Tunku Abdul Aziz

Terima kasih Yang Di-Pertua kerana mengizinkan saya membahaskan Rancangan Malaysia ke10.

Tuan Yang DiPertua

Seperti yang kita maklum, sekarang terdapat empat negeri berada di bawah pentadbiran Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat. Oleh kerana keadaan ini tidak biasa berlaku dalam keadaan biasa sebelum ini yang mana sebelum ini kita hanya mendapati Kelantan ditadbir di bawah PAS dan beberapa kali Terengganu bertukar kerajaan, implikasi yang berlaku kepada Pulau Pinang dan Selangor amat besar.

Saya melihat perkara ini telah membawa satu keadaan di mana kakitangan kerajaan berada dalam dilemma sama ada untuk berkhidmat kepada kerajaan negeri atau pun mendengar arahan Kerajaan Pusat.

Terma kakitangan kerajaan di dalam Bahasa Inggeris ialah ‘civil servant’ yang sekiranya kita menterjemahkannya menjadi ‘orang gaji kepada masyarakat sivil. Jadi, peranan kepada kakitangan awam ini ialah untuk memberi khidmat terbaik kepada majikan mereka iaitu kerajaan negeri yang berkuasa – tidak kira sama ada mereka ini dari Barisan Nasional mahupun Pakatan Rakyat.

Sekiranya ia masih berada di tampuk majikan mereka yang lama dengan mengabaikan arahan kerajaan berkuasa dan menurut perintah majikannya dahulu atau pun kerajaan pusat, maka pihak yang menjadi mangsa ialah rakyat.

Tuan Yang DiPertua

Seseorang kakitangan kerajaan perlulah berfikiran bahawa penumpuan di dalam kerjaya mereka ialah untuk memberi perkhidmatan terbaik – sama ada perkhidmatan itu dapat memenuhi pemintaan-permintaan mereka yang memohon bantuan atau pun berusaha dengan bersungguh-sungguh agar rakyat mendapat seberapa banyak sokongan yang diperuntukkan oleh kerajaan.

Sekiranya, mereka banyak melibatkan diri dalam aktiviti politik dalam membuat keputusan dan melengah-lengahkan arahan dengan alasan birokrasi; akhirnya perkara-perkara sebegini akan membantutkan kerja. Akhirnya, perkara sebegini akan diperlihatkan sebagai menghukum rakyat yang memilih kerajaan alternatif.

Tuan yang Dipertua,

Dengan ini saya ingin mencadangkan kepada Ketua-ketua Setiausaha Kerajaan untuk menasihatkan kakitangan-kakitangan mereka supaya tidak bersikap seperti apa yang saya nyatakan. Terapkan mengenai sikap-sikap telus, bertanggungjawab yang harus ada pada seorang kakitangan kerajaan awam yang berkhidmat untuk rakyat bukan memuaskan nafsu ahli-ahli politik yang tidak mempunyai kuasa sah di dalam kerajaan.

Tuan Yang Dipertua,

Perkara kedua yang saya ingin menyentuh di sini ialah berkaitan dengan Perkara TS5.4 bertajuk “Rakyat Sihat Masyarakat Produktif’.

Saya faham usaha yang dijalankan oleh Kerajaan melalui Klinik Satu Malaysia yang menyediakan perubatan percuma. Tetapi, saya dimaklumkan bahawa tiada doctor ditempatkan dan hanya ubat pening kepala sahaja.

Sering kita membaca di akhbar-akhbar di mana orang awam merayu untuk mendapat rawatan bagi perubatan. Saya berharap agar pihak kerajaan peka terhadap perkara ini bahawa keluarga-keluarga miskin tidak dikecualikan daripada mendapat bantuan perubatan.

Tuan Yang DiPertua

Perkara ketiga ialah berhubung dengan pelancongan, saya ingin menyentuh dasar baru Kementerian dengan mempekenalkan visa on arrival (VOA), dengan izin yang mana seperti kita maklum akan mengundang banyak masalah keselamatan.

