The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced at the National Integrity Convention in Kuching yesterday that the Cabinet had endorsed the formation of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (MCAC) and that the MCAC Bill will be passed at the current meeting of Parliament to replace the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.
He said the MCAC is modeled after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption and New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption, “which are among the best anti-corruption agencies in the world”.
I have no confidence that Abdullah has the political will to carry out meaningful anti-corruption reforms, and that the MCAC will not end up as another toothless tiger for anti-corruption like the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) with its statutory duty to promote and protect human rights!
My lack of confidence that Abdullah is capable of one final fling with a meaningful institutional reform before he ends his hapless five-year tenure as the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia is supported by at least three reasons:
1. The setting for Abdullah’s “important” announcement yesterday – the National Integrity Convention in Kuching. On stage applauding Abdullah’s announcement to fight corruption were leaders responsible for Malaysia’s relentless plunge, year after year, in international rankings on anti-corruption – whether Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 47 in 2008 or the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) annual corruption ranking, with Malaysia in 2008 placed No. 6 in Asia and getting the worst score of 6.37 (in a grading system with zero as the best possible score and 10 as the worst) since 1996. Malaysia was ranked No. 4 in Asia with a score of 5 in 1996!
2. Abdullah’s stance of fight against corruption – which has been all talk but no walk – is not echoed or supported by other Barisan Nasional leaders or Cabinet Ministers. I spoke on the corruption issue in the 2009 budget committee debate on the Prime Minister’s Department in Parliament on Wednesday, but the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz studiously avoided answering issues I raised about corruption in his one-hour reply on Thursday. This meant two things: firstly, lack of real political interest, will or commitment to fight corruption and secondly, defensive mentality on the issue, particularly with the serious problem of corruption of money politics in the ongoing Umno party elections.
3. Worst case of corruption and money politics in UMNO elections. Nobody dared to respond to my challenge in Parliament on Wednesday to stand up and deny my charge that the current Umno party elections is shaping up to be the worst case of corruption and money politics in the nation’s history.
I am not the only making this charge as top Umno leaders have publicly confessed to this, like Tengku Ahmad Rithaudeen, Umno disciplinary board charman, who has virtually thrown up his hands in despair, declaring: “It seems to be getting worse with every party election…We are trying our best, but it seems we can’t deal with it completely. It is now rooted to the core.” And Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s shocking “No money, no talk” expose, why he could not get even a second nomination to contest for Umno Presidency because he refused to respond to overtures and bribe delegates in return for their votes!
People who have handed in resignation letters do not even bother to turn up for work 2 or 3 days prior to leaving their employment. I doubt Pak Lah will work hard till the last minute to get the country in order prior to leaving office.
He will work hard, but for his own benefit, not for the country’s
After more than four long years,AAB couldn’t do it.What do we expect him to do in four months ? It’s childish,so to speak to think that he can do such a huge task such as the anti corruption reform.
Who would believe that thieves could set up a commission to investigate and regulate themselves ?
The HK ICAC reports to the legislative council, the equivalent of our Parliament. The Malaysian Commission will either report to Nazri or to a select committee like the PAC where the Chairman would be a member of the den of thieves.
UMNO doesn’t even have the balls to use the word “independent” in the Commission. One simple reason – it won’t be independent !
the level of corruption went beyond the limit …
we are paying the price now …
the greed that we accepted in the past despite of being warned about the worst are now here ….
it’s time for us to pay for our own greed.
Inspite of our skepticism, the proposed formation of MCAC is a move in the right direction. Shouldn’t this be lauded and encouraged rather then being bluntly rejected even at the offset of its launch? PR should not just reject the proposed for the sake of gaining political mileage but rather work with the government of the day to make sure the best solution for the country is reached.
