By Lucius Goon | TMI
My wife and I pay our taxes on time and we are assessed at the highest tax bracket. We never avoided or evaded taxes and viewed it as a moral duty.
But let me put in a caveat. I believe the time has come for us taxpayers (and this excludes 90 per cent of civil servants, Umno politicians and their nominees as well as rent-seekers) to consider a campaign of civil disobedience against paying taxes until the government of the day can show that it can utilise this revenue in a responsible way.
I am not talking about the world record holidays/trips abroad taken by the prime minister and the first family or his cabinet ministers. I am referring to the over-the-top spending by the Barisan Nasional government to stay in power.
It seems like every day is Christmas for this prime minister. Tyres for taxi drivers, cash for Malaysians, a few million for this group and another few million for that group.
And then there is the never-ending slush money for BN MPs, the latest being RM1.5 million for every one of those jokers in Parliament. Yes, you and I are sponsoring Mohamed Aziz of Sri Gading.
If that were not enough, we have an MRT project that seems to get more expensive by the day and which is being parcelled out to the rich and connected.
Oh, I forgot, we have an LRT that also gets more expensive by the day and which is being parcelled out to the rich, unqualified and connected.
And then are the billions being spent on infrastructure projects that the country does not need, just so that Najib can make some powerful Umno politician happy.
Basically, my wife and I are working like crazy to pay taxes, which are then used by a corrupt, racist and morally-bankrupt regime to stay in power. Not only that, our hard-earned money is being lavished on people who are allergic to work: Umno politicians and cybertroopers.
I am interested to hear from right-minded Malaysians on whether the time is right for a campaign to stop paying taxes until we can put in place a government that understands it is a steward of our money.
At present, the people in Putrajaya are behaving like feudal lords, “taxing their subjects and spending as they see fit.”
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Malaysia after regime change
By Ooi Kee Beng | TMI
A dialogue about something as serious as regime change in Malaysia must examine at least two vast subjects.
Firstly, a thorough and open discussion about the historical conditions under which the Federation of Malaya, and then Malaysia, was constructed is vital to any deep and practical understanding of the strengths and failings of the political structure as it exists today.
Political solutions in times of inevitable change — as was the case in the region in the 1940s and 1950s — are about settlements between those wishing to cut losses and those seeking to maximise benefit. Those less able to make their voices heard were, simply put, left unheard. In such times, negotiations happen under threat, stress and duress; and the solution is a mixture of ad hoc measures and meticulous planning; and a blend of concession and conflict.
In Malaya in the decade after 1945, major actors included shell-shocked British colonial masters recently returned to a scene they did not and could not recognise; the Malayan communists; emergent independence movements stretching from far left to far right led by leaders surprised at their own daring and intoxicated by their apparent historical role; the sultans and rajas, and many more.
The main issues were: The Cold War; the status of the sultanates; the status of immigrants; the nature of the emerging country; the future of British power; and the timing of the transfer of power and to whom. Equally important and often forgotten is the role ideas coming out of neighbouring Indonesia played, and the impact that momentous political events happening in the former Dutch colony — especially the republican revolt in culturally related eastern Sumatra which culminated in the summary execution of aristocrats and others — had on the course of events on the peninsula.
Cutting losses for the British meant giving up the ill-fated Malayan Union almost as soon as it was announced, for fear of a social revolution also taking place in Malaya at a time when the Cold War was heating up. This, the British could not afford.
With the Federation of Malaya in place — an agreement between the British and the Malay leadership, which was highly conservative and supportive of the status quo in comparison to the Malayan Union — the war with the communists could be effectively fought.
At the same time, the related issues of immigrant rights and indigenous rights were solved through the construction of the Alliance, to which independence was given.
When this structure broke down in 1969, the diagnosis was that Malay poverty had not been alleviated and democratic practices had been too extreme. The post-May 13 regime was thus built upon a neutered parliament and a comprehensive nation-building programme fixated with issues of race. By 1990, religion had also become a major political discourse riding on the formidable back of the New Economic Policy.
