A 5-day orgy of sound and fury

Stanley Koh | December 6, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

Nothing substantive came out of the recent Umno assembly.

COMMENT

Many followers of the news must be relieved now that the silliest season of the year is over.

Umno delegates spent five days at their annual meeting straining their throats with meaningless rhetoric, noisy battle cries and hilarious claims about their party’s importance in the life of the nation.

They even risked blasphemy. An unwritten resolution of the meeting is that the morally challenged party is God’s own. Umno’s founding fathers must have turned in their graves.

Some of us might have excused the criminal waste of time, newsprint and airwave if only a fraction of the delegates had made some intelligent observations about the current state of Malaysian democracy or questioned how far Umno had gone in president Najib Tun Razak’s transformation programme.

But this is what we have come to expect from Umno since it became Umno Baru in 1988. And it has only gotten worse with time.

Can Umno continue to survive in the rapidly changing Malaysian political landscape, where even schoolchildren can see through the hollowness of its rhetoric? Can this self-proclaimed protector of the Malay race and religion withstand the demands of a generation awakening to the call for justice, human rights and the rule of law?

“No,” says Malaysian scholar Maznah Mohamad, who now serves the National University of Singapore as a senior research fellow at its Asian Research Institute.

According to her, Umno might change only if it were to lose a general election.

Some of the more sentimental among Umno’s critics would have us believe that the pre-Mahathirian Umno was a vastly different party, that it was a great champion of democratic values. This is not entirely true. The party’s attempt to redefine democracy to suit its interest can be traced back at least to Tun Abdul Razak.

“So long as the form [of democracy] is preserved, the substance can be changed to suit the conditions of a particular country,” the Tun once said.

That “substance” has been changing ever since. Today, as some cynics would put it, it consists of nothing more than “Umno supremacy”.

Umno used the May 13 tragedy to strengthen its position within the system. “This government,” Tun Razak said then, “is based on Umno and I surrender its responsibility to Umno in order that Umno shall determine its form, and it must implement policies which are determined by Umno.”

Fast losing its appeal

This remains true today in spite of the fact that Barisan Nasional, which theoretically holds political power, is made up of 13 different parties.

Nevertheless, it was during Mahathir’s years at the helm that it became starkly obvious that Malaysia was sliding rapidly away from universally accepted democratic values. An overwhelming number of pundits blame him for Umno’s accumulation of legislative, executive and judiciary powers in its hands.

Without such powers, it could not have become the springboard for wealth that has so attracted the greedy to its midst.

“The attraction in joining Umno is still that it’s a sure ticket to a plum appointment or business contract because there isn’t anything idealistic in Umno today,” Maznah Mohamad told the Singapore Straits Times.

“Sixty years ago, it was about wanting to help the Malays, but that is not so today because Malay rights and privileges are already guaranteed in the constitution.

“If Umno pays you RM300 a month to deliver letters to its branches, that’s enough to pay, say, the loan on your motorcycle. So Umno is more like a job than a party at the end of the day.”

Unfortunately for Umno, RM300 is not enough anymore, now that the letter deliverers are beginning to learn how much the members of the elite are making. In this age of the social media, it has become difficult, if not impossible, for those at the top to hide their tastes for luxury homes, cars, jewellery and handbags.

It should therefore not surprise anyone that Umno is fast losing its appeal even among the Malays, particularly the urban poor and youths.

There is indeed a transformation taking place, but not the kind Najib expounded at the recent Umno assembly.

Stanley Koh is a FMT columnist. He is the former head of MCA’s research unit.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 9:34 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Discourage rather than encourage a repetition of May 13

by Koon Yew Yin

7th December 2012

The biggest losers will be the Malays

As the countdown to the elections begins to take place in earnest, we are getting more and more calls from desperate and irresponsible politicians drawing attention to the possibility of a repetition of the infamous May 13 violence if the election results should go against the expectations of various political parties and interests.

The fact that these calls are directed towards the Bumiputra component of our population, are expressed in the national language, and are widely carried in the Malay mass media and internet world makes me suspicious of the intentions of these politicians who claim that they are simply doing Malaysians a favour by warning of the backlash should the election outcome not bring about a continuation of the present power structure.

To my mind, these politicians are not only applying crude pressure on the Malay electorate to vote for them but they are also blatantly revealing their trump card – that violence, chaos and political instability will automatically erupt in the event that the opposition parties win the elections.

This blackmailing of our electorate as well as incitement of disruptive and hooligan elements in our society is totally unacceptable.  Various groups such as academicians and individual politicians from the opposition have spoken up against such fear mongering in the recent past. However, not enough has been done by members of the business community and other professional organizations to speak out against these warnings and threats although they will be the main losers should another May 13 episode takes place.

Much more needs to be done by key stakeholders to condemn the individuals and organizations making these threats as the risk of them becoming self-fulfilling prophesies increases by the day.

Sharizat’s Not So Veiled Threat

The latest round of May 13 invocation took place at the UMNO General Assembly meeting held recently. In that meeting, the Wanita chief, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil warned that the May 13 tragedy might be repeated should Umno became weak and not be able to overcome its challenges. That this warning was not made obliquely but was served up as part of her opening speech testifies to the way in which this kind of desperado thinking has become the mainstream in certain political circles.

What is more worrying is that both Najib and Muhyiddin as UMNO President and Deputy President, and more importantly as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, failed to repudiate or rebuke Sharizat for fear mongering.  Instead the Deputy Prime Minister attempted to defend the speech by explaining that chaos will be inevitable under Pakatan Rakyat rule.

Other UMNO leaders, notably UMNO vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein have even gone so far as to dismiss the attention brought by Shahrizat’s May 13 statement as a case of “spinning” and to put the blame on a pro-opposition media and other opposition elements. “Shahrizat has already told me that this will be another matter that will be used for spinning by certain quarters, just because it coincides with the general assembly”,  the country’s Minister in charge of internal security is reported to have responded in his dismissal of public concern when questioned about it.

Even if it is a case of over reaction by the media and a fearful public, it is hoped that Sharizat and her colleagues will not play with fire or pander to the psyche of insecurity found in UMNO party members by constantly harping on the possible recurrence of 13 May and even worst, by condoning or justifying violent and catastrophic racial riots as they appear to be doing in the run up to the elections.

Aftershocks of electoral violence

Should there be bloodshed and violence arising from the next elections, it will not be non-Malays primarily who will lose out or be hurt by the collapse of the share market and the larger economy as we see a rush to exit the country by local and foreign businesses and investors.  It will be all Malaysians especially those who are now enjoying the good life.

The biggest losers will be the Malays

Malays must bear in mind that in the 1969 incident while they may have had less to lose, today the situation is completely different. There is Malay control of a major part of the commanding heights of our economy such as the banks, manufacturing, hi-tech industry, etc. and the largest listed companies.  These gains which have given birth to the creation of a sizable Malay middle and upper class will be put to great risk should there be another May 13.  They may even disappear as the economic aftershocks and loss of economic confidence spiral out of control.

Another May 13 is unthinkable and unforgivable except to those who are so blinded by ambition and their lust for power that they need to keep reminding themselves and their supporters of that horrific possibility. However, should it happen, unlike in the first May 13 incident, it will be clear as to who are the instigators.

Conclusion:

I trust this article will encourage more stakeholders, bankers, business leaders, academicians and leaders of all political parties to speak out and condemn those who are using the threat of another May 13 if there is a change of Government. The Malays must remember that even Pakatan Rakyat win control of the Government, there will be more Malay Members of Parliament and the Malays are the biggest losers if there is another May 13 riot.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 9:22 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


For Malaysia’s Governing Party,’ Defining Point’ Is Near

By LIZ GOOCH

New York Times

December 3, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR — Bathed in a sea of the party’s signature red, the headquarters of the United Malays National Organization swarmed with thousands of party faithful last week, eager to hear from their leader as the clock ticked toward Malaysia’s next election.

UMNO, the largest party in the National Front coalition, which has governed Malaysia for more than half a century, is preparing to contest what many analysts predict is likely to be its toughest election yet.

Vowing that the government would fight for every vote, Najib Razak, the prime minister of Malaysia and president of the party, said Thursday that it would be “no ordinary election.”

“It will be the defining point for the destiny of the people and country,” he said during a spirited speech to flag-waving party members at the UMNO General Assembly in Kuala Lumpur.

With the wounds inflicted by the opposition during the last elections still fresh in the minds of party members, the next election, which must be held by June, will mark the first time Mr. Najib will seek a mandate from voters.

Observers say he will confront an influx of unpredictable young voters and a stronger opposition, setting the stage for a tight race.

Mr. Najib, the son of Malaysia’s second prime minister, was installed as party leader in 2009, replacing Abdullah Ahmad Badawi after the National Front lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament in 2008 for the first time since independence in 1957.

Mr. Najib, 59, has sought to present himself as a reformist, abolishing a number of restrictive laws and implementing a comprehensive program known as 1Malaysia to bolster national unity among the country’s ethnic groups.

But analysts and critics say that many of the reforms have not gone far enough to improve civil rights and that UMNO has failed to embrace genuine change and become a truly inclusive party that addresses the concerns of all Malaysians, regardless of ethnicity.

Formed in 1946 in what was then a British colony, UMNO became known as the organization that helped achieve independence and represented ethnic Malays, the country’s dominant ethnic group.

In its early political incarnation, it formed an alliance with the parties that became the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress, drawing in the two largest ethnic minorities in the country, with other small parties joining in later years.

“When they put together the National Front coalition it was just about impossible to beat them because every major party except the D.A.P. went into the coalition,” said Barry Wain, a writer in residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore and former journalist, referring to the opposition Democratic Action Party.

“There wasn’t any real, strong opposition for a long time.”

The National Front has presided over impressive economic development, transforming what was a largely rural agricultural society marked by high levels of poverty in the 1970s into one of Southeast Asia’s success stories, with extreme poverty now rare among the country’s population of 29 million.

But the political landscape has changed markedly.