If, for 3 reasons, YB Kit expresses lack of confidence that PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Abdullah is capable of meaningful institutional reform before he ends his hapless five-year tenure as the 5th Prime Minister of Malaysia, who others in UMNO/BN does Kit have confidence, for whatever number of reasons, to be otherwise having the political will or capable of effecting meaningful institutional reforms after Abdullah has ended his tenure as the 5th PM???
If by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s shocking “No money, no talk” expose, he said he could not get even a second nomination to contest for Umno Presidency because he refused to respond to overtures and bribe delegates in return for their votes, why does this really say or imply of those who get the most nominations and votes from the delegates????
The BN system and culture (I dare say even our wider political culture) is structured upon political patronage.
Patronage is a system of mutual and reciprocal obligations whereby in return of loyalty, electoral and financial support to the political aspirant, the latter, when he attains the position with power, returns the favour by exercising the power vested in his position to either distribute governmental or political positions or contracts to such former persons who have helped him…..
It is a reciprocal “I scratch your back and you mine” culture and it goes hand and glove with what is commonly known as corruption.
It is not only in politics here : it is ubiquitous everywhere and anywhere, where there is politics, manifesting with different guises and appearing at different levels.
It is Ok to try to safuard against its most blatant and excessive form. A society/political system more corrupt or less corrupt than another is a matter of degree, a matter of within tolerable or exceeding to intolerable limits – not a matter whether it exists or does not exists. To want to combat and end corruption itself, in the absolute sense, is tantamount to wanting to end politics altogether…..
Agree 100%. My sentiment precisely.
Jeffrey’s final paragraph above is simply a paradox. Who decides what is “most blatant” or “excessive” ? Who decides what is “within tolerable or exceeding intolerable limits” ? Should one use the high standards set by the Scandinavian countries or should one use the standard set by the Mamakthir ?
The premise of fightly corruption is that no one knows where the “line” is, and hence everyone must fight to end corruption, even if everyone knows that there are opposing forces that will seek to counter the noble fight.
It is the same as the fight of good over evil. There is no such thing as tolerable evil, and the fight to the end must always be the objective.
….even though sometimes evil will triumph over good.
We all know that so far there is hardly political will to address corruption.
However this fact alone is not a good basis to pour cold water on the govt’s proposal of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (“MCAC”).
For it is just as valid or invalid to speculate that the MCAC is the beginning of that political will.
The MCAC should rightly be judged – whether it is another show case or something more – based on its composition, workings and within built in check and balance.
Lets see when the MCAC Bill is tabled for debate in the current meeting of Parliament to replace the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. We will have a clearer picture and basis of comments then.
The PM said that the MCAC was modeled after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption and New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption, “which are among the best anti-corruption agencies in the world”.
Now “modeled after” does not mean the same or similar : there will be inevitable differences.
To what extent MCAC is “modeled after” will also depend on the extent to which it departs from Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption and New South Wales’ Independent Commission.
So we have to look at the structure of MCAC.
However structure is one thing, the people who implement and operate it and their culture – whether they believe in integrity or hypocrisy – is another thing, and it takes both for corruption to be tackled by such an institution on a continuous basis.
“However this fact alone is not a good basis to pour cold water on the govt’s proposal of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (”MCAC”).” – Jeffrey
To know whether there is any political will to rid the country of corruption, just look at those who are running the country!
In fact, the fellow with the most baggage is the premier in waiting!
Doesn’t this tell you anything?
Would such people institute any commission or agency to really investigate them or have only those who will only give them the all clear at the end of the “investigation”?
Haven’t you read enough of such things happening in this country?
In reply to Damocles, I have read and known enough of such things happening but the point is very simple: why do people, Opposition included, urge and press the government for reforms of ACA and Judiciary if before studying the details of the reforms, they are already dismissed as a show case based only on the insincerity of those in govt who respond to the call for reforms, without going into the actual merits or demerits of the reform proposals?
