Who’s to blame for the cesspool of corruption?
THE late Tan Sri P. Ramlee was an icon in our local movie industry who was versatile as a singer, songwriter and actor. His genre included melodramas with highly emotive themes.
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim recently made reference to the song Maafkan Kami from the P. Ramlee film Pendekar Bujang Lapok to drive home a point.
Another successful P. Ramlee movie was Anakku Sazali, a tear-jerker about a father and his wayward son, Sazali, who had turned to a life of crime. The central theme was that the father had neglected Sazali and allowed him to engage in petty crimes at a young age. In adulthood, this led to bigger crimes and ultimately a life destroyed.
Before he was arrested, Sazali asked his father why he did not check his wanton behaviour when he was young. Had his father done that, his life would have turned out differently, it was implied.
Malaysia’s tale of corruption, to a large extent, mirrors Sazali’s story. Deviant behaviour was not nipped in the bud but allowed to flourish, resulting in the gargantuan monster that it has become.
On the world stage, we have washed our dirty linen in public, given the Prime Minister’s comment: “I find that the whole government machinery is corrupted. Literally, they are stealing money. Not all but some of them.”
Corruption, like cancer, is an affliction which affects society in a multitude of ways. Forms of corruption vary but generally include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft and embezzlement.
“Institutional corruption” is distinguished from bribery and other kinds of obvious personal gain.
Cancer, if identified early, has a high chance of being cured. But once it reaches an advanced stage, medication only offers limited curative success.
Malaysia has not been spared the scourge of corruption. In 2009, during the premiership of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act came into being. This was the consequence of the realisation a few years earlier that corruption was a serious issue in this country.
The Act allowed for independent panels comprising members of the public to provide oversight on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). It was based on the model practised in Hong Kong which had been successful in combating corruption.
In this context, the article Revisiting Reformasi 20 Years Later ( The Star, Sept 29) provides a historical perspective. Tian Chua, a noted activist, is quoted saying: “Reformasi became a slogan that captured the imagination of the rakyat for a better Malaysia, for a new Malaysia free from corruption, free from a one-party authoritarian rule, free from suppression of human rights. It was a desire for a freer society and where the system must be reformed.”
His point was that those who held power had absolute power to determine the fate of others and that there was no room for people to dispute or question.
That was the power equation in the late 1990s. The breakdown in good governance was already acknowledged yet others either did not appreciate the repercussions or opined that it was “small”. The problem was allowed to fester and mutate – a typical Sazali moment.
The advent of the GLCs, with the promise of lucrative directorship positions for senior civil servants on retirement, had essentially emasculated certain segments of the civil service from executing their professional role effectively. The spirit of the civil service had been compromised and it began to defer to the wishes of politicians.
This form of subtle corruption is not chargeable as an offence. Nonetheless, it is still an act of corruption in the wider sense of the word.
The appointment of former civil servants to directorships begs in-depth scrutiny: Is it a reward for subservience?
While some have successfully managed the transition from the “safe” civil service to the vibrant business/corporate environment, others have failed miserably, hence the sorry state of certain GLCs both in terms of profitability and governance. Public administration and business administration encompass different skill sets.
Against this backdrop, as one of the early cohort of appointees by Abdullah Badawi to an oversight panel of the MACC, I could appreciate the mammoth task ahead. Corruption had taken its foothold on numerous fronts and on many levels.
The MACC was accused of going after the “small fish”, allowing the bigger culprits to escape. The suc- cessful conviction of a former chief minister for purchasing a house below market value gave some credence to the Commission.
In a recent episode, however, the chief commissioner had “expressed shock” over an outcome of a prosecution in which the MACC had been kept out of the loop till the final stage. Logically, MACC officers and prosecutors from the Attorney-General’s Chambers should work closely. Aren’t both part of the same tag team?
This does not augur well for public perception. It was reported that a Western country had offered assistance in combating corruption. While offered in good faith, it appears condescending. We know what needs to be done. Political will is crucial.
As in Sazali’s case, who is to blame? Those who held power but did not consider it a priority? The political masters who, for political expediency and to maintain their power base, turned a blind eye to corruption in its various forms?
Or is it the public who fostered a climate of bribery to obtain contracts which were only given out to those close to the political elite, power brokers and party “warlords”?
Collectively as a nation, we are a disgraced lot. The nation has to extricate itself from the cesspool of corruption.
We need to learn from history. Unfortunately, we have a short memory. This does not bode well for combating corruption holistically, but try we must.