The Alliance also transformed itself into the Barisan Nasional, which in many essential ways was a totally different creature from its predecessor. The power the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) gained through the new power structure, the new ideology, and the new laws could only grow excessively, and lead to economic and political excesses.
The second requirement in discussing regime change is to understand what the situation is like today, given how past cures to past ailments became addictions, and have locked political discourses into a fixed and shallow pattern, and given how global and national socio-political and socio-economic conditions have developed. In truth, had the latter not changed radically, the need for change that so many feel today would not have been as significant or as intense.
Wishing for change is one thing, but the country’s ability to handle that change is something else. It must be broadly admitted that the need for change was precipitated by the excesses of recent decades that also left the country with weaknesses that it must now remedy if it is to take full advantage of situation in order to leap into a new stage of national development.
Here, there is no need to reiterate socio-economic changes that many believe explain the socio-political processes that have occurred since 1998. It is more cogent instead to identify where effort must now be expended to ensure that a more united and happy country grows out of this transitional period.
Policy-making competition is the new game in town and throughout the country. And it is this that explains why the accelerating call for decentralisation seems so important. Too much centralisation is logically anathema to policy-making competition, simply put.
Aside from decentralisation measures, be these fiscal or not, certain trends need to be enhanced which are necessary if good, clean and effective governance is to be the long-term result. Here, I shall mention two of them.
First, Malaysia needs to continue developing a trustworthy and professional journalist culture that keeps an engaged citizenry informed about what is going on in the country and stimulates in citizens a sense of ownership in the governing of the country. Information technological advancements are already pushing things inevitably in that direction, but raising journalism to a higher professional level is an ethical imperative and a necessity that requires concerted and conscious effort from all involved.
Second, experts and intellectuals need to be brought back to the centre of policy making. Policymaking is too important to be left only to politicians. Politicians need the help of the various types of experts. For expertise to be brought to bear on policy making, you need institutions created for that purpose, either as think tanks, or advisory units within ministries and universities. Outsourcing of thinking to produce political spin is a practice that is demeaning to the citizenry and should be stopped.
What Malaysians need to realise when pushing for change is that the process will require them to discard what they are used to. They will have to rise above lowly feelings of envy, greed and racialism that the past encouraged in them, and instead call upon their nobler sentiments to build a country all can be proud of. — New Mandala
A dialogue about something as serious as regime change in Malaysia must examine at least two vast subjects.
Firstly, a thorough and open discussion about the historical conditions under which the Federation of Malaya, and then Malaysia, was constructed is vital to any deep and practical understanding of the strengths and failings of the political structure as it exists today.
Political solutions in times of inevitable change — as was the case in the region in the 1940s and 1950s — are about settlements between those wishing to cut losses and those seeking to maximise benefit. Those less able to make their voices heard were, simply put, left unheard. In such times, negotiations happen under threat, stress and duress; and the solution is a mixture of ad hoc measures and meticulous planning; and a blend of concession and conflict.
In Malaya in the decade after 1945, major actors included shell-shocked British colonial masters recently returned to a scene they did not and could not recognise; the Malayan communists; emergent independence movements stretching from far left to far right led by leaders surprised at their own daring and intoxicated by their apparent historical role; the sultans and rajas, and many more.
The main issues were: The Cold War; the status of the sultanates; the status of immigrants; the nature of the emerging country; the future of British power; and the timing of the transfer of power and to whom. Equally important and often forgotten is the role ideas coming out of neighbouring Indonesia played, and the impact that momentous political events happening in the former Dutch colony — especially the republican revolt in culturally related eastern Sumatra which culminated in the summary execution of aristocrats and others — had on the course of events on the peninsula.
Cutting losses for the British meant giving up the ill-fated Malayan Union almost as soon as it was announced, for fear of a social revolution also taking place in Malaya at a time when the Cold War was heating up. This, the British could not afford.
With the Federation of Malaya in place — an agreement between the British and the Malay leadership, which was highly conservative and supportive of the status quo in comparison to the Malayan Union — the war with the communists could be effectively fought.
At the same time, the related issues of immigrant rights and indigenous rights were solved through the construction of the Alliance, to which independence was given.