Pelaksanaan dasar ini kononnya intuk menggalakkan pelancongan di negara ini.

Atas dasar ini, ratus ribuan warganegara India telah didapati ‘hilang’ di dalam rekod imigresen kita.

Sekarang ini pun, kita sudah mempunyai banyak kes yang melibatkan pendatang tanpa izin dan kini kita dibebani dengan masalah hasil daripada VOA.

Sekiranya kita mahu mengesani mereka yang masuk ke negar aini melalui VOA, kos yang terlibat berkali-kali ganda. Pihak-pihak yang terlibat akan mengalami kesukaran terutama sekali pihak imigresen dan polis.

Selain itu, di dalam bidang pelancongan sendiri, saya melihat bahawa pihak kementerian pelancongn di Pusat juga tidak bekerjasama dengan aktiviti yang dianjurkan oleh pelancongan negeri. Ko-ordinasi sebegini mungkin tidak memberi gambaran yang menyenangkan pelancong-pelancong yang datang.

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua

Melalui Perkara TS4.2 bertajuk “Mengarus perdana kan Pendidikan Teknikan dan Latihan Vokasinal’ perenggan 74, hanya terdapat 23 peratus sahaja daripada tenaga kerja kita merupakan tenaga kerja berkemahiran tinggi.

Daripada peratusan kecil ini, ramai di antara mereka yang tidak bekerja di dalam negara dan memilih untuk bekerja di luar. Ini menjurus kepada ‘brain drain’, dengan izin yang amat merugikan pembangunan negara yang mampan. Adakah kerajaan sedar mengenai perkara ini dan apakah langkah-langkah yang diambil oleh pihak kerajaan dalam membawa mereka pulang dan berkhidmat di sini serta mengelakkan dari lebih ramai pekerja-pekerja mahir kita ke luar negara.

Factor-factor lain yang perlu diberi tekanan di dalam hal ini termasuklah dasar-dasar tertentu berhubung dengan kualiti pendidikan di negara ini

Tuan Yang Dipertua

Berhubung dengan amalan rasuah yang berlaku di negara kita, perkara ini sudah menular ke institusi kewangan kita yang sepatutnya memantau pergerakan pergerakan ini di antara institusi-institusi kewangan kecil. Sehinggakan sekarang, Bank Negara Malaysia juga sudah tercemar dengan tahap integrity dan urus tadbir mereka.

Sekarang, korupsi telah menguasai perjalanan pentadbiran di kedua-dua sektor; swasta dan kerajaan. Malang sekali buat negara kita, rasuah telah menjadi amalan hidup kita.

Tuan Yang Dipertua,

semasa perkhidmatan saya bersama Bank Negara Malaysia, pesanan bagi note wang dibawah kelulusan saya. Tidak ada persoalan bagi bank menggunakan pihak ketiga untuk tujuan ini.

Seperti kita sedia maklum, wang nota RM5 yang kita guna sekarang adalah hasil tempahan kita dari Australia. Gavernor sekarang telah disebut-sebut, di luar negara sebagai beneficiary (dengan izin) sebagai pihak yang bertanggung jawab dalam transaksi ini. Kita maklum siapakah Governor Bank Negara sekarang.

Saya kira, bagi berlaku adil bagi melindungi nama baik dan reputasi beliau dan Bank Pusat di mata dunia, Tan Sri Zeti Aktar Aziz perlu memberi komen terhadap laporan ini. Hanya dengan cara ini, beliau boleh menyelamatkan nama beliau.

Kita tahu bahawa pihak berkuasa Australia telah membawa perkara ini kepada Suruhan Jaya Pencegahan Rasuah (SPRM) bagi menyiasat dakwaan ini yang mana nilai rasuah dengan penglibatan agent bernilai sehingga AUD47 juta.

Persoalan yang kita ingin penjelasan ialah mengapakah perolehan awam seperti wang plastic RM5 ini kita memerlukan agen yang bertindak bagi pihak kerajaan?