If one takes the view that the UMNO/BN govt can never be sincere – a view which I am not prepared to dispute or discredit – then the proper and logical thing is to ask or work towards only for only one thing and one thing only – their dismissal/resignation/displacement as a government – and desist from urging, calling or urging them to effect this and that reform because whatever reforms they institute, one is not prepared to evaluate the reforms on its merits/demerits but is going to only pre-emptively adjudge afore hand that these reforms are hypocritical and won’t work because of the character of those who propose them.
This kind of thinking is based on the asumption that becuase a person is dishonest then every act and proposal that emanates from him must in all instances be also dishonest, a proposition that does not allow the exceptional possibility of any honest act from a dishonest character ; and one that ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from his dishonest character that might otherwise lead to him doing an exceptional honest act.
If one holds such a view then one ought not at the same time urge and call upon someone – whom one is already convinced of being congenitally incapable of doing an honest act – to do an honest act. What for? It is a waste of time!
“wait and see”
Uncle Lim,
It’s FOUR reasons now. Pls check kennysia’s blog on PM sleeping on the job!
Lee Kuan Yew was right when he said when the core is corrupt, there is no hope of getting rid of corruption. The idea that the top leadership can be corrupt while insisting everybody else not be is ridiculous. It starts at the top, always…
“And Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s ….why he could not get even a second nomination to contest for Umno Presidency because he refused to respond to overtures and bribe delegates in return for their votes!” LKS
Razalieigh should call up the new CJ Zaki and ask for his advice.
Now Jeffrey the intellectual is talking nonsense again.
“This kind of thinking is based on the asumption that becuase a person is dishonest then every act and proposal that emanates from him must in all instances be also dishonest, a proposition that does not allow the exceptional possibility of any honest act from a dishonest character ; and one that ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from his dishonest character that might otherwise lead to him doing an exceptional honest act. ”
Give us real life examples. Confine these examples to Bolehland. Don’t just talk about theoretical possibilities.
how can a person who said he is religious and he can price the lives of chickens by kg. imagine he is god but i know GOD loves all lives and every living beings are equal, noboby is more precious than others . We are all equal.Do not act as god because there is only one GOD…THE CREATOR!
However why would I be so dumb as to fall into a trap of citing in an open forum a public personality of whom you would also know as an example of a dishonest personality in order just so to illustrate when he has done an exceptional honest act in order to clarify to you something that most would understand that you have, notwithstanding, a problem with, in the process exposing myself or this blog to a suit of libel/defamation?
However I can quote another example other than the derogatory attribute “dishonesty”. Take for example authoritarian traits that previous premier exhibit. It would not be to the interest of his authoritarian rule to encourage freedom of the internet and write in the guarantee of internet freedom in the MSC Bills of Guarantee that fostered open criticisms of his regime starting with Malaysiakini and later taken on by the blogs. Yet there are other competing conditions apart from his authoritarian trait of character reflected in his rule that might otherwise lead to him doing an exceptional liberal act of liberalising internet proliferation and restraining from clamping down on freedom of the internet as guaranteed by MSC Bill of Guarantee…
Life is full of examples of exceptional possibilities of a honest act from a dishonest character where there may exist other conditions or explanations apart from his dishonest character alone that might otherwise lead that person to do an exceptional honest act and vice versa, an honest do the dishoest, or the wise do the foolish, or the generous do the parsimonious, and so on and so that I see actually no necessity – other than common courtesy – to even reply to or clarify such a startling objection of a simple truth that Godfather has raised!
Do you normally criticise or object to comments for the sake only of criticising or objecting???
Hey guys,let’s face reality Ok. MCAC or any anti corruption institution will not succeed to control let alone to eradicate corruption .The reason is very simple. The people in power now are mostly corrupted in one way or the other,right ?. Who would you can inmagine wanted to set trap that will only trap themselves ? Unless he/she is a kind of nut,right? Now these guys in power are no nuts .The best way to control or to stop corruption is to change the current political leadership in the next general election through carefully and honestly electing proven candidates who are clean,honest and trustworthty . Our biggest problem is do we have all these quality people to choose with in our next election ?.I pray and remain hopeful,we will have these people. So be it.