When this structure broke down in 1969, the diagnosis was that Malay poverty had not been alleviated and democratic practices had been too extreme. The post-May 13 regime was thus built upon a neutered parliament and a comprehensive nation-building programme fixated with issues of race. By 1990, religion had also become a major political discourse riding on the formidable back of the New Economic Policy.
The Alliance also transformed itself into the Barisan Nasional, which in many essential ways was a totally different creature from its predecessor. The power the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) gained through the new power structure, the new ideology, and the new laws could only grow excessively, and lead to economic and political excesses.
The second requirement in discussing regime change is to understand what the situation is like today, given how past cures to past ailments became addictions, and have locked political discourses into a fixed and shallow pattern, and given how global and national socio-political and socio-economic conditions have developed. In truth, had the latter not changed radically, the need for change that so many feel today would not have been as significant or as intense.
Wishing for change is one thing, but the country’s ability to handle that change is something else. It must be broadly admitted that the need for change was precipitated by the excesses of recent decades that also left the country with weaknesses that it must now remedy if it is to take full advantage of situation in order to leap into a new stage of national development.
Here, there is no need to reiterate socio-economic changes that many believe explain the socio-political processes that have occurred since 1998. It is more cogent instead to identify where effort must now be expended to ensure that a more united and happy country grows out of this transitional period.
Policy-making competition is the new game in town and throughout the country. And it is this that explains why the accelerating call for decentralisation seems so important. Too much centralisation is logically anathema to policy-making competition, simply put.
Aside from decentralisation measures, be these fiscal or not, certain trends need to be enhanced which are necessary if good, clean and effective governance is to be the long-term result. Here, I shall mention two of them.
First, Malaysia needs to continue developing a trustworthy and professional journalist culture that keeps an engaged citizenry informed about what is going on in the country and stimulates in citizens a sense of ownership in the governing of the country. Information technological advancements are already pushing things inevitably in that direction, but raising journalism to a higher professional level is an ethical imperative and a necessity that requires concerted and conscious effort from all involved.
Second, experts and intellectuals need to be brought back to the centre of policy making. Policymaking is too important to be left only to politicians. Politicians need the help of the various types of experts. For expertise to be brought to bear on policy making, you need institutions created for that purpose, either as think tanks, or advisory units within ministries and universities. Outsourcing of thinking to produce political spin is a practice that is demeaning to the citizenry and should be stopped.
What Malaysians need to realise when pushing for change is that the process will require them to discard what they are used to. They will have to rise above lowly feelings of envy, greed and racialism that the past encouraged in them, and instead call upon their nobler sentiments to build a country all can be proud of. — New Mandala
PM’s elegant silence on BN sniping
By Jaleel Hameed | TMI
Mr Prime Minister, sir, where is your sense of fair play and Malaysian-ness?
Why are you, sir, so limp-wristed in giving a rap on the knuckles of your Barisan Nasional colleagues who think they can say anything and get away with it?
Is this a sense of entitlement, sir? Because your government has been our only government since Merdeka?
Sir, I am referring to your wishy-washy, lukewarm comment asking BN people not to hurt other races.
Sir, is it any wonder that the likes of Sri Gading MP Datuk Mohamed Aziz are tempted to attack others, as he did with his comment to “hang” Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan? There is little downside for any Umno politician becoming unruly or thuggish because no action is taken to shut down such nonsense.
At no point, sir, did you say that his comment should not have been made against a Malaysian.
“We will continue these efforts and remind members not to make statements that will hurt the feelings of other races or BN component parties,” you said last night.
What does that even mean? No reprimand, sir. You call this 1 Malaysia, sir?
Please, sir. At least have some decency and call a spade a spade.
Mr PM, if the roles were reversed and a Pakatan Rakyat politician had suggested that you should be charged with treason for sale of sensitive info during your tenure as defence minister, you can bet that the MP would have been referred to some Parliamentary committee for censure.
But not a BN MP; they are all untouchables.
Sir, I had high hopes for you when you took office. A man trained to be the PM, who learnt under three PMs in over 30 years, should be a better leader.