Kita sedia maklum, pembelian perkakas ketenteraan sememangnya melibatkan pihak ke tiga. Perkara seperti ini, menjurus ke arah amalan rasuah ratusan juta ringgit. Saya mengambil contoh pembelian kapal selam Scorpions.

Sekiranya pihak kerajaan serius dan jujur dalam mengkehendaki sebuah negara rejim yang bersih, accountable, telus; maka kita perlulah mengamalkan dengan terapan cirri-ciri sedemikian.

Tuan Yang Dipertua,

Rasuah telah menjadi factor kejatuhan banyak negara di dunia dan akhir-akhir ini Greece yang mana berdasarkan kepada pemahaman pakar, rasuah di Greece begitu luas termasuk di dalam pengecualian cukai yang diamalkan oleh rakyat Greece.

Sekian, terima kasih. Saya mohon menyokong.

Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Tuan Yang Di pertua kerana mengizinkan saya membaca ucapan penangguhan Rancangan Malaysia ke 10 ini.

Rancangan Malaysia ke-sepuluh telah diumumkan pada bulan Jun dan ini adalah rancangan pembangunan lima tahun yang paling penting dalam pembangunan Malaysia. Ia merangkumi pembangunan semua sektor Negara termasuk bidang sosial, ekonomi, keselamatan dan pertadbiran am.

Angkatan tentera adalah tembok atau tulang belakang pertahanan keselamatan Negara. Boleh dikatakan tanpa pengorbanan anggota angkatan tentera dahulu dan sekarang, kita tidaklah dapat menikmati kesejahteraan dan keamanan pada hari ini.

Tetapi apa yang menghairankan ialah Rancangan Malaysia yang baru dibentang baru-baru ini, langsung tidak menyentuh pembangunan keupayaan pertahanan dan angkatan tentera. Dalam dokumen RMK 10 yang setebal 449 muka surat ini langsung tidak menyentuh sepatah perkataan mengenai pertahanan.

Berdasarkan maklumat am yang diberi oleh RMK 10, sektor keselamatan mendapat 10% dari RM230 billion peruntukan. Daripada jumlah tersebut, berapakah peruntukan dalam bidang pertahanan dan juga pecahan peruntukan kepada Polis, Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim Malaysia dan Angkatan Tentera.

Selain itu, saya ingin menyentuh perkara senarai perolehan kelengkapan tentera dibawah RMK 10. Sebelum itu, saya telah menghantar soalan kepada kementerian pertahanan mengenai senarai perolehan kelengkapan untuk lima tahun depan, tetapi soalan saya ditolak kerana ianya didakwa menyentuh kerahsiaan.

Tambahan lagi, soalan-soalan saya yang menyentuh perolehan kelengkapan yang sedang dan siap dilaksanakan juga ditolak atas alasan yang sama. Saya ingin menegaskan di sini bahawa adalah tidak munasabah menolak soalan-soalan tersebut memandangkan isu-isu menyentuh rahsia ketenteraan tidak wujud.

Pertama, saya memahami pembelian kelengkapan tentera adalah sensitif dan perlu menjaga rahsia ketenteraan seperti unsur-unsur spesifikasi dan atur gerak.

Tetapi, soalan yang ditanya bukan bertujuan untuk mendapat rahsia ketenteraan seperti yang disebut, tetapi untuk mendapat maklumat latar belakang pembelian dan pembangunan kelengkapan tentera yang telah diumumkan oleh Kementerian Pertahanan sendiri.

Jikalau Kementerian Pertahanan sendiri yang membuat pengumuman pembelian kelengkapan tersebut, maka ini tidaklah dikira sebagai rahsia lagi. Saya menyentuh:

1. pembelian Vera-E Radar Pasif dari Omnipol, Republik Czech yang telah beberapa kali dicatatkan dalam Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Pertahanan 2007 dan 2008. Dan laporan tersebut telah menyatakan projek timbal balas Vera-E sedang dipantau oleh kementerian.