UMNO remains Malaysia’s largest political party, with more than three million members, but the opposition has gained strength in recent years, led by Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy prime minister under Mahathir Mohamad.

Mr. Wain, the author of the book “Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times,” believes the party has been in “long-term decline” since the late 1990s.

He said that Mr. Mahathir, the former prime minister who led UMNO for 22 years, had a “profound impact” on it because of the length of time he held office and his authoritarian rule.

In the party’s early days, Mr. Wain said, people joined because they wanted to improve the country. Now it has become a “patronage machine” that dishes out contracts to its followers and lacks long-term ideas about how to improve the country, he said.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the chief executive of the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs in Kuala Lumpur, said that the opposition, which won five states in the 2008 election — with one state since returning to the National Front — had shown the public that it can govern.

Another challenge for the government is likely to be the large number of first-time voters, he added.

“They grew up in an environment where UMNO has been increasingly accused of being corrupt, and at the same time the economic situation of the country makes it not that easy for them to get a job anymore,” Mr. Wan Saiful said.

“They grew up in a different environment from the older generation. They don’t feel indebted to UMNO, and being young, they’re not afraid to experiment.”

While the Malaysian economy grew 5.2 percent in the third quarter, Mr. Wan Saiful said that wages were not keeping pace with the rising cost of living. He said young workers were particularly affected, which could lead to dissatisfaction with the government.

Clive Kessler, an emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia and a longtime observer of Malaysian politics, said the last election, in 2008, showed it was clear that “the old regime framework,” which promoted Malay supremacy through a range of affirmative action measures favoring ethnic Malays known as the New Economic Policy, could no longer work.

Mr. Kessler said that after the 2008 election, when the government lost the support of many non-Malays and urban voters, the party needed to become a “genuinely centrist, progressive party” but instead, “it capitulated to the hardline Malay right.”

But leaders of the party insist that it has done much to address voters’ concerns.

During his speech Thursday, in which he warned that the country’s economy would be destroyed if the opposition were to win, Mr. Najib outlined how the government has undertaken political and economic transformation.

Among other changes, he said the government had abolished the Internal Security Act, which allowed for indefinite detention without trial, amended a law to allow university students to join political parties and removed the need for newspapers to obtain printing licenses annually — changes that critics argue fail to go far enough to protect civil liberties.

Mr. Najib appeared to take stock of the “bitter experience” of the election in 2008, adding later in his speech that “we put our palms together in apology for any oversight.”

While he said that the government had never been complacent in defending the rights of all races, Mr. Najib also vowed “to give priority to the well-being of the people, uphold the Malay race, fortify faith and safeguard Islam.”

Analysts also noted that some party delegates continued to call for action against those who engage in homosexuality, pluralism and liberalism.

Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, the party’s secretary general, said that the government had made a number of changes to help non-Malays, like making more government university scholarships available, and that the National Front had performed well in by-elections since 2008.

“This is a trend to show us what we are doing since the 2008 election, we are moving on the right track,” he said in an interview. “I think the citizens of Malaysia realize we are a party that they can trust.”

Mr. Tengku Adnan acknowledged that UMNO was not a “perfect party,” but strongly denied allegations of patronage.

“It’s not fair to say we are a party of patronage,” he said. “We are open for anyone. If you feel that the party is wrong, you come in and correct the party because we are a democratic system.”

While most analysts are expecting tight elections, some said the opposition may have a chance of victory for the first time.

Bridget Welsh, an associate professor at Singapore Management University who specializes in Malaysian politics, believes the government may have a slight advantage over the opposition, but said that the situation was fluid and that there was no guarantee that the UMNO-dominated National Front would retain power.

James Chin, director of the School of Arts and Social Sciences at Monash University Malaysia, said that while there had been an increase in support for the government among Malays in rural areas because of a number of government cash handouts, winning over urban voters would remain problematic for the governing coalition.

Despite the government’s assurances that it had taken steps to improve the electoral system after three large street protests calling for free and fair elections, some analysts remain highly skeptical.

But Mr. Tengku Adnan insisted that the opposition could not have won five states in 2008 if elections had not been conducted fairly.

“It’s been a fair election from the first election through until today,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 10:09 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kedudukan CPI Malaysia meningkat daripada tempat ke-60 daripada 183 negara pada 2011 kepada 54 daripada 176 negara pada 2012 tetapi tiga teras utama NKRA Membanteras Rasuah masih mempunyai banyak kelemahan

Di dalam Indeks Persepsi Rasuah Transparency International 2012 yang baru diterbitkan, kedudukan CPI Malaysia telah meningkat daripada tempat ke-60 daripada 183 negara pada 2011 kepada tempat ke-54 daripada 176 negara pada 2012.

Sementara Malaysia mungkin boleh berasa sedikit selesa dengan penurunan pada kedudukan Malaysia di dalam kedudukan CPI, haruslah diketahui bahawa kedudukan ke-54 masih teruk berbanding kedudukan Malaysia di tempat ke-43 daripada 179 negara pada tahun 2007 dan jauh lebih teruk daripada kedudukan ke-33 daripada 102 negara pada 2002 (Lihat jadual 1 di bawah).

Jadual 1: Kedudukan CPI Malaysia, mata dan  jumlah negara di dalam sampel, 2001 hingga 2012

Tahun

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Kedudukan

36

33

37

39

39

44

43

47

56

56

60

54

Mata

5

4.9

5.2

5

5.1

5

5.1

5.1

4.5

4.4

4.3

49

Jumlah Negara

91

102

133

145

158

163

179

180

180

178

183

176

Malah, tidak seharusnya kita berasa sangat selesa dengan hakikat bahawa peningkatan Malaysia adalah kerana kita berjaya mengatasi kerajaan yang ‘terkenal’ dan ‘bersih’ seperti Jordan, Namibia, Oman, Kuwait dan Arab Saudi.

Sesungguhnya, banyak negara dengan GDP per kapita yang lebih rendah berbanding Malaysia mampu memperoleh kedudukan CPI yang lebih baik daripada kita termasuklah Rwanda (50), Bhutan (33) and Botswana (30), tidak lupa juga negara-negara ekonomi perindustrian baru (NIE) di Asia seperti Korea Selatan (45), Taiwan (37), Hong Kong (14) dan Singapura(5).

Lebih membimbangkan, tiga teras utama Bidang Keberhasilan Utama Negara (NKRA) Membanteras Rasuah di bawah Program Transformasi Kerajaan (GTP) – iaitu, memperkasa agensi pencegahan rasuah dan perundangan, membanteras rasuah besar dan mengurangkan salah tadbir dalam proses perolehan Kerajaan.

Sebagai contoh, Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia masih seperti harimau yang hilang taring kerana bergantung kepada Peguam Negara untuk membuat dakwaan terhadap kes-kesnya.

Ini menjelaskan mengapa meskipun terdapat banyak laporan polis, dakwaan dan siasatan dibuat ke atas Ketua Menteri Sarawak dan Sabah, yang paling ketara yang dibuat oleh Bruno Manser Fund (BMF), Peguam Negara telah menolak untuk membuat sebarang dakwaan terhadap kedua-dua pemimpin BN itu.

Dan selagi mana SPRM tidak bebas atau dilihat bebas, maka perundangan seperti Akta Perlindungan Pemberi Maklumat pun tidak akan memberi sebarang kesan jangka panjang pada penurunan rasuah.

Lagipun, mereka merupakan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah yang terlibat menyiasat kes yang dikatakan penyalahuntukan dana oleh seorang Ahli Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri yang membawa kepada kematian setiausaha politik kepada Ean Yong Han Wah, Teoh Beng Hock sementara petualang sebenar masih bebas menguasai hasil negara.

Mereka merupakan SPRM yang sama menyiasat pegawai kastam, Ahmad Sarbani, yang juga menemui ajal akibat jatuh daripada bangunan ketika sedang ditahan.

Dari perspektif tanggapan, terdapat keraguan bahawa SPRM belum lagi diperkasakan dengan diberikan ruang untuk melakukan tugasnya, tanpa rasa takut dan pilih kasih.

Juga tiada tanda yang rasuah besar telah diatasi dengan berkesan oleh NKRA Membanteras Rasuah.

Hampir semua kes yang muncul pada pengkalan data umum bagi tujuan pendedahan adalah kes kecil dan melibatkan Cuma ‘ikan kecil’.

Adalah tidak mengejutkan apabila ‘jerung-jerung’ tersebut terlepas daripada perhatian terutamanya apabila ada kenyataan seperti yang dibuat oleh Menteri Jabatan Perdana Menteri , Nazri Aziz, mengetepikan cubaan menggubah wang berjumlah RM40 juta oleh Michael Chia dengan mengatakan ia hanyalah ‘sumbangan politik’ kepada UMNO Sabah dan mengabaikan bukti bahawa Michael Chia yang sama dengan baik hatinya telah ‘meminjamkan’ sebuah hummer bernilai hampir setengah juta kepada anak beliau.

Malah pendakwaan terhadap jerung-jerung di dalam skandal RM12.6 bilion PKFZ – iaitu bekas Menteri Pengangkutan Ling Liong Sik dan Chan Kong Koy – belum diselesaikan dengan sebaiknya membuatkan kita tertanya apakah kes ini akan mengikut jejak langkah kes seorang Menteri UMNO yang berasal dari Sabah, Kasitah Gaddam dan bekas pengerusi Perwaja, Eric Chia, yang mana kedua-duanya didakwa atas tuduhan rasuah dengan riuh sebelum pilihan raya umum 2004 namun kedua-duanya dibebaskan.

Yang terakhir sekali, terdapatnya rasa tidak puas hati terhadap usaha mengurangkan salah tadbir dalam proses perolehan Kerajaan.

Laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2011 yang ditangguhkan sehingga dua minggu dalam perbahasan belanjawan menyusahkan Ahli Parlimen untuk membangkitkan isu-isu penting berkaitan penyeliaan dan kawalan pada proses perolehan Kerajaan yang lemah.