Your elegant silence, sir, and your lax attitude to the constant sniping and thuggish behaviour of your colleagues will be your downfall.
I suggest you shape up, sir, or ship out. We need real leaders, sir. Not those who are there because they think they are entitled to the job.
Mr Prime Minister, sir, where is your sense of fair play and Malaysian-ness?
Why are you, sir, so limp-wristed in giving a rap on the knuckles of your Barisan Nasional colleagues who think they can say anything and get away with it?
Is this a sense of entitlement, sir? Because your government has been our only government since Merdeka?
Sir, I am referring to your wishy-washy, lukewarm comment asking BN people not to hurt other races.
Sir, is it any wonder that the likes of Sri Gading MP Datuk Mohamed Aziz are tempted to attack others, as he did with his comment to “hang” Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan? There is little downside for any Umno politician becoming unruly or thuggish because no action is taken to shut down such nonsense.
At no point, sir, did you say that his comment should not have been made against a Malaysian.
“We will continue these efforts and remind members not to make statements that will hurt the feelings of other races or BN component parties,” you said last night.
What does that even mean? No reprimand, sir. You call this 1 Malaysia, sir?
Please, sir. At least have some decency and call a spade a spade.
Mr PM, if the roles were reversed and a Pakatan Rakyat politician had suggested that you should be charged with treason for sale of sensitive info during your tenure as defence minister, you can bet that the MP would have been referred to some Parliamentary committee for censure.
But not a BN MP; they are all untouchables.
Sir, I had high hopes for you when you took office. A man trained to be the PM, who learnt under three PMs in over 30 years, should be a better leader.
Your elegant silence, sir, and your lax attitude to the constant sniping and thuggish behaviour of your colleagues will be your downfall.
I suggest you shape up, sir, or ship out. We need real leaders, sir. Not those who are there because they think they are entitled to the job.
Najib out-flip flops Abdullah with window for July GE closed after scuttling of polls date by Bersih 3.0 rally despite the bravado confidence of “14-0” BN thrashing for PR
By Lim Kit Siang
Confirmed!
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has out-flip flopped his predecessor Tun Abdullah Badawi.
The window for July for the 13th General Election has closed as Najib’s earlier plans for June or July to get his own mandate as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia has been completely scuttled by the disastrous government misjudgment and mishandling of the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.
In fact, public alienation over the government’s misjudgment and mishandling of the Bersih 3.0 had intensified and aggravated over time with the series of irresponsible and insensitive developments post-Bersih 3.0, including:
• Najib’s wild and baseless allegation that the Bersih 3.0 rally was an opposition coup attempt to topple the government;
• the ridiculous and unacceptable establishment of a purported “independent advisory panel” headed by former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar who had publicly expressed his prejudicial views to find out what went wrong on April 28 when a peaceful gathering of hundreds of thousands of Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender for a common national cause for a clean election could be marred by incidents of violence and brutality after 3 p.m that day;
• the shocking statement by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in Parliament that “salt and plastic mineral water bottles” – which were all that some of the Bersih 3.0 protestors were “armed” with to defend themselves from reckless police firing of teargas and chemically-laced water cannon – could topple the Najib government; and
• the continued targeting, victimization and demonization of Bersih 3.0 organisers and Pakatan Rakyat leaders, in particular the Bersih co-chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan – even to the extent of the demand in Parliament that Ambiga be “hanged” as a traitor when what had motivated her, the Bersih 3.0 organisers, the Pakatan Rakyat leaders and the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who responded to the Bersih 3.0 rally were the highest and noblest sense of love and patriotism for Malaysia.
Although Najib went to great pains after the Barisan Nasional supreme council meeting last night to deny that he was deliberately delaying the date of the general election, claiming that there was no lack of confidence in the Barisan Nasional, the Prime Minister “doth protest too much”!
In fact, Najib sounded as if he was taking the case for the greatest flip-flop of his political life to close the window of the 13GE in July to a larger national audience because he sensed that he had not been able to fully convince the Barisan Nasional leaders at the BN Supreme Council with his argument that “the BN was given the mandate by the people for five years” and that “If we call for a snap elections, it means that we have shortened the period given to us by the people”!