2. pembelian Cruise Missile diumumkan oleh bekas Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan sendiri di Dewan Rakyat.

3. Institut Penyelidikan Sains dan Teknologi Pertahanan (STRIDE) yang telah menunjukkan peluru berpandu Taming Sari XK98 keseluruh negara pada 31 Ogos 2007 bersempena Perarakan Merdeka 2007 di Dataran Merdeka.

Kedua, pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan adalah mengguna peruntukan awam dan perlu mendapat persetujuan Parlimen. Oleh itu, adalah munasabah dan kepatutuan untuk ahli parlimen membincang dan mengetahui latar belakang atau basic information (dengan izin) pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan yang mahal ini.

Ketiga, Ahli Parlimen dan rakyat mempunyai hak untuk mengetahui senarai pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan yang akan dilancar pada lima tahun depan iaitu dalam Rancangan Malaysian Kesepuluh. Memandangkan pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan adalah sangat mahal dan mudah berlaku penyelewengan, maka adalah perlu dipantau oleh Parlimen dan rakyat supaya berselaras dengan prinsip-prinsip good governance (dengan izin) dan meningkatkan lagi ketelusan kerajaan.

8 Billion untuk membeli 257 buah Kereta Perisai AV8

Kerajaan baru mengumumkan di DSA 2010 pada 20 April 2010 yang mana akan membelanja RM 8 billion yang mana adalah perolehan terbesar dalam sejarah Malaysia untuk memperolehi 257 buah kereta perisai pembawa anggota AV8 dari syarikat DEFTECH dan FNSS supaya mengganti semua kereta Condor dan Sibmas yang sudah usang. Ini bermaksud, secara amnya , setiap AV8 berkos RM31 juta!

Walaupun difahamkan RM8 bilion ini merangkumi RM 400 juta bagi membangunkan kemudahan DEFTECH di Pekan, dan juga kos R&D dan integrasi dan ujian, namun angka tersebut tidaklah munasabah sehingga mencecah beberapa billion ringgit. Selain itu, berbanding dengan program pembangunan kereta perisai 8×8 di luar Negara, ia juga dilihatkan satu jumlah yang amat tinggi. Mengikut kajian, purata kos sebuah kereta perisai 8×8 ialah 2 -3 juta USD, atau dalam RM ialah 10 juta lebih. Kenapa AV8 kita ini mahal hampir dua kali ganda dari luar negeri?

Pihak Kementerian juga tidak menjelaskan bagaimana RM8 bilion ini diguna dalam pecahan kos R&D, ujian, integrasi, pembangunan infrastruktur, kos pembelian harta intelek dari Turkey’s FNSS Company dan unit kos. Kenapa perolehan ini adalah melalui direct negotiation (dengan izin), bukan secara tender terbuka memandangkan ia menelan wang yang begitu tinggi.

Soalan Bujet 2010

Anggaran perbelanjaan mengurus 2010 telah menunjukkan penurunan dalam bidang latihan, logistic, operasi dan pengurusan. Adakah penurunan yang banyak ini akan menjejaskan quality latihan dan keberkesanan melaksanakan operasi-operasi? Tetapi, di sini telah timbul satu soalan. Mengikut permerhatian terhadap prestasi budget KEMENTAH, difahamkan bahawa KEMENTAH secara kebiasaannya membuat anggaran perbelanjaan tahun depan kurang dari sebenar yang diperlukan. Misalnya, dalam budget 2009 menunjukkan anggaran perbelanjaan latihan untuk pertahanan darat 2008 adalah RM35,472,600. Tapi, di dalam budget 2008 untuk perkara sama adalah dicatatkan sebagai RM19,072,600. Di manakah angka yang sebenarnya?

