Going
by what is making the rounds in the media, on and off line, Malaysians have
every right to be questioning the sincerity of the Federal Government’s stated
commitment to transparent and accountable governance. I think we have every
justification to wonder whether the Government even truly understands what
corporate governance means.
Malaysians
have over the last two decades or been given enough grist for the proverbial
mill. Every so often, information would present itself in the public domain for
us to doubt that government really knew best, or that it consistently acted in
the public interest. Accusations of cronyism and self-interest plagued the
Mahathir administration, as they did the administration of Abdullah Badawi.
Granted, there were more exposes where the latter was concerned, though this
was primarily due to the burgeoning role of social media in the Malaysian and
Tun Abdullah being less iron-fisted.
Suffice
it to say that over the years, righty or wrongly, Malaysians have become more
convinced that the Government tends to act only in its own interests. And where
the perception used to be that the Government acted with regard to primarily
its political interests, it is now widely believed that the member of
Government equally act in their own financial interests.
This
is a state of mind that the Government’s continued rhetoric on eradicating
corruption does little to address; rhetoric that the Government must surely
recognise has minimal, if at all, impact. This is largely due to the fact that
Malaysians are given precious little to form a belief that the Government does
actually walk the talk.
Consider
the recent recommendation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)
Advisory Board that Ministers and their families declare their assets to the
MACC. One would have thought that this was a step that needed no
recommendation, or the recommendation having been made by a specialist Advisory
Board tasked with making recommendations of that nature, it would warrant
little or no debate from the Government. Yet, a Federal Minister opposed the
suggestion on the ground that it would endanger Ministers. From what exactly
was not made clear though perhaps, if viewed as a Freudian slip, it conveyed
the Minister’s fear of transparency.
It
is not very surprising that despite the obvious political fiasco the National
Feedlot Corporation (NFC) affair has precipitated, the Government still acts as
if there was really nothing wrong with the public funds disbursed to NFC being
utilised for the personal purposes of NFC directors and shareholders. This was
in spite of some Ministers believing, a viewpoint that I share, that the public
funds had been entrusted to NFC for a specific purpose. One would have thought
the Government would have directed the Attorney General to take all necessary
steps to secure the funds and ensure their return to the Treasury. It goes
without saying that the Attorney General has an arsenal of legal provisions at
his disposal for that purpose and the resources to commence recovery
proceedings worldwide if necessary. The Government has instead incomprehensibly
left it to the Attorney General to commence prosecution on charges that go
merely to compliance with the Companies Act.
It
may be that there is more than the obvious to the NFC affair, perhaps even some
mysterious self-evidently exculpating dimension. Whatever the case, it does the
Government little credit for it to act as if the saga was just an event in the
ordinary course of government. And the truth, as alarming as it is, may be that
the Government does really view it that way.
That
may explain why the Prime Minister does not appear to feel that it is highly disconcerting
for his official offices to have been used for the organisation of his
daughter’s engagement. The event, as happy as it is for the families involved,
is just that: a family affair. Leaving aside the crucial question of whether
the Prime Minister’s Office paid for the event, it was highly inappropriate for
the Prime Minister to have utilised government resources for a personal matter.
His having done so speaks of a blurring of the lines between the personal and
the official in the highest executive office of the nation with all its
attendant ramifications and implications.
The
fact that the use of the Prime Minister’s Office for personal purposes was not
limited to the engagement celebration, going by what has been revealed
concerning the Prime Minister’s birthday celebrations, suggests that this sort
of thing happens regularly. This may even be the case where the other members
of cabinet are concerned. In these
circumstances, Malaysians have every justification to ask whether the Prime
Minister and the members of his cabinet address matters of state with the same
ambiguity.
There
is enough material in the public domain for us to reasonably form the view that
they do. Consider the consistent demands by the Opposition and civil society
for more accountability and transparency in government spending and the
unwillingness of Government to respond meaningfully. The raging controversy
over the NFC has as yet not resulted in public disclosure of how it is that NFC
came to be granted the soft loan. Other commitments on the part of the
Government that have made the news recently are similarly opaque.
These,
and other instances, are fueling grave concern over the state of the country’s
finances. Unbridled public spending over contracts that have not been made
subject to open tenders, some of which involve what could be described as
non-arms-length parties, have been shown around the world to be recipes of
disaster. But then, we know all that and the question in our hearts is really
how far are we from the brink.
Going
by what we have learned about the extravagant lifestyles of our leaders we
might have reason to believe that all is well. Surely they would not be
spending money as if it was going out of fashion, personally and
professionally, if there was cause for concern. Or would they.
The
fact is we really do not know, and that is at the heart of the matter. A
democratically elected government is one that is accountable to the electorate.
Voters did not elect a majority to form a government that would run the
nation’s affairs covertly or by stealth. Any such government would simply not
be tenable.
MIS
(This article was first published in The Edge, 17.03.2012)