Lagipun, tiada tindakan diambil oleh SPRM atau Peguam Negara dalam bentuk membuat pendakwaan ke atas mereka yang bertanggungjawab tidak menguruskan perolehan kerajaan dengan baik (termasuk binokular RM56,350 untuk Jabatan Taman Laut Malaysia tetapi nilai sebenar cuma RM1,940).

Tambahan, kerajaan terus beroperasi dengan penuh kerahsiaan dalam urusan tanah yang mungkin dapat mengumpul keuntungan berbilion ringgit buat kerajaan tetapi sebaliknya dijual di bawah harga pasaran kepada agensi kerajaan iaitu 1MDB.

Terbaru, pengedar permaidani, Deepak Jaikishan membuat satu dakwaan tergempar terhadap bukan sahaja ketua Wanita UMNO Selangor Raja Ropiaah Raja Abdullah, tetapi juga Perdana Menteri Najib sendiri berkenaan tanah bernilai RM100 juta untuk kontrak membina PUSAT Pengajian Pertahanan Nasional (Puspahanas), satu dakwaan yang masih belum dijawab Perdana Menteri.

Dengan pelbagai kesilapan besar dan kelemahan di dalam usaha dan inisiatif membanteras rasuah, Malaysia tidak boleh berasa selesa walau sedikit dengan kemajuan di dalam kedudukan CPI negara.

Apa yang sepatutnya membuatkan rakyat Malaysia tenang adalah hakikat bahawa pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat akan terus mendedahkan korupsi dan salahguna kuasa di bawah kerajaan BN sekarang yang tidak menampakkan sebarang tanda tabiat lama mereka akan berubah.

Apa yang sepatutnya membuatkan rakyat Malaysia tenang adalah hakikat bahawa negeri di bawah pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat terutamanya Pulau Pinang dan Selangor telah menunjukkan bagaimana pengurusan sumber kerajaan yang telus dan bertanggungjawab boleh meningkatkan lebihan dan rizab tetapi pada masa yang sama dapat dirasa manfaatnya oleh rakyat.

Apa yang sepatutnya membuatkan rakyat Malaysia tenang adalah hakikat peluang untuk mengundi keluar kerajaan BN pada pilihan raya umum akan datang bakal tiba tidak lama lagi.

Hanya di bawah kerajaan Pakatan akar kepada masalah rasuah di dalam negara yang diperintah oleh rejim BN yang korup dan muflis ini dapat dibasmi dan tanggapan terhadap Malaysia yang semakin berkurangan korupsinya dapat menjadi realiti.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/12/06/malaysias-cpi-rank-has-improved-from-60-out-of-183-countries-in-2011-to-54-out-of-176-countries-in-2012-but-three-main-thrusts-of-the-fighting-corruption-nkra-still-have-gaping-holes/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 11:37 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Keutamaan yang sangat mendesak bagi SPRM dan Jabatan Peguam Negara untuk menjalankan kursus berkenaan rasuah buat Perdana Menteri, Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Kabinet, Menteri Besar dan Ketua Menteri terutamanya di Sarawak dan Sabah serta pegawai tinggi kerajaan termasuk Peguam Negara sendiri sekiranya Malaysia benar-benar serius membanteras “rasuah besar”

Dalam perjalanan ke Yong Peng dari Kuala Lumpur tadi, saya terbaca satu berita bahawa Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) dan Jabatan Peguam Negara akan mengadakan kursus pencegahan rasuah kepada ahli-ahli parlimen tahun depan.

Pengarah Pemandu, D Ravindran yang bertanggungjawab terhadap bahagian anti-rasuah bagi Bidang Keberhasilan Utama Negara (NKRA), berkata:

“Pelan Transformasi Kerajaan 2.0 (GTP 2.0) sebenarnya mempunyai komitmen oleh Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamad dan AG (Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail), di mana kedua-duanya akan mengadakan kursus untuk penggubal undang-undang kita.”

“Jadi, untuk pertamakalinya, kita akan mendidik ahli parlimen kita mengenai apa yang boleh diambil atau apa yang tidak boleh diambil,”

Bercakap di luar pelancaran Indeks Persepsi Rasuah (CPI) Transparency International (TI) 2012, Ravindran mengatakan kursus tersebut akan turut memberikan maklumat tentang apa yang menjadikan sesuatu itu rasuah, dan tatakelakuan serta amalan terbaik untuk mengelakkannya.

SPRM dan Jabatan Peguam Negara tidak sepatutnya mensasarkan kumpulan yang salah memandangkan mereka sepatutnya tahu di mana keutamaan dalam membanteras rasuah, terutamanya rasuah besar.

Biar saya beritahu SPRM dan Jabatan Peguam Negara bahawa keutamaan yang mendesak dalam membanteras rasuah di Malaysia adalah  untuk  SPRM dan Jabatan Peguam Negara menjalankan kursus berkenaan rasuah buat Perdana Menteri, Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Kabinet, Menteri Besar dan Ketua Menteri terutamanya di Sarawak dan Sabah serta pegawai tinggi kerajaan termasuk Peguam Negara sendiri sekiranya Malaysia benar-benar serius membanteras “rasuah besar”

Kelihatan ramai di kalangan pemimpin tinggi politik dan kerajaan itu tidak tahu “yang mana betul dan yang mana salah untuk diambil”, yang menyebabkan banyak dakwaan penyalahgunaan kuasa, penyelewengan dan rasuah terhadap mereka yang belum lagi diberikan jawapan memuaskan, baik skandal “sumbangan politik kepada UMNO Sabah” berjumlah RM40 juta melibatkan Ketua Menteri Sabah, Datuk Seri Musa Aman atau kekayaan luar biasa keluarga Ketua Menteri Sarawak, Tan Sri Taib Mahmud berjumlah RM64 bilion selepas 30 tahun menjadi Ketua Menteri Sarawak sepertimana yang didakwa oleh Bruno Manser Foundation baru-baru ini.

Adakah SPRM dan Jabatan Peguam Negara berani untuk menjalankan kursus bukan sahaja tentang bagaimana untuk mengelakkan rasuah kepada Perdana Menteri, Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Kabinet, Menteri Besar dan Ketua Menteri terutamanya di Sarawak dan Sabah serta pegawai tinggi kerajaan, tetapi juga tentang tanggungjawab mereka untuk menjelaskan dengan lengkap dan memuaskan apabila dakwaan rasuah yang serius dibuat secara terbuka ke atas mereka, termasuklah membersihkan nama mereka dan memulihkan reputasi mereka di mahkamah?

[
Ucapan sewaktu makan malam “Ubah” anjuran DAP Yong Peng di Yong Peng Johor pada Rabu, 5 Disember 2012, 9pm
]

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/12/06/urgent-priority-for-macc-and-ags-chambers-to-conduct-course-on-corruption-for-prime-minister-deputy-prime-minister-cabinet-ministers-mentris-besar-and-chief-ministers-particularly-sarawak/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 11:32 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PR mesti menumpukan untuk memenangi lebih empat juta undi “atas pagar” sekiranya mahu berjaya dalam pertembungan menawan Putrajaya pada PRU13

Perhimpunan Agung UMNO ke-66 selama lima hari, yang mana pengkritik meggambarkannya sebagai “Lima hari pesta liar bingit dan berang” berakhir dengan kepimpinan UMNO merasa yakin bahawa UMNO/BN akan mencapai “kemenangan besar pilihan raya” – memenangi semula dua pertiga majoriti di Parlimen juga negeri-negeri Pakatan seperti Kelantan, Pulau Pinang, Selangor dan Kedah pada Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 dan mempertahankan kuasa yang tidak sah dan tidak mengikut perlembahaan di Perak.

Bagaimanapun, ucapan kempimpinan UMNO selepas Perhimpunan Agung UMNO, terutamanya “tok dalang” UMNO, Tun Dr Mahathir tidak menampakkan keyakinan itu.

Sungguhpun begitu, pertembungan merebut Putrajaya pada PRU13 akan menjadi sangat sengit dan sesiapa yang memenangi majoriti empat juta pengundi “atas pagar” akan mendapat kelebihan.

Pakatan Rakyat sepatutnya menumpukan pada memenangi empat juta pengundi “atas pagar” sekiranya mahu berjaya dalam pertembungan menawan Putrajaya pada PRU13.

Untuk PRU13, daftar pemilih telah meningkat lebih daripada 13 juta pengundi. Terdapat lebih kurang 3 juta pengundi baru di dalam daftar pemilih, 60% adalah di bawah usia 30 tahun. 25% daripada daftar pemilih pilihan raya umum akan datang terdiri daripada pengundi baru.

Pengundi baru, bersama dengan lebih kurang 10% pengundi atas pagar daripada PRU 2008 membentuk jumlah 4 juta pengundi pada PRU akan datang. Pengundi-pengundi itu yang akan menentukan siapa yang akan memerintah di Putrajaya selepas PRU13.

