Some 40 months after Abdullah’s pledge to “walk the talk” to eradicate corruption, Malaysia is faced with the worst crisis of national integrity in the 40-year history of the Anti-Corruption Agency and 50-year history of the nation, with a spate of corruption scandals in the past two weeks, viz:
- Serious corruption allegations against the Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Zulkipli Mat Noor;
- Serious corruption allegations against the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharun; in the Emergency Ordinance (EO) “freedom for sale” scandal; and
- Serious allegation by the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim of judges who accept bribes.
Internationally, Malaysia’s anti-corruption perception had been on a downward spiral ever since Abdullah’s takeover as Prime Minister.
Only last week, there was more bad news for Malaysia and Abdullah’s 40-month premiership.
The Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) 2007 corruption table in Asia, which is released every year based on a poll of expatriates working in Asia on their perceptions on corruption, is bad and grim news for all Malaysians concerned about national integrity, good governance and international competitiveness.
In a grading system with zero as the best possible score and 10 as the worst, Malaysia was ranked sixth in Asia with a score of 6.25 by PERC Corruption Asia 2007.
In 1996, Malaysia was ranked No. 4 with a score of 5, a reflection of the relentless deterioration of the corruption problem in the country over the years.
As the PERC annual corruption ranking is one of the polls used by Transparency International (TI) for its annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI), this is very bad news as the PERC 2007 Corruption Table is a forewarning that Malaysia is heading south towards No. 50 placing in TI CPI 2007 on the occasion of Malaysia’s 50th Merdeka anniversary this year.
In the past four years, Malaysia’s ranking on the TI CPI had already dropped seven places from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 44 in 2006 — making nonsense of the National Integrity Plan launched by Abdullah in May 2004 with its objective for Malaysia to achieve at least No. 30 ranking within five years, i.e. by next year 2008!
There are many grim warnings from the 2007 PERC Corruption Table (Asia) that Malaysia is losing out in our international competitiveness because of our failure to enhance our good governance indicators, particularly in the war against corruption.
It will not be long before Malaysia slips further in the Asian and international corruption rankings, as we are also losing out to China and India.
In 1996, China was ranked the No.12 in Asia with a score of 8, but it has now leapt to No. 7, breathing down the neck of Malaysia, with a score of 6.29, only 0.04 marginally less than Malaysia’s score of 6.25. India was ranked No. 8 with a score of 6.86 in 1996, and although it is ranked No. 9, its score has improved to 6.67, or 0.42 behind Malaysia.
If Malaysia does not pull up our bootstraps in the fight against corruption, we will soon be losing out to China and India — and it must be regarded as a national shame and tragedy if in any future international corruption ranking, Malaysia is regarded as so corrupt as even to lose out to China and India!
Parliament must seriously address and debate the worst corruption crisis in the nation’s history, eroding public confidence in the integrity of institutions mandated to fight corruption, like the ACA.
In the past 39 years, the ACA had been regarded as a “paper tiger”, with only power to go after the “ikan bilis” but not after the “ikan yu’s”even in the Abdullah administration as proven by the disappearance of the 18 “big fishes” which had escaped into the “high seas”.
A fundamental line has now been crossed by the ACA, when public doubts and skepticism are no more confined to its effectiveness or impotence to deal with the “high-profile”corrupt despite the worsening corruption problem in the country as reflected by the 21-place drop from No. 23 to No. 44 in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index in the past 12 years from 1995 to 2006.
For the first time in its 40-year history, public doubts and skepticism about the ACA have now extended to its very core purpose, the heart and soul of ACA on its integrity and incorruptibility. — with the ACA Director-General himself alleged to be guilty of corruption.
This has been aggravated by the farce illustrated by the following scenario:
Question One: Who is investigating the serious corruption allegations against the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Director-General Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor?
Answer: Police
Question Two: Who is investigating the serious corruption allegations against Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum of the EO “freedom for sale” corruption?
Answer: ACA.
Question Three: Will the ACA on the one hand and the Police and Internal Security Ministry on the other scratch each other’s back and exonerate one another?
Who can give a categorical answer in the negative? In fact, will the majority of Malaysians give “Yes” instead of “No” to the question?
Unless the answer to Question Three is in the categorical negative for all or the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, then Malaysia has a very serious integrity question about the institutions in the country mandated to fight corruption and uphold law and order — the ACA, the Police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
If Abdullah is serious about honouring his “zero-tolerance for corruption” pledge, there should at least be three policy initiatives in the Royal Address to give concrete form to his commitment to combat corruption, viz:
- a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Corruption, probing the ACA and why corruption had worsened in the past three years instead of improving as well as the efficacy of asset declarations by government leaders, including Cabinet Ministers.
- legislation to confer full autonomy to the ACA, removing it from the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Office and making it fully independent and answerable only to Parliament.
- ACA director-general Zulkifli going on leave until outcome of investigations into serious corruption allegations made against him by former top ACA officer and whistleblower Ramli Manan.
But there was none of these government initiatives although the Royal Address did emphasise that “efforts to instill integrity and eliminate corruption and abuse of power must be intensified”. After the unprecedented 91% parliamentary majority in the March 2004 general election and 40 months, the time for “statement of intent” is long past and it is time for action and results.
The ACA did not act independently and professionally when it did a most unusual thing in releasing selectively information to exonerate its director-general by revealing details of Zulkipli’s various declaration of assets in public service — when the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli was being investigated by the police.