KEMENTAH sepatutnya memberi maklumat yang lebih tepat dalam budget tahunan. Janganlah memberi penilaian yang rendah dari sebenar atau diperlukan. Apakah dasar yang digunapakai KEMENTAH di dalam membuat anggaran ini? Apa statistic dan formula yang digunakan? Dan, adakah kerana tiap-tiap kali Kementerian memberi anggaran rendah mengakibatkan kementerian terpaksa memohon peruntukan tambahan dalam sidang dewan parlimen masa depan?

Selain itu, saya melihat anggaran perbelanjaan pembangunan untuk tiga perkhidmatan membeli perlengkapan yang dicatatkan di dalam budget 2010 ialah RM10. Mungkin pihak kementerian boleh jelaskan peruntukan RM10 yang dinyatakan tersebut.

Sekian ucapan penggulungan saya .

A certain member of Parliament heading an MACC committee has suggested that MACC should not only be given more money, as if the tens of millions of ringgit of government funds already dished out are still insufficient, but also the power to prosecute cases investigated by that organisation itself. A monstrous idea even if the MACC had a reputation for the highest professional integrity which, of course, it hasn’t. The fact of the matter is that this much touted independent corruption fighting outfit modelled on the Hong Kong ICAC continues to be regarded with a degree of disdain.

The MACC does not enjoy the cachet and the public trust and confidence of the Malaysian public. Only corrupt politicians and public servants have complete trust in the MACC, but, sadly, for all the wrong reasons. Someone somewhere has to have his head examined for even thinking of making the MACC a law unto itself. Has the YB concerned not heard of the need for a system of checks and balances or the vital necessity of avoiding a conflict of interest situation in the conduct of public affairs as a means of reducing corruption? The whole harebrained suggestion is akin to allowing the Attorney-General to double as a judge in a case he has decided as AG to prosecute! He may well relish the idea, but will justice be served in the process? Or perhaps we don’t care.

The MACC is apparently only good at bleating about insufficient funding. Many anti- corruption agencies in countries much larger and better endowed than Malaysia would drop on their knees to thank God the Almighty for a drop of what we apportion to the MACC to do the work expected of them, but sadly they have failed to deliver. It is really quite pointless defending them on the grounds that they are still new. The acronym MACC may be new, and we sometimes forget that this is the same old wine-turned vinegar presented in a new bottle. By continually saying that they need even more resources, they are publicly admitting, and Transparency International HQ in Berlin please note, that corruption in Malaysia has become endemic in the system and has assumed Sub-Saharan African proportions. By their own admission, they have failed to arrest the spiralling problem of corruption in this country.

If the corrupt are crawling thick on the ground, in their thousands, why is it that the MACC has been so singularly unsuccessful in pulling in the bigger species such as cabinet ministers, chief ministers, menteris besar and others of their ilk? By your failure, are you intimating that Malaysian public figures are men and women of probity, honour, integrity and totally incorruptible? The money you ask for will be there, but we want to see some results. Is that too much to ask of our MACC that is proudly trumpeted and proclaimed as being based on the Hong Kong anti-corruption model? You can adopt any model, but do not forget that external factors can only be as influential as your internal weaknesses will allow. To use a soccer analogy, do you think adopting the German soccer model will make the slightest bit of difference to the moribund Malaysian national soccer team?

The MACC will not earn its spurs unless and until it is placed under “an all-party” parliamentary committee, and not Najib who himself has many allegations of impropriety to contend with. I do not believe that the chief commissioner has the courage to investigate allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister, and other high officers of state under existing arrangements. Your claims to professional independence in the present circumstances are nothing if not spurious to say the least.

The MACC is its own worst enemy. It is run, and I have no doubt in my mind, by people who are totally unsophisticated in the art of damage control. Even with its reputation in tatters resulting from its questionable interrogation methods in the Teoh Beng Hock case, it is insistent that it will not allow a video camera into the room in which its officers will record a statement of a witness in London which they are going to conduct shortly. It will also not allow a lawyer to be present during the interview of the witness. I am totally lost for words to describe the obtuseness of our corruption fighters. How on earth do they expect us to take them seriously when they cannot appreciate the fact that their actions are under constant scrutiny, and we are watching for signs that they can be trusted? They have to earn our trust by their actions which have to be grounded firmly in public duty for the public good. In short, In God We Trust, in the MACC we don’t without first seeing the colour of their money. Our “independent” MACC has its work cut out for it.

