///Is Malaysia heading for the worst Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking and score in 15 years, when the TI CPI 2009 is released next month?///- YB Kit.

I think it most likely.

We are talking about perception here as measured by Transparency International (TI).

One of the first criteria to combat the scourge of corruption it looks for is political will.

Considering our MACC followed Hong Kong’s ICAC model, it may be apt to cite what Former Hong Kong anti-corruption administrator Bertrand de Speville said about the 7 prerequisites of combating corruption – the very top on the list, being “political will”, followed next only by (ii)“values clearly stated in law, (iii) clear, concise and comprehensive national anticorruption strategy, (iv) an effective mechanism for implementing it, (v)community support, (vi) resources and (vii) endurance on anticorruption…

With regard to perception of “political will”, two recent developments have, by their sheer contrast, dealt a devastating blow.

The first development is the unnecessary death of Teoh Beng Hock in MACC’s precincts – all because of on-going investigation of Pakatan Rakyat’s assemblyman Ean Yong over an accusation that he had paid a measly RM2400 for 1500 Malaysian flags used in Merdeka Day celebrations in 2008, without actually receiving them for the suppliers!

The second development is the brouhaha over RPK/Malaysia Today’s exposure on the Internet of what purported to be leaked cabinet papers.

By the PM wanting the police to commence investigation of the leaked Cabinet papers on PFTZ, he was, whilst making the point that disclosure of the cabinet paper was illegal and in breach of the Official Secrets Act, also indirectly and tacitly confirming that the cabinet papers and their contents – purportedly a memorandum by the Finance Ministry in June 2007, to seek the cabinet’s approval to retrospectively approve a RM4.6 billion soft loan to fund the PKFZ project leaked – were authentic and true.

In the premises, the question will invariably arise as to why, after being aware of the burgeoning mega billion PKFZ problem, the cabinet did not then in 2007 immediately address the relevant issues of likely conflicts of interest/corruption with which this PKFZ project is fraught but chose instead to acquiesce with the cost overruns by proceeding to retrospectively approve a RM4.6 billion soft loan to cover them.

This nonchalance at the higest level to billion Ringgit strain on the public purse cannot be explained when, by contrast, in the other case involving an opposition assemblyman involving a paltry and measly sum of RM2400, the investigation had been so vigorous as to result in the death of an innocent witness (who was not even a suspect)!

Contrasting the two cases and what happened, does it speak well, perception-wise, of the factor of “political will” at the highest level of government, the first prerequsite to fighting corruption according to former Hong Kong anti-corruption administrator, Bertrand de Speville ????

Most observers will think not.

This is where I address the next point relating to the ethical issue related to Undertaker 888’s comments: “Imagine u get caught for giving or taking bribes. Will the govt use OSA to protect you? Will the govt tell MACC not to investigate you? They say screw you. But these goons makan duit in broad daylight into the billions and get away with it.”

What is noteworthy about this comment is that it may be construed or misconstrued as not condemning corruption per se but the inequitable distribution of opportunities to gain from corruption! So what we’re really aggrieved about is not corruption per se (since it’s a “norm” and way of life”) but unfair access to opportunities of unfair advantage/gain (corruption) where certain people (politicians or bureaucrats in power) can do so and make millions with impunity at our expense (tax moneys or EPF) and whilst we see our moneys being lost there, we do not have equal access and opportunity as them to do the same as recompense for what we lose over the other side (our tax/EPF moneys).

Which raises the ethical issue : if we, as ordinary people and voters are two faced – in the sense that personally we would not have qualms to make a handsome profit/kick back under circumstances where we won’t be caught and be held accountable, and there is no dire consequence except only a happy one of being financially more comfortable and giving our families a better standard of living and children a better education – what moral right do we have to want to lynch our politicians for desiring and doing the same as that which we cannot ourselves rise higher to resist if provided the same easy and safe opportunities by power?

Here I am addressing Loh’s other point that “ordinary people within a corrupt system, and practising corruption to stay away from larger problems”, where Loh also says that “they (still) have a right to prefer a system where corruption might be eradicated, and they expect politicians who are supposed to be responsible to bring about better life for the people to do so.