This reminds me of my query to the ACA in July 2005 why it had failed to take action in the case of the former Sabah Chief Minister and Federal Minister for Land and Co-operatives, Datuk Seri Osu Sukam, in its investigations as to how he could have amassed such astronomical wealth as to gamble RM158.7 million, lose RM31.6 million and run up RM7.1 million debts in a London casino a year after political retirement, apart from bigger gambling debts in other casinos as well as in other countries like Australia.
I had pointed out that in Osu Sukam’s 15 years in various public offices from Deputy Works Minister in 1986 to Sabah Chief Minister 1999-2001, Osu would have at least made four declarations of his assets to the Prime Minister.
All these four declaration of assets to the Prime Minister should be the basis on which the ACA should launch a thorough investigation as to whether Osu had corruptly and illegally amassed such astronomical wealth as to enable him to gamble hundreds of millions of ringgit in various casinos in London and Australia a year after his political retirement.
Or are declarations of assets whether by political leaders in government or top government officers so unsatisfactory and defective that they are worthless tools in the battle to promote national integrity and combat corruption? This is why the efficacy of assets declarations by government leaders, whether political or civil servant, should also be a subject of a Royal Commission Inquiry.
Now erosion of public confidence in the integrity of institutions have spread further to include the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity, as a result of its majority decision yesterday to cancel the hearings for Zullkipli and Ramli earlier scheduled for tomorrow.
I am barred from parliamentary standing orders from disclosing what transpired at yesterday’s Select Committee meeting, but there is no hiding my deep disappointment and the adverse public reactions to the latest developments. As I said on my blog, I am mulling over whether I should continue to sit on the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity.
[Speech (8) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]
If the meeting proceedings are secret how come the Committee decided not to carry on with the hearings under the excuse of “sub-judice?”
Prof Datuk Dr. Syed Hussein Alatas passed away earlier this year on 23 January, 2007. Professor Alatas in his book, “Corruption and the Destiny of Asiaâ€Â, at page 70, wrote:
It is the effect of this extortive corruption that tells on the personality, particularly if you have to go through life passing successive points of extortive corruption. The first effect is the rise of a pessimistic attitude. The future is full of uncertainty. The law and ethical norms are not there to protect the individual. Honesty, hard work and self-development do not help to increase happiness, security and welfare. After going through a few years of such an experience, the surrounding corruption becomes a phenomenon like the climate, something abiding and beyond human ability to change. When this mood spreads among the population, the people becomes passive and inert. They accept a life dominated by evil.
Gradually their feeling become insensitive to virtuous ideals. Their social conscience is numbed. There is loss of faith in moral ideals and government. People accept government as an unavoidable evil from which not much good can be expected.
Within this setting there is usually a small minority that rejects corruption and feels that it is against human dignity. Against this minority the advocates of corruption never cease to labour. They try insidiously to make people accept corruption and to belittle the moral ideal. They say corruption is an Asian way of life.
At page 73:
The most alarming fact is the ease with which the personality is converted into the destructive type. It is a law of life that it is easier to destroy than to build. It is easier to destroy a personality than to build one. The most pernicious influence of corruption is the fact that it also makes its victims depraved. They become part of the system. If they later hold positions of power they themselves abuse it. There are many of the younger generation who, growing up in a corrupt society, become corrupt themselves after being subjected to extortive corruption during their school days.
…..The biggest problem in a corrupt society is that the system inducts by far a greater number than it repels. Hence the prospect of changing it becomes more and more remote.
At page 113, the Professor Alatas quoted Mr. Lee Kuan Yew:
The strongest deterrent is a public opinion which censures and condemns corrupt persons, in other words, in attitudes which make corruption so unacceptable that the stigma of corruption cannot be washed away by serving a prison sentence.
What Mr. Lee is referring to is the sense of shame. It is this sense of shame and its opposite, the sense of pride, which are sadly lacking amongst the ruling classes of Asia.
In his paper entitled “The Ideal of Excellenceâ€Â, Professor Alatas wrote:
Life goes on as usual in many capitals of Asia. The academics, the civil servants, the politicians, the businessmen, the journalists, the lawyers, the physicians, the teachers meet in parties and conferences and conduct pleasant conversations and discussions. Rarely is social injustice tackled as a serious subject. The youths are inducted into the system without realizing that the process evades the awakening of the social conscience. The ideal of excellence is relegated into the background.
Corruption, which has been the scourge of Asian societies, is slowly being accorded a place in the scheme of things. There is a growing tendency amongst Asians to consider corruption as an Asian way of life. This idea is promoted by those who are against the ideals of excellence. If a society accepts corruption as a way of life, it is a sure sign of spiritual and cultural breakdown. That which is dangerous and destructive should not be made acceptable.
It bears reminding what Professor Alatas wrote. It is clear from a look at the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International and the PERC corruption table for the last few years that this country is going down.
Royal commissions? Reforms? Good governance and transparency? Accountability? Anti-corruption measures??
Personally I do not see this happening. You can have the best legislation in the world but legislation can only be as good and effective as those who implement them.
There is no will to implement anything that serves only to threaten political stability (read: political legitimacy of a BN run government that has long lost its credibility).
It begins with a change in government – and ‘change’ will not occur unless the opposition parties find ways to use the country’s political and social infrastructures to mobilize popular support for ‘change’ now rather than later.
We are entering a critical phase i.e. the run-up to the elections which is more important than the elections itself.
Abang Kit, how about introducing a mandatory death sentence for corruption. Maybe then we can see a significant drop in corruption cases.
“If Abdullah is serious about honouring his “zero-tolerance for corruption†pledge…”
I think what they mean when they refer to ‘zero tolerance of corruption’ is that they don’t agree with corruption but who says they need to act to eradicate it??