Does Najib really believe his own reasoning?
If so, he is saying that his predecessors Tun Mahathir, Tun Hussein and Tun Abdullah were all wrong because the trio did not complete their full parliamentary five-year term before seeking their own mandate as Prime Minister by calling an earlier general election – in the case of Mahathir, the March 1982 general election was held one year and seven months before the completion of the government’s five-year tenure in October 1983.
Whatever Najib’s protestations, the fact and the truth cannot be hidden – that his earlier plans to hold the 13th general election in June or July this year has been completely scuttled by the Bersih 3.0 rally despite his recent bravado confidence of a “14-0” BN thrashing for Pakatan Rakyat early this week and his pretence of supreme confidence at a Felda settlement in Pahang on May 8 when he said: “If this is the kind of support that we are getting, then I think we can dissolve Parliament tomorrow”.
But Najib knew in his bones that there is no reason for him to feel any such confidence, what with the Malaysian eminence grise, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (with some even calling him the “de facto Prime Minister”) constantly drumming home the point that the Najib government is still weak and not ready for the 13 General Election until after the fasting month.
Time is however running out for Najib for he has less than 10 months left – as under Article 55(3) of the Malaysian Constitution, Parliament stands automatically dissolved on April 28 next year, five years from the date of the first meeting of the present Parliament.
Confirmed!
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has out-flip flopped his predecessor Tun Abdullah Badawi.
The window for July for the 13th General Election has closed as Najib’s earlier plans for June or July to get his own mandate as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia has been completely scuttled by the disastrous government misjudgment and mishandling of the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.
In fact, public alienation over the government’s misjudgment and mishandling of the Bersih 3.0 had intensified and aggravated over time with the series of irresponsible and insensitive developments post-Bersih 3.0, including:
• Najib’s wild and baseless allegation that the Bersih 3.0 rally was an opposition coup attempt to topple the government;
• the ridiculous and unacceptable establishment of a purported “independent advisory panel” headed by former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar who had publicly expressed his prejudicial views to find out what went wrong on April 28 when a peaceful gathering of hundreds of thousands of Malaysians regardless of race, religion, class, region, age or gender for a common national cause for a clean election could be marred by incidents of violence and brutality after 3 p.m that day;
• the shocking statement by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in Parliament that “salt and plastic mineral water bottles” – which were all that some of the Bersih 3.0 protestors were “armed” with to defend themselves from reckless police firing of teargas and chemically-laced water cannon – could topple the Najib government; and
• the continued targeting, victimization and demonization of Bersih 3.0 organisers and Pakatan Rakyat leaders, in particular the Bersih co-chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan – even to the extent of the demand in Parliament that Ambiga be “hanged” as a traitor when what had motivated her, the Bersih 3.0 organisers, the Pakatan Rakyat leaders and the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who responded to the Bersih 3.0 rally were the highest and noblest sense of love and patriotism for Malaysia.
Although Najib went to great pains after the Barisan Nasional supreme council meeting last night to deny that he was deliberately delaying the date of the general election, claiming that there was no lack of confidence in the Barisan Nasional, the Prime Minister “doth protest too much”!
In fact, Najib sounded as if he was taking the case for the greatest flip-flop of his political life to close the window of the 13GE in July to a larger national audience because he sensed that he had not been able to fully convince the Barisan Nasional leaders at the BN Supreme Council with his argument that “the BN was given the mandate by the people for five years” and that “If we call for a snap elections, it means that we have shortened the period given to us by the people”!
Does Najib really believe his own reasoning?
If so, he is saying that his predecessors Tun Mahathir, Tun Hussein and Tun Abdullah were all wrong because the trio did not complete their full parliamentary five-year term before seeking their own mandate as Prime Minister by calling an earlier general election – in the case of Mahathir, the March 1982 general election was held one year and seven months before the completion of the government’s five-year tenure in October 1983.