Malaysian Insider

JUNE 5 — I am told on good authority that you cannot make good china with poor clay, and it is so obvious that we should know it instinctively. By the same token, I expect you cannot form an effective Cabinet with general election rejects.

Appointing them to Cabinet posts in such large numbers through the Senate is not illegal, but is it ethical? Jesse Jackson in a speech to the 1992 National Democratic Convention reminded his audience that what was morally wrong would never be politically right.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak, as our prime minister, would do well to ponder and reflect on the wisdom of this self-evident truth so that he would feel encouraged and inspired to bring moral and ethical principles to bear on the governance of this nation. I naturally hope that in the process, and with God’s help, he will find some time to dwell upon his many grave lapses that have brought his fitness for the highest political office in the land into serious question.

Some months ago I had occasion to allude to the fact that no prime minister in our country’s history had come into office, bent over not with the burden of leadership which would have been understandable, but in Najib’s case, it was his oversize baggage comprising a mix of potent allegations of impropriety ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.

While some may be nothing more than coffee morning tittle-tattle among the leisure classes, and, therefore, to be treated with the contempt they deserve, one worrying aspect of Najib the man that refuses to evaporate into thin air is corruption.

People still point to the arms purchases made during his long stints as minister of defence, and what he got out of them through his redoubtable defence/political analyst, Razak Baginda.

Would the MACC care to take a look at the wealth behind the man so as to give our 1 Malaysia prime minister a chance to clear his name? And while they are looking at Najib, I think it only fair that they take a look at the wealth of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his family. To show that they are not being selective, they might like to check out Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his family. I am sure these great leaders of ours are dying to clear their names for the sake of their reputation, however defined.

To return to the blatant abuse of the function and role of the Senate in the constitutional life of our country, it is clear that Najib does not put great store by basic rules of the game. He obviously plays by his own rules that postulate the inevitability of immoral behaviour in politics and that scruples are not for the prime minister of Malaysia.

This is a sad commentary on 50 years of Barisan Nasional rule that has seen this once proud country now on its unstoppable decline in social, political and economic terms. Is this the promised just reward for the people of this country for putting their blind faith in the Umno leadership?

It is also a sad reflection of the bankruptcy of ethical values that those whom the people of this country, exercising their rights to choose, cast aside in a democratic process, have now been brought back into the Cabinet.

Who are these recycled seconds supposed to represent? Even if they were a galaxy of Nobel laureates, it would still be totally indefensible for Najib to show such utter contempt and disregard for public opinion by appointing them to the Cabinet. And these are by no means the crème de la crème of Malaysian brains-those that have not disappeared overseas.

Najib plays by his own rules. For him, offering inducements to voters as played out in the Hulu Selangor by-election with a repeat performance in Sibu was par for the course. He obviously could see no contradiction in urging the people to fight corruption while he himself breaks the law with complete impunity, as always aided and abetted by the ever independent Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, so it proclaims, and the equally fearless Elections Commission.

When will Najib learn that there is no substitute for integrity in national life? It is within his power to clean up his act so as to lessen the burden of the negative views and innuendos that he carries on his back to the detriment of his effectiveness as PM.

He must learn quickly that the ultimate decision whether he remains in office, and his party in power, will be made by the very people for whom he has shown such blatant contempt. He may, at this rate, be the last Umno prime minister. — mysinchew.com

I congratulate Barisan Nasional on winning the Hulu Selangor by-election last week. They mounted the greatest by-election campaign that money could possibly buy, and it appears that money for them did grow on trees. It was no object.