Adalah tidak mencukupi untuk Pakatan Rakyat memenangi majoriti 3 juta pengundi baru bagi menawan Putrajaya. Anggarkan bahawa % undi yang dimenangi BN dan PR daripada pengundi PRU 2008 adalah sama, walaupun PR menang bersih 70% pengundi baru, PR hanya dapat memenangi 109 kerusi parlimen daripada 222 kerusi (Jadual 1 di bawah)

Jadual 1: Kerusi parlimen BN dan PR sekiranya PR menang bersih 55%, 60% dan 70% pengundi baru sejak PRU2008

Pengundi baru bersih PR sejak PRU2008

BN

PR

55%

132

90

60%

129

93

70%

113

109

Di bawah senario Jaduan 1, PKR akan kekal menjadi parti terbesar diikuti DAP dan PAS (Jadual 2 di bawah)

Jadual 2: Bilangan kerusi PR mengikut parti sekiranya PR menang 55%, 60% dan 70% pengundi baru sejak PRU2008

Pengundi baru bersih PR sejak PRU2008

PAS

PKR

DAP

Jumlah

55%

26

34

30

90

60%

26

36

31

93

70%

32

43

34

109

Untuk menawan Putrajaya, PR juga mestilah meyakinkan % lebih besar pengundi PRU2008 untuk menukar undi mereka kepada PR. Hanya jika PR berjaya menang bersih 70% pengundi baru sejak PRU2008 dan sebagai tambahan 3% pengundi PRU2008 barulah PR dapat menawan Putrajaya dengan majoriti selesa 7 kerusi parlimen (119) (Lihat Jadual 3 di bawah)

Jadual 3: Kerusi Parlimen BN dan PR di bawah senario berbeza (Pengundi baru bersih bahagian PR sejak PRU2008 dan tambahan pengundi PRU2008)

Pengundi baru bersih bahagian PR sejak PRU2008 + tambahan pengundi PRU2008

BN

PR

55% pengundi baru + 1% PRU2008

132

90

60% pengundi baru + 2% PRU2008

124

98

70% pengundi baru + 3% PRU2008

103

119

Di bawah senario Jadual 3, PKR akan kekal sebagai parti terbesar diikuti DAP dan PAS (Lihat Jadual 4 di bawah)

Jadual 4: Bilangan kerusi parti-parti PR di bawah senario berbeza (Bahagian PR untuk pengundi baru bersih sejak PRU2008 dan tambahan pengundi PRU2008)

Bahagian PR untuk pengundi baru bersih sejak PRU2008

PAS

PKR

DAP

Total

55% pengundi baru + 1% PRU2008

26

34

30

90

60% pengundi baru + 2% PRU2008

28

38

32

98

70% pengundi baru + 3% PRU2008

34

48

37

119

Faktor yang menggugat kesatuan Oposisi termasuklah yang berikut:

Pertembungan pelbagai penjuru kesan daripada tidak sebulat suara terhadap peruntukan kerusi berkemungkinan menyebabkan oposisi kehilangan 2 kerusi parlimen di Sarawak dan 2 kerusi parlimen di Sabah pada 2008 dan barangkali sebanyak 5 kerusi negeri di Sabah.

PAS meluluskan enakmen hudud di Terengganu pada 2001 namun itu tidak menghalang BN daripada menawan kembali negeri itu dengan memenangi 28 daripada 32 kerusi negeri dan 7 daripada 8 kerusi parlimen di Terengganu pada pilihan raya umum tahun 2004. Isu hudud menyebabkan terbubarnya Barisan Alternatif  dan peristiwa bersejarah pilihan raya umum 2008 yang menghubungkan semula ketiga-tiga parti.

Tumpuan sepatutnya terhadap rasuah dan penyalahgunaan kuasa yang semakin berleluasa di dalam BN berbanding menegakkan agenda negara Islam yang tidak membantu memenangi hati pengundi atas pagar.

Penekanan untuk PR berjaya di dalam pertembungan merebut Putrajaya adalah untuk memenangi sokongan golongan atas pagar dengan menumpukan pada isu negara yang penting.

Buat pengundi baru dan pengundi atas pagar, isu utama yang tidak begitu penting buat mereka tidak akan dapat memikat mereka. Bagi mereka, tumpuan adalah pada isu negara termasuklah:

Sama ada PR atau BN boleh menguruskan dan mengurangkan rasuah di dalam negara;

Sama ada PR atau BN boleh menunjukkan jalan baru ke arah kesatuan nasional yang tulen dan hubungan antara kaum yang harmoni.

Sama ada PR atau BN dapat mentadbir dengan lebih saksama dengan keadilan sosial dan kecekapan ekonomi;

Sama ada PR atau BN dapat mengurangkan kemiskinan dikalangan penduduk peribumi Sabah dan Sarawak dan membawa pembangunan mapan kepada kedua-dua negeri; dan

Sama ada PR atau BN boleh membawa era baru pentadbiran yang mana demokrasi dibangunkan dan dan diperdalamkan.

Pakatan Rakyat tidak sepatutnya membiarkan diri kita diganggu dengan isu-isu sempit tetapi menumpukan pada gambaran besar untuk memenangi hati pengundi atas pagar seraya memenangi pertembungan menawan Putrajaya pada PRU13.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/12/07/pr-must-focus-on-winning-over-the-four-million-middle-ground-votes-if-we-are-to-succeed-in-the-battle-to-putrajaya-in-13ge/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 3:32 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PR must focus on winning over the four million “middle ground” votes if we are to succeed in the battle to Putrajaya in 13GE

The five-day 66th UMNO General Assembly, which a critic has described as “A five-day orgy of sound and fury”,  ended with the UMNO leaders breathing confidence that UMNO/BN are  headed to “a resounding electoral victory” –  winning back the  two-thirds majority in Parliament as well as state power in the Pakatan states of Kelantan, Penang, Selangor and Kedah in the 13 General Election and retaining illegal and unconstitutional power in Perak.

However, the speeches of UMNO leaders after the UMNO General Assembly, particularly the UMNO “eminence grise”,  Tun Dr. Mahathir do not bear out this confidence.

Be that as it may, the battle for Putrajaya in the 13GE is going to be a very close one and whoever wins the majority of the four million “middle ground” voters will have the upper hand.

Pakatan Rakyat should focus on winning the over four million “middle ground” voters if we are to succeed in the battle for Putrajaya in 13GE.

For the 13GE, the electorate has increased to slightly more than 13 million voters. There are approximately 3 million new voters in the electorate, 60% of whom are under the age of 30. New voters will comprise 25% of the electorate in the next general election.

The new voters, together with the 10% or so of the swing voters from the 2008 GE, will constitute about 4 million voters in the next GE. These voters will decide on who will govern in Putrajaya after GE13.

It is not sufficient for Pakatan Rakyat to win over the majority of the 3 million new voters to reach Putrajaya. Assuming that the % of votes won by BN and PR among the GE2008 voters remain the same, even if PR wins 70% of the nett new voters, PR can only win 109 parliamentary seats out of 222 parliament seats (Table 1 below)

Table 1: BN and PR parliament seats if PR wins 55%, 60% and 70% of nett new voters since GE2008

PR’s share of nett new voters since GE2008

BN

PR

55%

132

90

60%

129

93

70%

113

109

Under the Scenarios in Table 1, PKR would remain the largest party followed by DAP and PAS (Table 2 below)

Table 2: # of PR seats by PR parties if PR wins 55%, 60% and 70% of nett new voters since GE2008

PR’s share of nett new voters since GE2008

PAS

PKR

DAP

Total

55%

26

34

30

90

60%

26

36

31

93

70%

32

43

34

109

To get to Putrajaya, PR must also convince a larger % of the GE2008 voters to switch their vote to PR. Only if PR manages to win 70% of nett new voters since GE2008 and an additional 3% of GE2008 voters can PR reach Putrajaya with a somewhat comfortable majority of 7 parliament seats (119) (See Table 3 below)

Table 3: BN and PR parliament seats under different scenarios (PR’s share of nett new voters since GE2008 and additional GE2008 voters)

PR’s share of nett new voters since GE2008 + additional GE2008 voters

BN

PR

55% of new voters + 1%GE2008

132

90

60% of new voters +2%GE2008

124

98

70% of new voters +3%GE2008

103

119

Under the scenarios in Table 3, PKR would remain the largest party followed by DAP and PAS (Table 4 below)

Table 4: # of PR seats by PR parties under different scenarios (PR’s share of nett new voters since GE2008 and additional GE2008 voters)

PR’s share of nett new voters since GE2008

PAS

PKR

DAP

Total

55% of new voters + 1%GE2008

26

34

30

90

60% of new voters +2%GE2008

28

38

32

98

70% of new voters +3%GE2008

34

48

37

119

The factors that have hurt Opposition unity in the past include the following:

Multi-corner fights as a result of not being able to agree to seat allocation probably cost the opposition at least 2 parliament seats in Sarawak and 2 parliament seats in Sabah in 2008 and perhaps as many as 5 state seats in Sabah.

PAS passing the hudud legislation in the Terengganu state legislature in 2001 did not stop BN from regaining this state by winning 28 out of 32 state seats and 7 out of 8 parliament seats in Terengganu in the 2004 general election. The hudud issue led to the dismantling of the Barisan Alternative and it took the historic 2008 general election to bring together the three parties again.

The focus should have been on the ongoing corruption and abuse of power within the BN rather than to push the Islamic state agenda which does nothing to win over the middle ground and swing voters

The emphasis for PR to succeed in the battle for Putrajaya is to win over the swing voters/middle ground by focusing on national issues of importance.

For the new voters and for the swing voters, niche issues which are probably not that important to them will not win them over. For them, the focus is on national issues, including:

Whether PR or BN can manage and reduce corruption in the country;

Whether PR or BN can show a new path towards genuine national unity and inter-racial harmony;

Whether PR or BN can govern more equitably with social justice and economic efficiency;

Whether PR or BN can reduce poverty among the native population in Sabah and Sarawak and bring more sustainable development to both of these states; and

Whether PR or BN can usher in a new era of governance where democracy is developed and deepened.

Pakatan Rakyat  should not let itself be distracted by narrow issues but focus on the larger picture to win these swing voters and to capture the middle ground to win the battle for Putrajaya in the 13GE.

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/12/07/pr-mesti-menumpukan-untuk-memenangi-lebih-empat-juta-undi-atas-pagar-sekiranya-mahu-berjaya-dalam-pertembungan-menawan-putrajaya-pada-pru13/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 12:23 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tiada apa untuk diraikan tetapi banyak sebab untuk dikesalkan terhadap Indeks Persepsi Rasuah Transparency International 2012 yang meletakkan kedudukan Malaysia di tempat ke-54 berbanding tempat ke-60 negara paling kurang rasuah tahun lepas

Tiada apa untuk diraikan tetapi banyak sebab untuk dikesalkan terhadap Indeks Persepsi Rasuah (CPI) Transparency International (TI) 2012 yang meletakkan kedudukan Malaysia di tempat ke-54 berbanding tempat ke-60 negara paling kurang rasuah tahun lepas

Jumlah negara yang dinilai dalam CPI TI 2012 tekah dikurangkan daripada 183 negara tahun lepas kepada 176 negara tahun ini dan TI telah menggunakan metodologi baru, TI juga menyatakan yang mata CPI 2012 tidak boleh dibandingkan dengan mata pada tahun 2011 atau mana-mana penilaian sebelumnya. Perbandingan antara tahun hanya boleh dilakukan bermula 2012 sebagai asas untuk tahun-tahun berikutnya.