“Do you normally criticise or object to comments for the sake only of criticising or objecting???” Jeffrey
I take it that this question was directed at me. The answer to that is no, I don’t criticise or object just for the sake of critising or objecting. I set out the reasons why I am criticising or objecting. I give others a different perspective to the issue at hand. I deal in probability and not in mere possibility.
The mere suggestion that a dishonest character could well do an exceptional honest act is exactly the reason that BN uses to stay in power. Be patient, give us more time to reform – that has always been BN’s plea. If we go by Jeffrey’s “allowance”, then we should give BN another 50 years to do good. If we go by mere possibilities, then of course anything can happen. but look at the PROBABILITY.
This is not a court of law, where any shred of doubt should go to the defence. The defence in this instance has had 30 plus years of dishonesty where no benefit of any doubt should be accorded to them.
Let’s give Zaki a chance to do an exceptionally good act despite his immoral past, and let’s give Chua Soi Lek a chance to do good despite his lack of moral fibre.
Oops, I might be putting LKS in trouble for libel/defamation.
It is also under the stewardship of a Chief Justice Zaki Tun Azmi whom Godfather described as having an “immoral past” that the Judiciary suspected of being tainted with executive bias since 1988 delivered an exceptional decision of Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy to release Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) under the Internal Security Act – which according to RPK’s lead counsel, Malik Imtiaz, this was the first time a Malaysian court has ordered the release of an ISA detainee since 1989!
Anyway the debate has strayed too far here from its original point where it started.
The suggestion that a dishonest character could well do an exceptional honest act has not been urged upon here by anyone let alone me to argue an excuse that BN should be given any allowance to stay in power to prove itself. It is only a bias mind that reads in it something that is not there.
We are merely discussing the govt’s proposal of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (”MCAC”).
I am not stopping anyone here from his/her point of view in having misgivings about MCAC based on the suspicions of improbabilty that people in power being mostly corrupted in one way or the other would be very keen to have an effective MCAC to set trap for themselves.
I am merely suggesting that for people and Opposition like DAP that always urge and press the BN govt for reform, the least they could do when the govt comes out with the proposal like MCAC is to study the details of the MCAC’s structure and composition first and if there were a cogent reason to shoot it down, by all means do so, if based on the right reason of the weakness or loop hole of the MCAC’s structure and composition rather than the fact alone that it is proposed by the government, not known for its political will or record to address corruption.
If one were to criticise based only on the latter reason – and to conclude that nothing the BN govt ever proposes could ever be right, honest or deserving of an attempt to evaluate it based on merits/demerits of the proposal itself – then why waste time asking, urging and cajoling the BN govt all the time to effect reforms in the first place?
I had thought that this was simple enough to understand.
I thought some lawyer here said that good could come from evil, so let’s wait and see. My view is that no good can come from evil.
Perhaps the “on one hand it is this, and on the other hand it is that” language confused a non-lawyer like me !
“Lee Kuan Yew was right when he said when the core is corrupt there is no hope
of getting rid of corruption.”. Bigjoe.
This is exactly like the cancer sufferer,if he is diagnosed at 1st stage he is definitely curable, at 2nd stage he has good possibility perhaps,at 3rd stage his chances are getting remote and if he is detected for cancer at 4th stage the medical fratenity has termed this stage as Terminal and aptly too since he hasn’t got a shadow of hope of coming out alive.Likewise for UMNO-led Malaysia,we can classify her ailment (incurable corruption) as having arrived at the Terminal Stage and is best left for the disease to take its natural course. So for this reason DAP should therefore be urged to stop wasting its time to urge the government to effect any type of reform in the first place.We have ample evidence showing how greed has eaten them up that they are incapable of serving for the good of the nation.