Whatever Najib’s protestations, the fact and the truth cannot be hidden – that his earlier plans to hold the 13th general election in June or July this year has been completely scuttled by the Bersih 3.0 rally despite his recent bravado confidence of a “14-0” BN thrashing for Pakatan Rakyat early this week and his pretence of supreme confidence at a Felda settlement in Pahang on May 8 when he said: “If this is the kind of support that we are getting, then I think we can dissolve Parliament tomorrow”.
But Najib knew in his bones that there is no reason for him to feel any such confidence, what with the Malaysian eminence grise, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (with some even calling him the “de facto Prime Minister”) constantly drumming home the point that the Najib government is still weak and not ready for the 13 General Election until after the fasting month.
Time is however running out for Najib for he has less than 10 months left – as under Article 55(3) of the Malaysian Constitution, Parliament stands automatically dissolved on April 28 next year, five years from the date of the first meeting of the present Parliament.
Bad start Mr Chief Secretary
By Lim Teck Ghee | TMI
In his first public interview since assuming the position of Chief Secretary to the Government, Dr Ali Hamsa said all the politically correct and bland things that one expects from someone eager to show Malaysians that he is up to the challenge of a big job.
From being a cheer leader attempting to rouse the morale of his troops (according to him, the performance of the civil service has been “excellent”) to sounding patriotic and humble (“We need to continuously raise the bar to be among the best…”; “we can’t treat what we do as a job as what we do must benefit all Malaysians”), the orchestrated and carefully calibrated interview with the New Straits Times was clearly meant to impress and get Malaysians on his side.
Unfortunately, it failed to address the two most important failings of the civil service.
Lying in bed with the corrupt
The endemic and systemic corruption that Malaysia is suffering could not have taken place without the collusion of the country’s civil servants. Closing one eye or acting as facilitators to businessmen and political leaders is standard operating procedure for more than a few in the upper reaches of the bureaucracy.
Everyone knows that doing business in the country has to pass through a thicket of civil servants. This includes big-ticket multi-million dollar projects often given out under the pretext of so-called “national interest” where the opportunities for massive corruption and kickbacks are especially prevalent.
Besides grand corruption, there is also low-level and petty corruption by enforcement and other officers preying on ordinary citizens including the poor or marginalised.
Whether it is getting a licence to operate a restaurant or securing a multi-million dollar contact for the ongoing “Cowgate” scandal, the public is fully aware that knowing the right “jalan” can hasten the path to approval or delay or doom a business proposition. It appears that the businessmen and political leaders engaged in activities that have brought windfall and undeserved gains know who the “right” civil servants are.
The fact is that few high-level corruption cases ever see the light of day. Government officials living beyond their means and official income are not hauled up to answer for their unexplained wealth. This inertia has encouraged a culture of corruption to be deeply embedded within the bureaucracy.
Ethical and clean civil servants have suffered in silence fearing that their opposition to hanky-panky would result in setback to their career advancement prospects. It must be disappointing to them that the Chief Secretary did not say a single word in his interview about reforms to clean the civil service of corrupt and unethical practices, especially at the highest levels of the civil service.
Lying in bed with BN
Another major failing of the civil service is that it has been successfully co-opted by Barisan Nasional to act as the tool of the ruling party. Far from being a politically neutral actor, the civil service has failed to observe strict administrative impartiality.
Especially in developments related to the political life of the country, key bodies such as the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Office, the police, the Election Commission, and the official media have helped to strengthen Barisan’s political grip. They have also been instruments used to undermine democratic rights and freedoms.
Instead of untying the umbilical cord between the Barisan and the civil service, the Chief Secretary gave a pointed hint that he is likely to reinforce it.
In response to a leading question whether “some civil servants are being influenced by promises made by the opposition”, his reply was that “they should know better. Don’t be taken in by empty promises.”
Although he qualified this reply by stating that “[a]s civil servants we must be loyal to the King and serve the government of the day”, the intent of his reply was clear.
A string of lacklustre Chief Secretaries Datuk Seri Dr Ali Hamsa may prove to be the latest in a series of lacklustre and mediocre Chief Secretaries in the country.