There is no disputing the fact that my favourite candidate, Zaid Ibrahim, lost the contest by 1725 votes. The people exercised their right to choose the man to represent them in the Dewan Rakyat. That was what they wanted, and good luck to them. They deserve each other. But a question that simply refused to go away, as I watched the campaign unfolding before my eyes, was how much of the Barisan Nasional victory reflected a genuine return of confidence in the BN government, and how much of it had to do with the financial inducements and promises of more goodies where they came from. Money was scattered with manic abandon like so much confetti at a society wedding? I must confess in all seriousness and fairness that BN had superb organisation where it mattered – on the ground. Their election machinery also enjoyed the great advantage of being lubricated with the best engine oil that money could buy, – money itself.

Zaid gave an extremely good account of himself and there was certainly no shame in losing in an unequal contest. The whole apparatus of the Federal Government was ranged against him in Hulu Selangor. Zaid lost the by-election in circumstances that were a damning indictment of Malaysian society’s declining ethical standards. BN leaders were obviously in no mood to allow the little niggling ethical or moral niceties to stand in the way of their larger design for Selangor.

After many by-election reverses, they finally found a rich harvest, no pun intended, in the Felda oil palm schemes. Years ago, the settlers were persuaded by the BN administration of Selangor to part with their land in a multi-million ringgit development scheme that went sour. The land owners lost their land and the shirts on their backs. It was a typical greed-driven BN so called ‘fail safe’ get rich quick venture that incompetence, avarice and corruption all conspired to wreck even before the first brick was laid. These settlers who had waited for their money for the last fifteen years, thirteen of which under successive BN state governments, quivered with excitement when they were told openly that there would be an initial small down payment with the rest on the way if BN won the Hulu Selangor seat.

I wonder what the Election Commission and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chiefs thought about all this business of cash for votes, but I expect they have already decided, in a show of ‘independence’ that they say they are, that it is probably not worth making an issue over such an entrenched UMNO cultural norm. Please do not take my word for it, but UMNO does not deny that it has problems with money politics. Hulu Selangor is but an extension of that culture. In spite of claims to the contrary by the government, Malaysia is not an open, democratic nation. That is precisely why the election authorities did not see fit to step in smartly and disqualify the bribe giver and declare Zaid Ibrahim the winner. Evidence of serious breaches of both the elections as well as anti-corruption acts is clear for all to see. I reminded of a saying which goes something like this. “There is none so blind as will not see.” The person who coined this could well have been thinking of our EC and the MACC.

An electoral victory it might have been for BN, but to me it is a victory as hollow as it is immoral. If this is an example of BN’s cavalier approach to ethical issues, then we are being short changed on 1Malaysia. It will remain a mere slogan without strong moral and ethical underpinnings. The financial seduction of voters is a criminal offence, and for Najib to claim that he was not bribing the voters but merely solving their problems is disingenuous, but as I have pointed out on another occasion, Najib does not disappoint us in his ability to perfect the art of the possible. To him, the means justify the end.

The government has admitted to spending millions on a makeover of its image overseas, but it is money down the drain if it persists in behaviour which is patently at odds with international best practice. In this case Mr. Prime Minister, you really have to lead by example or give up 1Malaysia as a lost cause.

The Star

TUNKU Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a senator appointed by the DAP, will be presenting a book entitled Overcoming Corruption – The Essentials to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak next week.

He will also send copies to the Transport, Defence and Home ministries and the Inspector-General of Police.

“This book is useful for policymakers and legislators,” he said at the Parliament lobby.

The book is written by Bertrand de Speville.

Tunku Abdul Aziz said he had followed closely de Speville’s anti-corruption strategies from the time he was appointed Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong, where he made his mark as a pragmatic leader and maintained the commission as the world’s leading anti-corruption outfit.

“The book is useful to those who want to add to their knowledge on what it takes to get the job done,” he said.

Meanwhile, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon took a swipe at the Middle Malaysia concept introduced by DAP.

He said that while 1Malaysia was gaining popularity and well received by the people, Middle Malaysia which was launched by the party in January received cold response from DAP members as well.