Mengikut metodologi baru, mata CPI adalah pada skala 0-100 dengan 0=tanggapan rasuah tahap tertinggi dan 100=tanggapan rasuah tahap terendah berbanding mata 0 hingga 10 pada mata CPI sebelum ini.

Sungguhpun mata CPI TI 2012 Malaysia adalah 49 daripada 100 tidak boleh dibandingkan dengan mata CPI TI sepanjang 17 tahun lalu daripada 1995 hingga 2011, satu hakikat yang tidak dapat dielakkan adalah Malaysia telah tewas dalam usaha membanteras rasuah sepanjang dekad-dekad sebelumnya, yang melihat kedudukan CPI TI Malaysia jatuh ke kedudukan terendah tempat ke-60 tahun lepas berbanding tempat ke-23 pada 1995, dan mata CPI menjunam ke 4.3 tahun lepas berbanding 5.32 pada tahun 1996.

Walaupun mata CPI TI 2012 tidak boleh dibanding dengan tahun-tahun sebelumnya, kedudukan dan mata Malaysia di peringkat antarabangsa jelas kurang daripada sederhana. Sejak 1995 Malaysia telah diatasi oleh Korea Selatan dan Taiwan sementara banyak negara semakin dekat merapati terutamanya Turki yang berada pada kedudukan ke-29 dengan mata CPI 4.1 pada 1995, tetapi telah berjaya mengejar Malaysia apabila kedua-duanya berada pada kedudukan No.54 dengan 49 mata pada CPI TI 2011.

Apakah tindakan yang Malaysia ambil untuk memastikan kita tidak ditinggalkan di belakang oleh Turki dan negara ASEAN, Asia-Pasifik dan OIC di dalam CPI TI pada tahun berikutnya memandangkan mereka semua telah menunjukkan keseriusan dan kesungguhan politik untuk membanteras rasuah jika dibandingkan dengan Malaysia.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/12/05/no-reason-to-celebrate-but-many-grounds-to-rue-over-transparency-international-2012-corruption-perception-index-which-ranked-malaysia-54th-as-compared-to-60th-last-year-as-least-corrupt-country-in-the/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2012, 11:27 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has corruption in M’sia really gone down?

Ramon Navaratnam

Malaysiakini

Dec 6, 2012

It is arguable whether Malaysia has really done better in the latest Corruption Perception Index (CPI) report released by Transparency International-Malaysia, on behalf of Transparency International in Berlin.

As the report states clearly, the scoring system this year has been upgraded. Hence it cannot be accurately compared to last year’s scoring.

Thus it can be misleading to highlight the claim that Malaysia has moved up six places to number 54 this year, compared to the ranking of 60 last year.

Furthermore Malaysia scored 49 out of 100 marks for this year. This is below the half mark of 50 thus placing Malaysia amongst the two-thirds of the 176 countries surveyed, that have serious corruption problems.

So how can we say that we have improved? If at all we have improved, it is a very insignificant improvement, which does not deserve all the praise bestowed on this dubious success.

Indeed it is disappointing that after so many government initiatives through MACC and Pemandu to combat corruption, we are not making much headway to improve the universal perception that we have a high level of corruption in Malaysia.

More disturbing is the TI Bribes Payers Survey which indicates that we scored the worst score at 50 percent of respondents who said they had ‘failed to win a contract or gain new business because a competitor has paid a bribe’ in the last 12 months!

This is very damaging to our image especially to the foreign and domestic investors and our overall perception of well-being and the new Happiness Index that we plan to introduce in the national budget.

All this begs the question as to why we should go so far to pat ourselves on the back for perceived success when we should be ringing our hands in concern and do much more to fight corruption?

Being unduly optimistic can in fact become counter-productive as we can become unnecessarily complacent and lose the war against corruption.

But perhaps there could be some misconception or misunderstanding on the part of TI Berlin in their analysis of our corruption?

It may be that local and foreign contractors fail so badly to get contracts and new businesses, because of the official preferential treatment that we widely practise in the award of government contracts for goods and services?

Therefore I would urge Pemandu and TI-Malaysia therefore to take this matter up with TI in Berlin to set this bad record straight.

Could also our low scores in combatting corruption, be due to our relative lack in our success to fight grand corruption, which includes the big fish that get away?

We seem to be more successful in catching the small fish and this is most unfortunate, as it sends the wrong signals to the public.

But there are lessons to be learnt. Now that we know how poorly we are assessed by TI Berlin, even with the new revised CPI, we need to introduce much stronger measures to fight grand corruption.

We need to raise our sense of urgency and political will, to go all out to fight corruption or we will surely lose out in improving our quality of governance, our quality of Life and happiness and also our prospects to achieve Industrial status by 2020.

——————————————————————————–

RAMON NAVARATNAM is chairperson of the Asli Centre of Public Policy Studies.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 December 2012, 1:15 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I will deliver what I’ve promised, declares PM

The Malay Mail/Malaysiakini

Dec 7, 2012

Agent for change

Exclusive interview with Terence Fernandez, Zakiah Koya and Azril Annuar of Malay Mail

The Malay Mail: After the Umno general assembly, are you more confident today that you have managed to consolidate the party in time for the elections, you know, all the various ‘factions’?

Najib:
 I believe Umno is a much more reinvigorated party. The clarion call I made about four years ago that we need to do a process of self-analysis, self-criticism to know what we need to do to overcome the weaknesses and shortcomings that led to the political tsunami of 2008.

And also for us to consolidate ourselves and work on a plan to strengthen and revive Umno. And I see that coming to a head, so to speak. All the work we’ve done over the last four years have come to fruition at this assembly because I see Umno with renewed vigor and a much more united Umno.

Of course we still need to look at some of the internal challenges we have. But that goes with every political party, there will always be differences of opinion. But by and large, people want to work together to achieve a big victory for Umno and Barisan Nasional.

So you see more seriousness in Umno this time (in responding to your calls to change and face new realities)?

I do! I do see a stronger spirit. And they’re heeding my call, for example, we should be more inclusive; Umno should lead the way; we should take care of the Malays as well as the other races in the country.

I think that’s gone through the assembly because people didn’t ridicule or knock down the other races (this time) and there was no talk of some of the sensitive racial statements or terminologies that were used before.

So this is a much more balanced and much more matured assembly. An assembly that is primed to go to battle, so to speak.

You’ve been talking about 1Malaysia all the time. And there were factions that were skeptical of 1Malaysia in Umno itself. How do you come to terms with that? Umno and 1Malaysia.

Anytime you choose something, you introduce something new, there will be a period of acceptance, and that goes with 1Malaysia as well. I didn’t define the concept very clearly but that was by design.

I decided that there should be an element of strategic ambiguity so that once you introduce the concept like that, as time goes by, the definition could be defined by taking on board the views of people as we go along.

And I think we’ve done exactly that and the concept of 1Malaysia is now clearly understood.

Outside of Umno, there are still skeptics … the minorities who are still skeptical about 1Malaysia.

They’re skeptical of 1Malaysia because of the experiences they’ve encountered. They may not see 1Malaysia as something that has been practised within the entire government system. But again people must realise this is a journey.

When you introduce something, it is a journey before you get to a situation where it becomes all embracing. Because you’re talking about people, adjusting people’s minds and attitudes. And of course some people have certain interpretations, certain prejudices as well which are not easily overcome.

So you have to allow this and see this as part and parcel of a long journey. But what is important is not only that the journey has started, but we’re well on our way. We have not reached our destination yet but we are well on our way to getting it embedded as part of our national pysche and as well as our Malaysian way of life.

1Malaysia is already being practised by the masses. It is the politicians who are not practising it for (political) expediency. We’ve been practising 1Malaysia since the time of the Tunku (Abdul Rahman), since the time of your late father (former prime minister Tun Abdul Razak)…

During the period of Tunku and my late father, there was this notion that we must get all the races to work together. But there was no attempt to really define it. There was no attempt to translate that into certain values associated with 1Malaysia.

For example, under the 1Malaysia concept which I have propounded, there are few basic fundamental principles attached to it. Number one is that we have to have a principle of social justice, about being inclusive, moderation…

This is the first time that we’re trying to really define it in terms of principles and values associated with 1Malaysia. So I think it’s a much more comprehensive way of looking at it. So that once you have those, you can translate into government policies, you see.

Government policy… imagine it’s a house and the roof of the house is 1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now. Then you have the pillars, the various Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), Government Transformation Programme (GTP), Political Transformation Programme (PTP) and all that.

But the overarching is 1Malaysia. We needed to define what 1Malaysia means. In the past, people talked about working together but there was no real operational definition of what that meant.

When you first became prime minister, everybody was watching you. Now you have come out very popular, your rankings are very high, in fact you can be said as one of the most popular prime ministers; but the same cannot be said about Umno and BN.

At the same time, you seem to have surpassed the party and BN and also some of your leaders. So how would you convince the voters, especially the urban voters that it will be a new and improved BN, after you get your mandate.

If I want to reform the party, I need a mandate from the people. Without the mandate from the electorate, how can I reform the party? Although we have started making the changes but the process of change needs to be accelerated and it has to be something that is embedded as part of our political image of Umno and BN.

And for me to complete my job, my task, I would require a strong mandate from the people. Then, with a strong mandate from the people I can say: “Look, the people have spoken. They believe in the policies that I propounded and therefore those policies need to be really enshrined, and Umno and BN must reflect those policies supported by the people”.

That to me is the final part of the journey. With this mandate, then people believe in my policies and BN itself will be totally transformed in the final stage to reflect the wishes and aspirations of the people.

How do we know that because of your immense popularity, you’re not being used as a conduit to get BN back on track, get back two-thirds and make it strong again. The fear is that once power is regained, to put it crudely, we go back to the bad old ways.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was asked why he squandered a 90-over percent mandate. His response was: “Even if I get 90 percent of the people’s votes, if Umno doesn’t want me, what do you want me to do?”

