The Finance Minister in his budget speech referred to the Prime Minister’s recent condemnation of corruption and declared that corruption is a “cancer that has to be eliminated”. (para 89)
The Prime Minister had undoubtedly made a very powerful and moving speech at the recent UMNO General Assembly where he even cried, warning that money politics and corruption would cause the ruin of the “parti, bangsa dan negara”.
Two days earlier at the UMNO presidential pre-council meeting at the Purtra World Trade Centre, the Prime Minister had already made a very impressive speech against politics of money when he said that UMNO would rather have no leaders to lead the UMNO Youth and Wanita wings and to have a void in the party leadership than to have someone corrupt at their helm and urged UMNO delegates to reject outright dishonest and insincere candidates who sought higher posts in the party.
I had immediately commended the Prime Minister for his public position, admitting that I had “considerable skepticism” when he first declared “war” against money politics in UMNO party elections, especially as such declaration of intent had not applied to other aspects of the national political system.
I said: “The developments in UMNO in the past two days however had been very impressive, convincing many skeptics that Mahathir probably means business this time when he declared war against ‘money politics’ in UMNO party elections...
“However, it is still too premature for anyone to predict whether Mahathir could really root out ‘money politics’ in UMNO and whether he would have the political will to extend the ‘war’ against money politics to the entire national political system”.
After the Prime Minister’s impassioned speech against money politics and corruption at the UMNO Genral Assembly, I had harboured the hope that this Parliament would be a path-breaking session for the Prime Minister’s tears would be in vain if he did not keep up the momentum to widen the campaign to declare war against corruption nationally.
I had even publicly proposed that two days should be set aside before the 1997 Budget presentation for a special parliamentary debate to show the world that Malaysian political leaders meant business in wanting to establish a world reputation of being clean and incorrupt.
I must confess to great disappointment, however, for the Prime Minister has not shown that the government has the political will to declare a national war against corruption in high political places. In fact, during question time, he even backed down from his fierce denunciations against money politics and corruption which he made at the UMNO General Assembly.
During question time, I had asked the Prime Minister, in reference to his speech at the UMNO General Assembly, whether he would allow the Anti-Corruption Agency to investigate into Ministers who had expenditures well beyond their known remuneration and whether he would agree to a two-day special debate in Parliament on corruption.
The Prime Minister accused me of misunderstanding his speech, stating that he was merely referring to hypothetical cases.
It is apt that I should refer to the New Straits Times report on this part of the Prime Minister’s speech on October 11, 1996, under the heading: “President is puzzled over source of funds for polls”, which reads:
“In a scathing attack on corruption within UMNO, party president Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed wondered aloud where the money used in the campaigning came from.
“Even though the Supreme Council had barred candidates from campaigning, it was obvious that surreptitious, behind-the-scenes lobbying was done at various levels.
“The Prime Minister said the income of ministers or office bearers with specific portfolios in the Federal or State Governments was sufficient only to allow them to live a moderate life, and this had led him to raise the issue concerning the use of money in the campaign.
“He raised this in his speech when he was arguing the impact of electing corrupt leaders would have on the party. He said: ‘If money is needed in campaigns, they would need to resort to illegal practices or by issuing licences, APs, shares and awarding tenders or contracts, etc. to their supporters.’”
I would only want to say that if the Prime Minister was describing a hypothetical scenario, which is completely unrelated to the real situation, then there was no cause for him to cry.
On the other hand, if he was serious when he said that “Abuse of power and money poltiics in UMNO are now widespread” - and it is impossible that there could be a cordon sanitare where widespread abuse of power and money politics in UMNO are prevented from infecting and spreading to the government administration - then let me state this loud and clear: Tears of the Prime Minister, without political will to pass tough laws and take tough action against money politics and corruption, will not be able to stamp out rampant corruption in Malaysia.
How can there be public credibility that the government is serious in wanting to stamp out corruption when the Deputy Chief Minister in Penang and six UMNO State Executive Councillors in Johore, Selangor, Perak and Penang could be disqualifed from contesting in UMNO Supreme Council or UMNO Youth positions for money politics or unethical practices, and yet could continue to hold their respective government posts?
Again, how could there be public credibility when one day, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Director-General, Datuk Shafee Yahya could confirm after the UMNO General Assembly that he had received several reports from UMNO members about corrupt practices among party members, that investigations had been carried out with the help of the police and that it was now in the hands of the Attorney-General to decide whether there were adequate proof for prosecution (Utusan Malaysia 15.10.96), while the next day, a spokesman of the Attorney-General’s Chambers Ishak Shari said that the Attorney-General had not received any ACA report on corrupt practices by UMNO members.
The government’s lack of political will to combat corruption is also evident from the answer to a question which I had asked in Parliament last week. In July, when clearing the Judiciary of the charges of the 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct levelled against 12 judges in a 33-page poison-pen pamphlet which was subsequently uncovered as the work of High Court Judge, Datuk Syed Ahmad Aidid Syed Abdullah Aidid, Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah revealed that the ACA had informed him that in the course of investigations into the allegations into the poison-pen pamphlet, the ACA had come across certain information and certain matters which they said they need to look into.
The Attorney-General said he had authorised the ACA to investigate into these matters, which were “separate matters that would be looked into by the ACA as part of their routine investigations which have nothing to do with the allegations into the poison-pen pamphlet”.
