ISO 9000 - Does this certification body have the technical strength
to confirm that the applicant meets the (ISO 9000) operational
criteria and fulfils all customers' requirements? Speech - during the Budget Debate 2004 (Ministerial Committee of Science, Technology and the Environment) - by Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Dewan Rakyat, Wednesday): I wish to question the function and objective of the ISO 9000 certificate issued by SIRIM. Many people consider ISO 9000 as a sign of excellence for services and products from a firm or organization. In my Parliamentary speech on 19 March 2003, I brought up the public’s impression on ISO 9000; and I used the example of the Central Academy of Arts College (CAA) that had acquired an ISO 9000 certificate but was banned (shut downed) by the Ministry of Education. In the written reply that was given by the Ministry (of Science, Technology and the Environment) to me, it clarified that the ISO 9000 certificate obtained by the CAA was not issued by SIRIM but by (a certification body accredited with) the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).
The key question now is how to trust an ISO 9000 audit (certificate) and not whether a product or service is certified by SIRIM (or any other certification body), UKAS accredited or otherwise.
In a letter dated 16 December 2002 written by Tan Sri Samsudin bin Osman, National Secretarial Head, to all civil service heads, he used Clause 4.2.1 of the 1994 version of ISO 9001 to explain the implementation of ISO 9000 as a way (a means) to ensure that the services given by a government department meet the expectations of its customers.
Samsudin’s explanation can be interpreted as such: ISO 9000 certification means that the certification body issues an endorsement after carrying out an internal (on internal customers) and external (on external customers) audit on all its applicants (auditees) that the users (customers) will receive products or services that meets their stated and implied needs.
The problem now is whether this certification body has the technical competence to confirm that its applicants meets the (ISO 9000) operational criteria and fulfill all users’ (customers’) requirements.
In the field of Weights and Measures testing, the inspection instrument is commonly 10 times better than the item tested. So, in an ISO 9000 inspection, is the inspection body better compared to its client, the organization under audit?
On 31st July 2003, the Star newspaper reported the Transport Minister saying that KLIA will purchase more cameras to reduce baggage theft. KLIA is one of SIRIM’s clients. So, when SIRIM audits flight and safety operations at the KLIA for ISO 9002 (certification), are SIRIM’s auditors well known in the safety field?
The same issue also occurs with Pos Malaysia, another client of SIRIM. Many reports indicate that Pos Malaysia’s services are also unsatisfactory, including Pos Laju where our mails and sent items frequently arrive late. With the issue of the ISO 9000 certificate to KLIA and Pos Malaysia, will SIRIM not be giving a correct picture on the operational capabilities of KLIA and Pos Malaysia? Is the Ministry aware that misrepresentation will cause KLIA and Pos Malaysia to violate the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 and the Consumer Protection Act 1999? Is the Ministry aware that permitting the certification scam infringes the Penal Code and the Anti-Corruption Act 1997?
Is the Ministry aware that the accreditation of certification bodies also experiences the same technical and integrity problems as ISO 9000 certification? Do the high stipend and fees paid to DSM or UKAS for competency registration influence the outcome of accreditation?
In view of rising complaints from organizations that are ISO 9000 certified, I therefore wish to request the Minister to hold an open enquiry on the effectiveness of third-party certification as a step to ascertain whether third-party ISO 9000 certification in its present form violates our laws or otherwise. (15/10/2003) * Teresa Kok Suh Sim, DAP MP for Seputih
|