Having seen that happened, there is a little bit of fear that the same may be done to you.

I think this time around it will be different. I believe we have learned our lesson because I keep telling that the political environment has changed. I don’t see this as a simple cyclical change. I see this as a structural change in society. People are becoming more aware because of access to better education, because of information and communications technology (ICT), obviously, people are becoming more aware and empowered.

Therefore, the values have changed and expectations have increased and therefore, as a government that wants to stay in power, you must realise that you have to respond to it.

I keep saying that the era of “government knows best” is over. I believe that. I’m reading not only the demographical change but also a fundamental shift in the Malaysian society.

Therefore if Umno and BN wants to stay in power, they must reflect that change. And that change is an irreversible change. So I’m committed to making that change happen. Because if I’m reacting to it then you might be skeptical or you might be fearful but I already read it four years ago. If you look back and study my speeches, it reflects a very consistent pattern. I even started saying: “If you don’t change, you will be changed.”

I said that since day one, I’m very much aware and sensitive about it. With this mandate, a strong mandate from the people, I will deliver what I’ve promised. In the last four years, haven’t I delivered? Isn’t real change and progress taking place? People are beginning to see the picture taking shape. The GTP, ETP, PTP, everything I promised. Even ISA which is something that people couldn’t imagine.

I took the political risk in removing the ISA. (Universities and University Colleges Act 1974) AUKU… some said I shouldn’t amend AUKU. I amended AUKU.

It’s a whole plethora of changes that we have done that will complete this transformational journey of Malaysia. This is a big transformation agenda. This is not just about GE 13, it’s about transforming the nation and I’m committed to it.

It’s quite different if I think about just winning, it’s different. I’m thinking about transforming the country. That’s different. So I’m talking about beyond the 13th general election (GE13). I’m talking about a new, better Malaysia. A Malaysia that can be at the forefront of other nations.

You may be sincere about that, but some of your plans have been derailed by those within your party (including those with) skeletons in their cupboard. How are you going to convince the voters that you’re going to replace these people?

They must trust me. You see, based on my track record, I’ve done my best. But we’ve not reached there yet. But based on what I’ve done in the last four years, I believe that there should be enough evidence that I’m committed in making this happen. With this mandate, the change will be accelerated.

So is rejecting the list of candidates recently, sending it back to the drawing board all part of that?

As I said, I want candidates who will be able to reflect this transformational journey. But as you know, it doesn’t mean every single candidate. Maybe a candidate that fits the profile, because we’re working in a party system.

My hands are a little bit tied in some cases. But I think by and large we’ll be able to put up a team that will be able to convince the people that we have enough talented and committed people to work with me as a team to deliver the transformation that I’ve promised.

How is your relationship with the deputy prime minister (Muhyiddin Yassin)?

Good relationship. I have no problems with him. We have different personalities. But he’s a loyal deputy. Whatever we decide, some of the work I have to do, some of the work he does. For example, when we go down to the states, our officers coordinate together.

He does certain areas and I cover certain areas. If I’m in Kedah, he’ll be down in the south, if I’m in Sabah, he will be somewhere else. So we do complement each other. It’s an integral part of working in the government.

Mud have consistently been thrown at you and people around you. How are you responding to these allegations which will not go away?

Because whatever they throw, it doesn’t stick because there’s no truth in it. No evidence, no truth in it. It has been overcome because I’ve delivered. And they see the sincerity in me… well I believe I think they see the sincerity in me because otherwise, as you said, my ratings won’t be this high.

So if they believe I’m sincere and they trust me. The important thing is trust. Trust. Leadership is about trust. People must trust you. But that trust must be earned. It’s not something automatic.

I think I’ve worked very very hard. As someone that (former DAP vice-president) Tengku Abdul Aziz said: “The prime minister that works his socks off.”

I’ve brought this brand that I’m very hardworking and committed. A seven-day week is quite normal for me. I’m putting my heart and soul… and every sinew in my body is committed towards delivering this massive transformation for the country.

Did you have to work harder than the other prime ministers because of these attacks?

Yes. I believe so. Even my speech at the PPP Convention, I said, partly in jest… Dr Mahathir Mohamad was there. I said: “Dr Mahathir announced Vision 2020. He had the easy part. He announced it. I had the most difficult part because I have to deliver. It’s only seven years to go.”

Are you confident the Transformation Programmes will hit by 2020?

Of course, I’m confident. The numbers speak for themselves you see? Our gross domestic product (GDP) now per capita is almost USD$10,000. We’re getting more than five percent growth. We’re getting the investments in.

So, things are happening against a very strong external headwind. People nowadays, even if you get two percent, people are overjoyed. But Malaysia is getting five percent. So it is a testimony of the changes that we’ve made in Malaysia.

If we didn’t have the ETP and GTP, I tell you, we’ll be in trouble today.

Do any of these attacks cow you down?

I don’t lose any sleep. But I get very agitated at times because I don’t think it’s fair. Because there’s no truth in it. It’s gutter politics. But they are the opposition. They throw at you, and people sometimes have certain perception of people in high office.

But I reconcile with the fact that it’s part and parcel, it’s the hazard of the job as they say. You have to accept it. You have the advantages of incumbency but you also have some disadvantages as well.

But you take it as a whole and should not deter you. It hasn’t deterred me. I have not lost any sleep over it. I’m very, very energised to work as hard as I can, to fulfill the promise I’ve made to the Malaysian people. I cannot let the Malaysian people down.

And don’t forget, from my personal perspective, my late father was one of the founding members, founding leaders of the nation. I cannot let him down either.

What about Sabah and Sarawak? They’re finally holding the key to BN’s survival but they’re not happy with some of the state leaders. They also believe that their wealth is being siphoned to Peninsular Malaysia.

Well that’s totally wrong. If you look at the facts, there is more money being pumped in then the income that we get from oil. And we’ve done a lot for the development of Sabah and Sarawak. Of course, those two states are colossal in size and some of the rural areas are very, very inaccessible.

So the agenda to bring the development of Sabah and Sarawak to be at par with peninsula will take time. It is a fact of life. But it is something that will happen given time.

What is important now is to ensure we can deliver. With the two present chief ministers, they are close with us, in the sense that they are giving us full cooperation to make it happen for the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

The perception is that despite your efforts not enough is being done to address corruption. Each time you say “BN has a track record”; critics can respond by saying: “Of course they have a track record. Look at the annual Auditor-General’s Report, Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), National Feedlot Corporation (NFC)…”

Well, let’s put it this way, after a few years now, there are question marks as well in relation to the administration of the Pakatan Rakyat states.

What are they doing in Kelantan? Although no one has been charged in Kelantan, there are many decisions that have raised a lot of suspicion. In Selangor as well, Kedah, even some of the decisions made in Penang are being questioned now. And that’s only four years.

And looking at BN, it’s been in office for longer and a lot of the problems are legacy problems that I have to deal with, you see? They’re not new problems, they are legacy problems.

We have to take it, we have to look forward. Some of these old problems will eventually be settled but we have to look forward to make sure things will get better. I believe things will get better.

Corruption is something which we will not be able to be resolve overnight. We are serious about it. We have done a lot to fight corruption. A number of people have been charged and the process will continue.

We will tighten up the administration as well. Right now for example, direct negotiation is very rare. Most of our purchases is on annual basis. The MRT project, River of Life Project, Petronas projects…

The opposition has not been able to find anything. And there are times when we make certain decisions, we can explain why we make certain decisions. But opposition love to twist the facts. So that’s the problem that we are encountering now.

Is it accurate to say that your decisions are popular among the people but not popular with people who are supposed to be backing you up. Some of your political supporters for instance… you know, on not allowing direct negotiations is not going to sit well with some of them.

Well they have to come to terms with what the people want. If that’s the wish of the Malaysian people, so be it.

And I’m their leader and if they are my supporters, they must also believe in me. Because what I’m doing is not for me. It’s for the rakyat.

You have said all this, yet during your transformation programmes, you did have some programmes like Peneraju Agenda Bumiputera (Teraju) which catered only to the Malays. Would you say that Umno is holding the country back in its economic reforms?

You have yet to remove the bumiputera agenda, so the continuation of strict policies that excludes the limited participation of other races are still there.

Let me tell you, we have to work within the constitution. And the spirit of the constitution of Malaysia has dictated to us to work towards continuing with the bumiputera agenda. But the policy of implementation is different.

I’m looking at trying to help the bumiputeras who can help themselves. Even with programmes like Teraju, they have to go through the mill.

It’s not that I can help anyone that I wish to help without having gone through the mill and that they are the best of the bumiputeras. By doing that, I’m ensuring that these are the people who deserve the help.

The criticism of the bumiputera policy is that they feel that some of the bumiputeras don’t deserve to be helped but they got help. Through the system, we’ve become much more objective.

But at the same time, it shouldn’t be seen as a zero-sum game. Once we’ve helped the bumiputeras, we must also be fair to the others. And this is what I’m doing. We have never promised to do away with the bumiputera policy. That’s never been our promise. Our promise was to be fair with the Malaysian people. And that’s what I’m doing.

So how important are the Chinese votes for BN? Or does the party feel it can make do because the majority votes lie with the Malays?

No, I believe every single vote is important. And I’m beginning to engage with the Chinese as well. They’re beginning to realise that, look, all may not be that well with the opposition.

First of all, their economic policies now are becoming rather dubious in terms of the impact to the economy. A lot of businessmen think now that our economic policies are going to benefit them more.

So there is this appreciation now, of BN policies under my leadership and we hope to continue engaging with them and hopefully we will able to get more support from the Chinese community.

Having said that, in the battle with PAS, how are you going to win the minds and hearts of the Muslims?

I think people are beginning to see that PAS is not synonymous with what they claim to be. They call themselves Parti Islam but people are beginning to have doubts as to whether some of the actions are based on the Islamic principles of syariat Islam.