In this meeting of Parliament, when I asked for the outcome of ACA investigations into these additional matters affecting the integrity of judges, I met a stonewall in the form of the following meaningless reply from the Parliamentary Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, Dato’ Azmi bin Khalid:
“Badan Pencegah Rasuah telah menerima surat layang yang mengandungi tohmahan-tohmahan rasuah di kalangan hakim pada awal bulan Mac, 1996. Satu siasatan secara menyeluruh dan terperinci telah pun dijalankan oleh BPR. Dalam siasatan tersebut, hakim-hakim yang ditohmah terlibat dalam rasuah itu telah disoalsiasat. Selain daripada itu segala dokumen berkaitan kes termasuk penyata-penyata pengisytiharan harta mereka telah diperolehi, diteliti dan disiasat.
“Hasil siasatan telah dikemukakan kepada Pejabat Peguam Negara pada awal bulan Julai 1996, dan Peguam Negara mendapati bahawa tohmahan-tohmahan tersebut adalah tidak benar dan tidak berasas, sepertimana terkandung dalam Kenyataan Akhar pada 9 Julai, 1996”.
This is a totally irresponsible reply, for it completely evades my question on the outcome of ACA investigations, not into the allegations of corruption against judges in the poison-pen pamphlet, but into other matters concerning the integrity of judges which the ACA stumbled upon during such investigations.
If the Prime Minister’s Department is not prepared to give a proper reply to this question, then I must ask whether the new matters concerning integrity of judges which the Attorney-General had authorised the ACA to investigate have now been hushed up, after they had been inadvertently revealed by the Attorney-General in July?
Against this background of “widespread abuse of power and money politics in UMNO”, and consequently in the government administration - as the Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that abuse of power and money politics in UMNO would be meaningless if it is not linked to government administration - it may be understandable why government Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Parliamentary Secreatries are not prepared to publicly declare their income and assets.
The Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz, must be commended for his preparedness to declare his assets to the DAP MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Guan Eng, to show that he was getting a lower income after joining the government.
However, his reluctance to make public this declaration does also raise questions that his assets must be substantial. If a person’s assets are just RM500,000 or RM1 million, I do not think there would be qualms about security with regard to a public declaration, but if a person’s assets are 50 or 100 times these amounts, then it is natural to have such qualms.
Recently, it was reported that in a legal dispute involving the estate of a former UMNO MP in Selangor, the value of the estate was worth about RM50 million. This is an eye-opener of the wealth that could be acquired by ordinary UMNO MPs - and it is anybody’s guess as to what fortunes better-placed UMNO MPs could amass!
Last Friday, the Star carried a news report datelined from London under the heading “Malaysia rated among top 10 ‘clean’ nations”, quoting a research compiled by the Merchant International Group (IMG), a London-based corporate and research consultancy, which states:
“Malaysia has been ranked among the top 10 least problematic countries as far as corruption and bureaucratic delays are concerned in a survey of 2,500 international companies doing business overseas.
“Malaysia is ranked 11th overall among the 28 countries assessed, scoring 32 points out of 100 for `country risk’ rating and 47 for ‘corruption/bureaucratic delay’...
“Singapore was ranked top among the ‘clean’ countries with the ‘least problematic’ bureaucratic delay, scoring eight out of 100, followed by Britain (14), Chile (21), the United States (22), Taiwan (28), Hong Kong (29), Israel (33), Portugal (44), Malaysia (47) and Czech Republic and Argentina (48).”
It is a cause for celebration if Malaysia has entered one of the top ten cleanest and least corrupt nations in the world, especially after the adverse Transparency International’s (TI) 1996 international corruption index released in June placing Malaysia in number 26 in a list of 54 countries, which was lower than TI’s 1995 corruption index, where Malaysia was placed in number 23 out of 41 countries - as well as the finding that Malaysia was now more corrupt than in the 1980s.
A detailed study and comparison of the IMG report with the TI international corruption index however showed that there was no cause for celebration.
This is because Malaysia is placed basically in the same ranking as the 1996 TI international corruption index, because sixteen countries which were placed above Malaysia in the TI ranking are not included in the IMG survey - countries like New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Canada and Norway occupied in the first six placings.
Malaysia (26th in the 1996 TI international corruption index) has overtaken and exchanged position with the Czech Republic (25th in the 1996 TI international corruption index), but what should be more significant and a cause for concern is that, Taiwan, which was in the 29th placing behind Malaysia in the TI index, has now a “cleaner” corruption record than Malaysia in the IMG survey, as it is placed fifth to Malaysia’s ninth placing.
I understand that the Malaysian chapter of the Transparency International is in the process of being formed and I call on the Government to give the Malaysian Transparency International all support and co-operation, starting with approving its registration in the shortest possible time.
I call on the Prime Minister not to disappoint Malaysians who had expected him to follow up with tough laws and tough actions to declare war on corruption at all levels of Malaysian society after his tears at the UMNO General Assembly.
Let it not be said in Malaysian history that the tears shed by the Prime Minister at the UMNO General Assembly were not so much to fight money politics and corruption in UMNO and the country as to get his way in the UMNO party elections - or to borrow the words of Asiaweek, to “turn a setback into a triumph”.