Do we have such moral right to expect of our politicians a behaviour higher than that which we, having such expectations, will ourselves cannot live up to if we were politicians vested power and subject to same temptations and opportunities Won’t it be not a case of a pot calling the kettle black?

A pot calling a kettle black is an old saying where ‘black’ refers to the soot which accumulated on pots and kettles which in olden days were both heated on fire stoves.

Nowadays we have electronic kettle of stainless steel so a pot heated black by fire stoves cannot (fairly) call a electronic kettle of stainless steel black.

The point here is that the pot is different position and in not like position as the electric kettle: though both subject to heat, the kettle is of a different material and subject to different source of heat (electricity), not stove fire.

By same analogy, though we’re same as our politicians (in terms of susceptibility by human nature to unfair advantage/corruption), yet politicians are placed on a higher plane of expectations because they hold public positions of power given by us to them through our votes in reliance on their claims to be able to execute high office with financial probity in same manner.

By virtue of a difference in position between politicians/holders of public service as trustees vested trust of power by us as beneficiaries, what Loh said – that we, even as hypocrites, have the right to expect no corruption from holders of political/public offices – is, in that particular context and sense, defensible…

undertaker888,

Just a point of clarification, I postulated (rightly or wrongly) that generally human nature is inclined towards getting an unfair gain/advantage over others, which is root of corruption in various forms and manifestations, whether straightforward giving/acceptance of bribes, indulging in conflicts of interest and influence peddling. In the premises, l would ventuire to argue that even ordinary people, let alone politicians with access to power, would generally (not all) be susceptible to the lure of corrupt practices if they were not otherwise restrained by law.

Which is why we actually need the law to proscribe and punish corrupt acts in various forms without which, as you said, we all know where any country or society will end up.

To your question, yes the law should be applied to all without exceptions, and no one is above the law, and on your the other point whether in our context the “law seems impotent to these high level corrupted govt people? They seem to get away with it all the time”, the answer is doubly yes. Is this desirable state of affairs? Obviously no. In fact it is because of culture of corruption, the corrupt esp in high places get away from the net of legal punishment when in fact they ought not to be allowed so. That much is clear.

On your specific observation (of which there is no doubt as to accuracy) that powerful/politically connected personalities here get away with corrupt acts involving hundreds of millions and even billions, what I suggested was that even if the situation were opposite of what you said – ie. even if the corrupt in high places here COULD NOT get away from the net of legal punishment and were regularly held accountable by the law – the position will still be the same, and our fight against corruption should not flag or waver. So that your specific complaint that powerful/politically connected personalities get away with corrupt acts involving hundreds of millions and even billions could be construed (and I also said “misconstrued”) to justify or explain the true nature of grievance of what might be the attitude of many other ordinary people, who by themselves, have no compunction ordinarily to seize an unfair advantage or even behave corruptly when opportunities present themselves with little risks of being caught but who would also at the same time hypocritically condemn/lynch politicians and holders of public office for being corrupt….so that one is entitled to draw the inference that, to them, it is not corruption per se is wrong (in a culture where it is a norm) but that their real grievance is that equal opportunities to the fruits of corruption were not availed to them free of concomitant risks of being caught and punished (unlike the powerful and well connected).

I am sure in corrupt culture of politics many snipe at one another not because the other is corrupt and get away with it but that the gravy train is not distributed equally to the rest….

I am sure that thats not what you meant or the point you intended to be made or understood. (That is why I used the word “misconstrued” in my first posting).

I merely used it to illustrate my point about the ethical debate I posed – whether if corruption were a way of life and norm here and many of us ordinary people ourselves were ourselves involved in our daily lives in activities that might be termed corrupt or in the grey area of being construed corrupt, whether we still have the moral right to expect of our politicians a behaviour higher than that which we are prepared to live up to ourselves and self righteously condemn them for their corrupt behaviour….I have since come to conclusion that, though double standards, we still have that right in vindication of Loh’s point based on the rational differentiating factor that politicians and holders of public office should not be allowed to do so because of the trust reposed in their official and public positions which they claim (in exchange for our votes) they would hold sancrosanct.

Sorry, I have no intention to misrepresent your position based on your comment, although I cannot resist using it as a point of reference to illustrate the so called “ethical debate” above raised.