Mediocrity breeds mediocrity. Because of their poor leadership, the civil service has seen few reforms. Today we have a fat and bloated 1.4-million-strong body that has been victim as well as accessory and beneficiary to the abuses and misrule of the country.
The new Chief Secretary has the opportunity to begin the difficult process of cleansing the civil service and making it efficient and trustworthy. For this to happen, he must focus on removing the two principal obstacles which stand in the way of a rejuvenated and clean civil service.
Can he do it or is he like many others before him having his eye on his post-retirement benefits?
In his first public interview since assuming the position of Chief Secretary to the Government, Dr Ali Hamsa said all the politically correct and bland things that one expects from someone eager to show Malaysians that he is up to the challenge of a big job.
From being a cheer leader attempting to rouse the morale of his troops (according to him, the performance of the civil service has been “excellent”) to sounding patriotic and humble (“We need to continuously raise the bar to be among the best…”; “we can’t treat what we do as a job as what we do must benefit all Malaysians”), the orchestrated and carefully calibrated interview with the New Straits Times was clearly meant to impress and get Malaysians on his side.
Unfortunately, it failed to address the two most important failings of the civil service.
Lying in bed with the corrupt
The endemic and systemic corruption that Malaysia is suffering could not have taken place without the collusion of the country’s civil servants. Closing one eye or acting as facilitators to businessmen and political leaders is standard operating procedure for more than a few in the upper reaches of the bureaucracy.
Everyone knows that doing business in the country has to pass through a thicket of civil servants. This includes big-ticket multi-million dollar projects often given out under the pretext of so-called “national interest” where the opportunities for massive corruption and kickbacks are especially prevalent.
Besides grand corruption, there is also low-level and petty corruption by enforcement and other officers preying on ordinary citizens including the poor or marginalised.
Whether it is getting a licence to operate a restaurant or securing a multi-million dollar contact for the ongoing “Cowgate” scandal, the public is fully aware that knowing the right “jalan” can hasten the path to approval or delay or doom a business proposition. It appears that the businessmen and political leaders engaged in activities that have brought windfall and undeserved gains know who the “right” civil servants are.
The fact is that few high-level corruption cases ever see the light of day. Government officials living beyond their means and official income are not hauled up to answer for their unexplained wealth. This inertia has encouraged a culture of corruption to be deeply embedded within the bureaucracy.
Ethical and clean civil servants have suffered in silence fearing that their opposition to hanky-panky would result in setback to their career advancement prospects. It must be disappointing to them that the Chief Secretary did not say a single word in his interview about reforms to clean the civil service of corrupt and unethical practices, especially at the highest levels of the civil service.
Lying in bed with BN
Another major failing of the civil service is that it has been successfully co-opted by Barisan Nasional to act as the tool of the ruling party. Far from being a politically neutral actor, the civil service has failed to observe strict administrative impartiality.
Especially in developments related to the political life of the country, key bodies such as the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Office, the police, the Election Commission, and the official media have helped to strengthen Barisan’s political grip. They have also been instruments used to undermine democratic rights and freedoms.
Instead of untying the umbilical cord between the Barisan and the civil service, the Chief Secretary gave a pointed hint that he is likely to reinforce it.
In response to a leading question whether “some civil servants are being influenced by promises made by the opposition”, his reply was that “they should know better. Don’t be taken in by empty promises.”
Although he qualified this reply by stating that “[a]s civil servants we must be loyal to the King and serve the government of the day”, the intent of his reply was clear.
A string of lacklustre Chief Secretaries Datuk Seri Dr Ali Hamsa may prove to be the latest in a series of lacklustre and mediocre Chief Secretaries in the country.
Mediocrity breeds mediocrity. Because of their poor leadership, the civil service has seen few reforms. Today we have a fat and bloated 1.4-million-strong body that has been victim as well as accessory and beneficiary to the abuses and misrule of the country.
The new Chief Secretary has the opportunity to begin the difficult process of cleansing the civil service and making it efficient and trustworthy. For this to happen, he must focus on removing the two principal obstacles which stand in the way of a rejuvenated and clean civil service.
Can he do it or is he like many others before him having his eye on his post-retirement benefits?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
