH TO CHOOSE?

There are many ways to characterize the development of e-government. The United Nations, as an example suggests a few. Among these are the wasteful approach, one that engages resources but does not result in optimizations of government operations. Another is the pointless approach, even if government operations are optimized they may have no (or only minimal) effect on the development objectives preferred by society. Another is the meaningful operation, where a government operation is optimal and supports human development, that is, empowers people/raises human capabilities, and in this framework; equips people for genuine participation in the inclusive political process; and supports values.

The writer sees Malaysia as walking along the third path. This means Malaysia has successfully progressed from path one and two in her early years of ICT activities. Currently, the government has allocated an extravagant sum, about US$10 billion for ICT, infrastructure, and amenities. The plan is expected to materialize by Malaysia Plan 10 (2010-2015). 

However, room for improvements are still very wide. One area is secrecy and accountability. Secrecy and accountability gave power to Internet to deliver and receive fast, efficient and unbounded information, when dealing with the public sector. Unlike the private sector, government departments and agencies are bound to many rules and regulations in handling and liberating the vast information in their holdings. Especially, decisions to liberate information require tedious inter- and intra-departmental agreements and endorsements usually by ministers or elected politicians. This matter must be improved to ensure useful information could be delivered to citizens effectively and efficiently.

Other elements are on regulations and policy environment. The introduction and uptake of e-government services and processes will remain minimal without a legal equivalence between digital and paper processes. For example, the legal recognition of digital signatures is necessary if they are to be used in e-government for the submission of electronic forms containing sensitive personal or financial information. Additionally, current public governance frameworks based on the assumption that agencies work alone (for example, in terms of performance management, accountability frameworks, data sharing) can act to inhibit collaboration and information sharing between organizations. According to Lau (2003) complexity of regulations and requirements on agencies can be another barrier; if agencies are unable to determine what is required of them, they may be unwilling to invest in a project that may not conform with requirements. In addition, privacy and security concerns need to be addressed through appropriate legislation and regulations (as well as in practice) before e-government initiatives can advance. The web of government requirements around ICT procurement, industry support, contract requirements, compliance with security requirements and other standards can increase costs and drag out implementation timetables.

With regard to policy environment, to realise e-government’s initiatives, old laws have to be changed and new laws are needed. This view is in line with Caldow who sees that implementation could be successful if legislators learned new technologies and unlearned old approaches.

Another area is context, while this is improving incrementally, work is still needed to give it a unique “Malaysian look.” In addition to between country heterogeneity, there is also the issue of within country differences. For example, government websites of Taiwan and the Republic of China depict images unique to themselves. This means e-government approaches do not have to be the same, they must be determined by each country according to its own needs.

“It would be a mistake, though, to conceive the inter-relation between technology and context as some kind of simple duality…. The context of invention is not the same as the context of design, which is not the same as the context of deployment…these differences are fundamental to the outcome of e-government projects…. e-government technology must therefore be seen not in a uni-dimensional, reductionist manner but in a systemic manner as a group of related dimensions that are drawn from the context within which that technology is designed” (Heeks: 2004, 7-8).                            

Further Suchman, (1987: viii) emphasised that e-government design is a situated action – an action "taken in the context of particular, concrete circumstances." This action draws elements of that context into the design because "technologies mirror….societies. They reproduce and embody the complex interplay of professional, technical, economic and political factors." (Bijker and Law, 1992:3).

In accord with Suchman this paper is of the opinion that e-government development in Malaysia is relatively progressive and its ability to excel beyond the present level is clearly assured at least from telecommunication infrastructural support. However more efforts are needed to improve the government machinery that operate and service the system. Finally areas that require attention are integration, security, regulation and context.

References

Bijker, E. Wiebe and John Law. 1992. General introduction. In Shaping Technology/Building Society edited by Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Caldow, Janet. 2002. “Seven e-Government Leadership Milestones,” In Vision and Revision, 17-38, London: Routledge.

CNW Group. http://www.ca.nielsen.com (accessed April 18 2008).

Economic Planning Unit. 2003. “Eight Malaysia Plan 2001-2004.” Putrajaya: Prime Minister’s Department.

Economic Planning Unit. 2006. “Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010.” Putrajaya: Prime Minister’s Department.

Heeks, Richard. 2004. “Government as a Carrier of Context.” e-Government Working Paper Series, Paper No. 15.

Lau, Edwin. November 5 2003. “Challenges for e-Government Development.” Paper presented at 5th Global Forum on Reinventing Government, for the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Mexico City.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). 2007. “Selected Facts and Figures for 2007.” Cyberjaya, Selangor: MCMC.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). 2007. “Statistical Brief Number Four: Hand Phone Users Survey : Plus Update on Household Use of the Internet Survey 2005, Survey Count for Residential Fixed Lines 2006 and Survey Counts of Public PayPhones 2006.” Cyberjaya, Selangor: MCMC.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). 2007. “Household Use of the Internet Survey 2006.” Cyberjaya, Selangor, MCMC.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). 2004. “Statistical Brief Number One: Featuring the Hand Phone Users Survey 2004.” Cyberjaya, Selangor: MCMC.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). 2006. “Statistical Brief Number Three: Featuring Hand Phone Users Survey 2005.” Cyberjaya, Selangor, MCMC.

Nik Azmin Nik Hussain. 2006. “General Overview of Networking the Government Electronic Government.” Paper presented at MAMPU MyICMS 886 Goals Workshop, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya (August).

Suchman, Lucy. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The World Bank. 2005. “World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development.” The World Bank: Washington, DC.

The World Bank. 2006. “World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation.” The World Bank: Washington, DC.

United Nations Development Programme. 2006. “Human Development Report 2006: Beyond Scarcity – Power, Poverty and the global water crisis.” New York: UNDP.

United Nations Development Programme. 2007. “Human Development Report 2007-2008: Fighting Climate Change – Human Solidarity in a Divided World.” New York: UNDP.

United Nations. 2004. “UN Global e-Government Readiness Report 2004: Towards Access for Opportunity.” New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 2005. “UN Global e-Government Readiness Report 2005: From e-Government to E-inclusion.” New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 2008. “UN e-Government Survey 2008: From e-Government to Connected Governance.” New York: United Nations.

Waseda University Institute of e-Government. 2004. “2004 World e-Government Ranking.” Tokyo: Graduate School of Global Information and Telecommunication Studies.

Waseda University Institute of e-Government. 2005. “2005 World e-Government Ranking.” Tokyo: Graduate School of Global Information and Telecommunication Studies.

Waseda University Institute of e-Government. 2006. “2006 World e-Government Ranking.” Tokyo: Graduate School of Global Information and Telecommunication Studies.

Waseda University Institute of e-Government. 2007. “2007 World e-Government Ranking.” Tokyo: Graduate School of Global Information and Telecommunication Studies.

West, M. Darrel. 2004. “Global e-Government 2004.” Rhode Island: Centre for Public Policy.

West, M. Darrel. 2005. “Global e-Government 2005.” Rhode Island: Centre for Public Policy.

West, M. Darrel. 2006. “Global e-Government 2006.” Rhode Island: Centre for Public Policy.

West, M. Darrel. 2007. “Global e-Government 2007.” Rhode Island: Centre for Public Policy.