Especially, of course, when they are at odds as to the future direction. First of all, they never defined what an Islamic state is. And then they were talking about hudud. And then they decided to change to welfare state… (but) they believe in the struggle to have an Islamic state. However they define it, DAP is not the right partner for them. DAP will be a stumbling block.

Who may be the right partner?

Well, we’re not saying they should partner with Umno but they should have a dialogue with Umno and consider talking to us.

Because if anything at all, we certainly will be more receptive than DAP. DAP is the opposite pole. And this leads me to the point that if a coalition which is so loose and fundamentally not constant with one another, can they form a viable government? Surely the answer is no.

Even at this stage they cannot even have a shadow cabinet. And that to me is a precursor to an ability of any coalition to form a workable government, a viable government.

If you can’t even in the opposition, form a shadow cabinet, then… this is what a wise electorate should ask. You must indicate that you are able to form a viable government. But until today they cannot form a shadow cabinet. And to me that is very telling.

If I’m a discerning voter, I certainly will not accept the excuses. And I would like the opposition to 1) form a shadow cabinet; 2) form a formal coalition and 3) have a common manifesto. And they must stand on the same banner. They are not, at all.

So you would welcome a shadow cabinet breathing down your neck?

Yes, of course! I like them to have a shadow cabinet. It’s good for the people.

Would you agree that we are at the dawn of a two-party system? Would you welcome that?

They claim they want a two-party system, but they’re falling short of it. If the two-party system in the Westminster system, then a shadow cabinet is a pre-requisite. This is a challenge to them and they are falling short.

But you have no objection sir, to sitting down with opposition members? Can we see one day, all of you come together at one table for the sake of the nation?

Certain issues with common understanding yes, certainly we can. But they don’t have any cohesive policies as such you know. They are a loose collection, a motley collection of three different parties. They don’t have any common platform.

But that’s where you come in, as the bigger man taking the moral high ground, saying: “Guys, look, let’s sit down, we can’t be bickering like this all the time.”

Let’s put it this way, I wouldn’t preclude the possibility. I’m open. I’m a great believer in engaging people across the spectrum.

That is the kind of leadership Malaysians are craving for.

But there must be mutual respect. The problem is sometimes, the things they say outside in their ceramah. If they want to be a constructive opposition, then my message is: “Behave in a constructive way.” Then our respect for them will be much higher.

Do you dream of the day when the main ruling party of this country is made up not of different parties with different races but one party with all races?

I like to see that happening. But I think it should be a natural process, evolution. You cannot force it. It’s better for us to do it when we’re ready. Because if you do it too early, whatever structure will be flawed with a lot of internal problems.

And we have not reached that stage yet. But I don’t think it’s such a big problem now. What is important is to put in place policies that are fair to all races. That’s what I’m trying to do.

You are so focussed on youth, the 2.9 million new voters. Your hope is on this new generation to bring your dream of 1Malaysia to fruition. This is perhaps because you’ve given up hope on the present generation?

(Laughs) No, I’m not giving up, Don’t get me wrong, you’re putting words into my mouth! I have not given up hope on anyone. I believe this is a journey and for the journey to succeed we have to talk beyond 2020. 1Malaysia will probably take longer when you reach 2020 for it to be something which is totally part and parcel of the Malaysian psyche.

So I recognise the importance of youth. Because they will provide the continuity. One of the responsibilities of a leader is to prepare for the future. If you don’t prepare for the future, then you will not be discharging your duties as a leader who should not be just concerned for the next GE, but for the future of Malaysia.

A reader quipped: “I pity Najib. He’s a good man but he’s all alone.” Is this the true picture?

(Laughs) I think they’re wrong. You can see in the assembly, support was overwhelming at the assembly. They wouldn’t have reacted in that way. It was not orchestrated at all.

How did you get them to behave?

I was surprised, when they stood up at the assembly four minutes before I finished my speech. Usually standing ovation is after you finished your speech.

And they cried…

And I didn’t do anything to make them cry. I didn’t give them any onions to make them cry. To me, the party is with me. But maybe there is a sense that I’m moving very fast and the rest have to catch up. But it doesn’t mean I’m alone. The party is with me.

… Even if you have to drag some of them kicking and screaming?

No, they’re with me. But maybe as prime minister I’m running fast. I don’t know whether I’m intellectually faster than anyone. I seem to be running faster which gives the perception that as though I’m doing it alone.

But make no mistake about it, Umno and BN is firmly behind me. So I’m not alone, 3.2 million Umno members are with me.

– The Malay Mail

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 December 2012, 10:37 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Leadership in challenging times

by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

I am singularly honoured to have been invited by Rotary District 3300 to deliver the keynote address marking its 78th Annual Conference.

2. We know that Rotary brings together leaders from all walks of life to provide services with very high ethical standards in accordance with the organization’s credo of Service Above Self. We also know that these services helped contribute towards the building of peace and goodwill across the world. We never tire of admiring Rotary for the movement’s exemplary arrangement to draw Rotarians from all walks of life – enterprise, public service, the professions and politics. Given that Rotarians are leaders in their own right, I thought, therefore, it is apt if I were to spend some time and share with you my thoughts on leadership.

3. I seek your indulgence, ladies and gentlemen, to take a slight detour and step back to a month ago yesterday. On the 7th of November, leadership – or rather, the quintessential quality of leadership – was visually defined on television, much to the admiration of the world. For long stretches of time on that day, a particular 24-hour satellite news channel repeatedly aired two news clips showing the reactions of two presidential candidates in a just concluded election for the head of government in a matured democracy across the Atlantic.

4. One clip showed the victor’s magnanimity in embracing his opponent. This could, in a manner, help to close whatever chasm and divide that had developed across the differing political sides in the aftermath of the hustings. Any politician seasoned enough with the ways of elections could tell us that such a chasm is potentially cancerous and could, if not properly attended to, fester into a permanent scar damaging to the nation. This could very well have been the case had the victor not held out his hand in a symbolic gesture to register his intent to dress the wound of defeat suffered by the loser.

5. The Other? A clip on the vanquished. It registered the loser ever so gracious in offering his congratulations and good wishes to the winner after the people had made known their choice. Cynics would have us believe that on show was the handiwork of professional image makers designed to create a mirage of civility to hide the gloating and the disappointment across the two political aisles. But the truth comes across as more sincere and thus the poignant scenes that I had drawn your attention to.

6. In contrast to this, in newer democracies, the practice of the winner taking all has been so ingrained in a party’s psyche that it has come to be a part of the political culture. The sad thing, in this case, is that there is a wastage of talent as, in many instances, losers in a contest of political parties are still useful since their capacity to contribute would not have diminished, even though they had suffered a loss. At the same time, the country as a whole will, in the long run, feel the detriment of this wastage of talent, which talent could otherwise be deployed for the country’s greater good. In view of the foregoing, it is perhaps timely for us to look at how we view leadership.

7. The conventional way of looking at leadership is that a leader has followers. Taking this a step further, it follows that a good leader works for the followers. It is not uncommon for leaders to want to be in a position of strength because strong leadership would mean that the leader’s work could be carried out smoothly with minimal interruptions. In such a case, the leader is seen as effective and the person is therefore considered a successful leader. Herein lies a possible danger; and that is, the followers being in awe of a leader considered to be brilliant because of his or her high success rate. This could very well be the beginning of such a leader being autocratic in the way he chooses to lead. The possibility of this type of leadership rearing its head in new democracies is not an impossibility. The challenge before us, therefore, is to coax society to the next level where a matured form of democracy is practised as a matter of course. In such a scenario, the various political factions should be able to rise above petty partisanship following a contest or an election, notwithstanding their vehement struggle to garner political power. I would submit that it is incumbent upon politicians to rise to the occasion and close ranks as well as bridge the divide in the greater interest of the nation after such a flashpoint.

8. But, what is a good leader, one might ask. Management primers will give us any number of views on good leadership. However, for me a good leader is one who is honest, hard working and efficient. These qualities must be enhanced further by the moral character of the person in adhering to the highest ethical standards in whatever he or she does, while at the same time being a person of absolute integrity. Such a leader as described will automatically be looked up to by the followers; for he or she will not fail to command their respect.

9. There will always be those who would say that the leader that I have just described is more a Utopian concept than someone whom we can readily find among us in the here and now. Well, I beg to differ. I have had the opportunity of working with such a man – the first Malaysian Governor of Bank Negara, a person held in awe by the banking community and a central banker respected in equal measure by his peers for his banking and economics expertise, and for his leadership style where no detail is too small and perfection is a norm. I have no doubt that you will agree with me that Tun Ismail Ali fit to a “T” my description of a good leader — honest, hard working, efficient, adhering to the highest ethical standards and a man of absolute integrity. It was an open secret in Bank Negara that festive hampers sent to him were returned to the givers or were distributed among the security personnel on duty during the holiday period. Tun Ismail Ali’s august sense of righteousness and his high standard of morality gained him much respect. At the same time, he was feared. A joke that was often told by friends behind his back went something like this – even the ringgit is scared of Tun Ismail Ali; that is why its value never falls. In looking back, the proud legacy of Tun Ismail Ali must essentially be that he had set in train a set of management standards at Bank Negara upon which the central bank’s ethos and corporate culture had been built.

10. The notion of the followers as leaders with the leader per se taking actions according to the wishes of the followers is not as ridiculous as it might sound. The philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his book entitled “Power” [Unwin Books; London; 1971], speaks of power – which itself is derived from one being a leader – as having two forms. It is explicit in leaders and implicit in their followers. Going by this argument, it would seem that followers, in exercising their power in an implied manner that is not plainly expressed, are a legitimate source of leadership. It therefore stands to reason for our leaders, as understood in the more conventional concept, to pay more attention to the grassroots rumblings of dissatisfaction by the followers in the last several years.

11. Good leadership must necessarily bring about and put into place good governance, much welcomed and accepted by the people. And the hallmark of good governance is transparence in the execution of power by the Administration of the day. It is also true that the business of politics is to gain power and having got the power, politicians will fight tooth and nail to retain it, possibly, permanently. Towards this end, a leader tends to amass power and unbridled power tends to come in the way of good leadership. An overly strong leader could be drowned in euphoria and should this happen, it could spell trouble and be the beginning of the breakdown of good governance. It is not unusual for such a breakdown to be followed by the start of politics of patronage by the party in power. Once this happens, you can be sure that the practice of corruption would not be far behind.

