This is exactly like the cancer sufferer,if he is diagnosed at 1st stage he is definitely curable, at 2nd stage he has good possibility perhaps,at 3rd stage his chances are getting remote and if he is detected for cancer at 4th stage the medical fratenity has termed this stage as Terminal and aptly too since he hasn’t got a shadow of hope of coming out alive.Likewise for UMNO-led Malaysia,we can classify her ailment (incurable corruption) as having arrived at the Terminal Stage and is best left for the disease to take its natural course. So for this reason DAP should therefore be urged to stop wasting its time to urge the government to effect any type of reform in the first place.We have ample evidence showing how greed has eaten them up that they are incapable of serving for the good of the nation.

Perhaps the “on one hand it is this, and on the other hand it is that” language confused a non-lawyer like me !

Anyway the debate has strayed too far here from its original point where it started.

The suggestion that a dishonest character could well do an exceptional honest act has not been urged upon here by anyone let alone me to argue an excuse that BN should be given any allowance to stay in power to prove itself. It is only a bias mind that reads in it something that is not there.

We are merely discussing the govt’s proposal of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (”MCAC”).

I am not stopping anyone here from his/her point of view in having misgivings about MCAC based on the suspicions of improbabilty that people in power being mostly corrupted in one way or the other would be very keen to have an effective MCAC to set trap for themselves.

I am merely suggesting that for people and Opposition like DAP that always urge and press the BN govt for reform, the least they could do when the govt comes out with the proposal like MCAC is to study the details of the MCAC’s structure and composition first and if there were a cogent reason to shoot it down, by all means do so, if based on the right reason of the weakness or loop hole of the MCAC’s structure and composition rather than the fact alone that it is proposed by the government, not known for its political will or record to address corruption.

If one were to criticise based only on the latter reason – and to conclude that nothing the BN govt ever proposes could ever be right, honest or deserving of an attempt to evaluate it based on merits/demerits of the proposal itself – then why waste time asking, urging and cajoling the BN govt all the time to effect reforms in the first place?

I had thought that this was simple enough to understand.

Oops, I might be putting LKS in trouble for libel/defamation.

I take it that this question was directed at me. The answer to that is no, I don’t criticise or object just for the sake of critising or objecting. I set out the reasons why I am criticising or objecting. I give others a different perspective to the issue at hand. I deal in probability and not in mere possibility.

The mere suggestion that a dishonest character could well do an exceptional honest act is exactly the reason that BN uses to stay in power. Be patient, give us more time to reform – that has always been BN’s plea. If we go by Jeffrey’s “allowance”, then we should give BN another 50 years to do good. If we go by mere possibilities, then of course anything can happen. but look at the PROBABILITY.

This is not a court of law, where any shred of doubt should go to the defence. The defence in this instance has had 30 plus years of dishonesty where no benefit of any doubt should be accorded to them.

“This kind of thinking is based on the asumption that becuase a person is dishonest then every act and proposal that emanates from him must in all instances be also dishonest, a proposition that does not allow the exceptional possibility of any honest act from a dishonest character ; and one that ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from his dishonest character that might otherwise lead to him doing an exceptional honest act. ”

Give us real life examples. Confine these examples to Bolehland. Don’t just talk about theoretical possibilities.

Razalieigh should call up the new CJ Zaki and ask for his advice.

If one takes the view that the UMNO/BN govt can never be sincere – a view which I am not prepared to dispute or discredit – then the proper and logical thing is to ask or work towards only for only one thing and one thing only – their dismissal/resignation/displacement as a government – and desist from urging, calling or urging them to effect this and that reform because whatever reforms they institute, one is not prepared to evaluate the reforms on its merits/demerits but is going to only pre-emptively adjudge afore hand that these reforms are hypocritical and won’t work because of the character of those who propose them.

This kind of thinking is based on the asumption that becuase a person is dishonest then every act and proposal that emanates from him must in all instances be also dishonest, a proposition that does not allow the exceptional possibility of any honest act from a dishonest character ; and one that ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from his dishonest character that might otherwise lead to him doing an exceptional honest act.

If one holds such a view then one ought not at the same time urge and call upon someone – whom one is already convinced of being congenitally incapable of doing an honest act – to do an honest act. What for? It is a waste of time!

To know whether there is any political will to rid the country of corruption, just look at those who are running the country!
In fact, the fellow with the most baggage is the premier in waiting!
Doesn’t this tell you anything?
Would such people institute any commission or agency to really investigate them or have only those who will only give them the all clear at the end of the “investigation”?
Haven’t you read enough of such things happening in this country?

However this fact alone is not a good basis to pour cold water on the govt’s proposal of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (“MCAC”).

For it is just as valid or invalid to speculate that the MCAC is the beginning of that political will.

The MCAC should rightly be judged – whether it is another show case or something more – based on its composition, workings and within built in check and balance.

Lets see when the MCAC Bill is tabled for debate in the current meeting of Parliament to replace the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. We will have a clearer picture and basis of comments then.

The PM said that the MCAC was modeled after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption and New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption, “which are among the best anti-corruption agencies in the world”.

Now “modeled after” does not mean the same or similar : there will be inevitable differences.

To what extent MCAC is “modeled after” will also depend on the extent to which it departs from Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption and New South Wales’ Independent Commission.

So we have to look at the structure of MCAC.

However structure is one thing, the people who implement and operate it and their culture – whether they believe in integrity or hypocrisy – is another thing, and it takes both for corruption to be tackled by such an institution on a continuous basis.