12. It has been said, time and again, that no society can be completely free of corruption; that corruption is the means providing the wherewithal in lubricating the mechanism helping the world go round. It is often thought that an Administration is considered to be relatively clean by the way it mitigates corruption to its barest minimum. The danger in this thinking is that the thin line of acceptability is very blurry and that corruption is cancerous in nature. It has a nasty habit of morphing into a part of everyday life. It is at this juncture that the practice could be viewed as part of a society’s culture. It is at this point that corruption becomes part of “the way we do things.” Given its cancerous nature, it is at this point that the public services would tend to develop inertia, inefficiency rears its head and they become political powers unto themselves. In doing so, their apolitical nature is compromised and its role as policy implementer, tarnished. The rearing up of corruption’s ugly head is a blight infecting many third world and emerging economies. And the sad thing is that Malaysia is not averse to it, regardless of the denial that we have been spouting about on the surface of things.

13. But it has not always been this way. Those who are middle-aged among us here could hark back to a time when the professionalism of our civil service was second to none. The skills of our diplomats made them much sought after members of the communiqué drafting teams at international inter-governmental conferences. Our well disciplined and professional soldiers were – as they still are – much in demand for international peace keeping duties. There was never any doubt as to the prestige that Malaysia enjoyed on the international stage. However, we are now seemingly bogged down in the same spot, struggling to progress further while not a few other countries appear to have passed us by either in their economic progression or in international stature or in both areas.

14. The situation that we find ourselves in begs the question, what happened? What did we get wrong? Good leadership would mean a good working relationship between the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature. Are the three branches of government working in tandem? Is each of the branches stepping on the others’ toes? Has there been any tinkering around such that the idea of the Separation of Powers has been trampled upon to the extent that there is a crippling after effect? I would go so far as to suggest that in a matured democracy, the amiable relationship between the three branches of government is achieved with the Press – or the Media in current parlance – playing the crucial role of the watchdog of the people. Again, a question needs to be answered here. Are media owners stifling the Press in carrying out its watchdog role and the role of the conscience of the country?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

15. Let me ask another question. Where do we stand in the larger scheme of things? How do we fare in our setting out to do what we had wanted to do? What have we achieved? Is our achievement consonant with what we had set out to do in the first instance? The answers to these questions would show us whether we have been led by good leaders. What did we set out to do, anyway? Undoubtedly, a different person would spell this out differently. To my mind, what our founding fathers wanted – both those responsible for removing the colonial yoke from the Federation of Malaya and those responsible for her coming together with her co-equals from across the South China Sea – was to guarantee each Malaysian a just and equitable place under the sun of this fair land. They had wanted Malaysians to enjoy their rights and liberty with access to the best education that a progressive Malaysia could offer. They had wanted the people to make a difference and be competitively at par with the first world, thereby being able to take our pride of place within the community of nations. In the process, it was the dream of the founding Prime Minister – the Malaysian dream, as it were — to shape the country in his own image; that is, having a happy people led by the happiest Prime Minister in the world.

16. However, the reality today is a far cry from what the founding fathers had envisaged. Young Malaysians of all walks seem to be disillusioned with so many things in their lives. One is the apparent lack of opportunities to get involved in business activities unless you were active in the parties forming the government of the day. Another is the blatant practice of cronyism and nepotism. And of course the disappointment is most glaring when it comes to the issue of corruption which is, as a matter of course, linked to the abuse of power. This situation is not helped by the existence of the denial syndrome and the culture of “shooting the messenger” by the power of the day or its party apparatus in trying to make ticklish issues go away.

17. What is worse is that political parties tend to justify an inexcusable practice by drawing public attention to similar practices of their opponents. They tend to make light of the people’s perception of the burning issues of the day. But perception, as marketeers love to remind us, is reality. It is therefore critically necessary for political leaders to keep their parties clean of unsavoury practices linked to patronage such as corruption, cronyism, nepotism, rent seeking and other suchlike activities. The moment these practices stop, the credibility of political parties will improve exponentially.

18. The question to ask, I think, is where do we go from here? How do we proceed given the highly emotive nature of the issue? Have we been effective at all in combating corruption? Whether we like it or not, our success in fighting corruption will have to be measured against the number of charges preferred against the purported perpetrators. I believe this approach will convince the public of MACC’s (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission) professionalism and independence in tackling the scourge without fear or favour. There is no doubt that MACC has done a good job, but the popular view is that the body suffers from a less than positive perception. In the mind of the public, the body – rightly or wrongly – is seen to pursue corruption on a selective basis. The public seems to think that charges that matter are not preferred. This credibility gap helps to confirm the public’s disbelief in MACC’s independence. Worse, the popular belief – albeit unspoken and untrue – is that the MACC is beholden to the Executive. As a comparison, Hong Kong’s ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) prosecuted an average of 386 persons a year during a 33 year period from 1974, the year that body came into being, to 2007. As a result, the ICAC enjoys very high credibility among Hong Kongers.

19. The MACC is by no means the only body suffering negative perception. There seems to be a general belief that the Election Commission is not quite independent in carrying out its tasks. The Commission has been so badly politicized that we seem to forget that it is a constitutional body appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong upon consultation with the Conference of Rulers as provided for under Article 114 of the Federal Constitution. This fact has been conveniently forgotten in the frenzy of politicking. Perhaps it is time everybody took a breather and allow the Election Commission to operate at an arm’s length to all parties, thereby allowing it to recoup its delicate credibility. I am concerned about the dignity and credibility of public institutions such as the ones just mentioned; concerned because we are measured partly by how they fare. Therefore, these bodies must be able to deliver their services without being doubted by the public. For this to happen, their image must be in good order.

20. Apart from ensuring that these public bodies carry out their tasks at without interference, we must also protect members of the public who come forward to volunteer information on alleged wrong doings. This will be consistent with the idea of good governance. The practice of “shooting the messenger” to mitigate the embarrassment from such a disclosure is neither right nor honourable and should cease forthwith. In this regard, we must stop the practice of using, say, an Act meant to protect State secrets from being circulated, against anyone who brings the attention of the public to a scandalous wrong doing. Specifically, it is time we seriously thought about repealing the Official Secrets Act. At the very least, the OSA should be reviewed. Its existence is akin to having the sword of Damocles swinging above the people’s necks that instil fear into them. In particular, the provision for incarceration for those guilty of contravening the Act must be done away with in the name of justice and in order for the authority to be seen to be just. The public must be protected, by an Act of law, against prosecution in its effort to have access to information, even if that piece of information embarrasses the government of the day. Only in this way could transparence and good governance be exercised, and excesses in the action of the authority be checked and eliminated.

21. There has been admiration among Malaysians for the way South Africa went about its business of healing the wound, the pain and the anguish brought about by the practice of the apartheid policy. That country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was very successful in addressing and making good on the atrocities brought about by the much loathed systematic segregation of its African nationals. A good part of that success was greatly due to the republic’s leader of the day, President Nelson Mandela, who was very statesmanlike in not seeking vengeance for the pains and psychological sufferings of black South Africans. Rather, he showed himself to be a dignified statesman in focussing on uniting the country divided by the colour of the people’s skin. He used sports successfully to bridge the racial divide. In particular, black sportsmen were encouraged to take up rugby, a sport synonymous with the country’s white minority. This non-violent approach was so successful that before long, a good number of black rugby players represented their country as members of the world renowned Springboks.

22. Undoubtedly this non-violent leadership style has been well tested and applied by great leaders throughout history. For instance, Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, having moved to Medina to avoid continued flashpoints with the Meccan nonbelievers, was able to convince the Meccans, through peaceful means the righteousness of the beliefs he was divinely enjoined to preach, upon his return to the city of his birth. As was the case with Gandhi’s Satyagraha and his salt march, from Ahmedabad to Dandi to protest the tax on salt, which marked his passive resistance to free India from British colonial rule.

23. Having seen how effective the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had been to South Africa in bringing that country together without any incrimination, many quarters in Malaysia think that there is merit in having such a body. It would help us address the issue of good governance by discovering the truth about the prevailing state of corruption, the extent of its practice and how to eliminate it as a way of life. The body must have the status of a court of law with the requisite judicial power so that it has enough bite.

24. Such a commission must be able to provide amnesty to those who used corrupt means and abused their positions, while in power, to amass wealth. Upon coming into force, the commission could, for instance, declare a grace period of, say, six or 12 months or such other reasonable period to allow abusers to come clean and make amends for their misdeeds. During this moratorium no action would be taken against them. However, if it is subsequently determined that a declarant had not been truthful, then he would be

pursued and the full extent of the law would be applied against him. A corrupt person taking advantage of this amnesty would be required to go through a rehabilitation programme. He, and this includes both the taker and the giver, would also be required to declare that he would not practise corruption again and express regret for having indulged in it in the first place. The rehabilitation and the oath might sound drastic, but they are not so in the context of the corrosive effect of corruption on the national economy and on the moral fibre of the country. Given corruption’s endemic nature of late, the prescription for its permanent elimination is completely justified.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

25. I have, in the final several minutes, shared with you my thought on the debilitating scourge that has come to inflict our beloved land. I have no doubt that as Rotarians, you feel very much the same about corruption, for the practice must surely be anathema to your credo and core belief. It is therefore my earnest hope that this disease be given

serious thought so that it would continue to be given due weightage it thoroughly deserves and, in the process, a permanent solution for its elimination found.

26. I take this opportunity to congratulate you District Governor Mansoor Saat and members of the organizing committee for having organized this conference in the most professional of manner and wish you all the success you so richly deserve. Thank you and good morning.

(Keynote address at the 78th Rotary International District 3300 Conference on Saturday, 8th December, 2012, at 11.40 a.m. at the Sunway Resort Hotel & Spa, Petaling Jaya)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 December 2012, 4:57 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.