The Star

THE Government has been urged to withdraw the citizenship of those who insulted or opposed Malay Rulers.

Senator Tan Sri Jins Shamsuddin told Dewan Negara this was necessary as such acts were against the country’s law and Federal Constitution.

“In olden times, those who insulted and opposed the Ruler are beheaded but now we have laws, courts and police,” he said when debating the Royal Address yesterday.

Earlier, Senator Datuk Azian Osman said he was ashamed and angry with Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for questioning the address by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong recently.

“We can study it but cannot question or review the Royal Address,” he said when tabling the Royal Address.

He said this came about as the King praised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as an examplary leader.

“We must respect Tuanku’s right to read out the text if he feels there is no conflict. Worse still, the Royal Address had to be passed by block voting,” he added.

Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a senator appointed by the DAP, said he would present a book entitled Overcoming Corruption – The Essentials to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak next week.

By Yow Hong Chieh (Malaysian Insider)

KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 — Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim announced today that he was going to give the prime minister and Cabinet ministers a book on fighting corruption in light of their perceived failure to do so.

“I am proposing to give, free of charge, a copy of this book by arguably the world’s leading authority, Bertrand de Speville, on the fight against corruption,” he said.

Bertrand de Speville was the head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong from 1993 to 1996.

The 112-page book, “Overcoming Corruption”, is published by anti-corruption consultants De Speville & Associates and features a foreword by Tunku Abdul Aziz.

“The first recipient of this book will be the prime minister, and I propose also to present copies to other Cabinet ministers who have a mandate to fight corruption within, not just their own ministry, but also the country as a whole.

“I’ll also be sending a copy of this to the Inspector-General of Police because I think police corruption is a major concern to all of us. I’ll be sending also a copy of this to the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) chief commissioner so that he can learn a few things from a real expert.”

The MACC was set up on January 1, 2009 by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to replace the Anti-Corruption Agency, which was widely seen as ineffectual.

The commission was modelled on top anti-corruption agencies such as Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales, Australia.

Since its inception, the MACC has come under fire for its perceived bias in pursuing cases against Pakatan Rakyat politicians while ignoring those involving Barisan Nasional.

The suspicious death of Teoh Beng Hock, political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, also seriously dented its reputation.

Teoh was last seen undergoing a marathon session of questioning at MACC’s Selangor headquarters over alleged corruption in the Selangor PR government before he was found dead on the fifth floor of the building on July 9, 2009.

In addition to the MACC, Tunku Abdul Aziz added that he was targeting ministers “in whose ministries we know corruption to exist”, and singled out the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Minister of Home Affairs.

“These are ministries which are incubators… of corrupt practices in this country, so these will be my primary targets,” he said.

The Star

PUTRAJAYA: MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong said he had declared his assets three times to the Prime Minister — twice to Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when he was the Ayer Hitam MP and then to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak when he was Deputy Education Minister.

Dr Wee said he had resigned as Hijau Sekitar Sdn Bhd director and sold off his controlling stake as required by the Government within a month after his appointment as the Deputy Education Minister on March 19, 2008.

Dr Wee also showed supporting documents during a press conference here yesterday.

Negri Sembilan DAP vice-chairman and Seremban MP John Fernandez had asked if Dr Wee had disclosed his assets to the Prime Minister. Fernandez, who submitted a report to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on Wednesday, had also questioned Dr Wee’s shares in Hijau Sekitar.

Meanwhile, Dr Wee said DAP vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim had apologised to him over his letter in The Sun on Jan 27.

The senator admitted that he had made a wrong conclusion of Dr Wee’s behaviour and had sent another letter to The Sun yesterday to set the record straight.

Since taking my seat in the Senate, I have had an opportunity of watching at close quarters the performance of Datuk Dr. Wee Ka Siong, the Deputy Minister of Education, and I have been enormously impressed by his thoroughly professional approach and attitude to his ministerial duty. He has always struck me as a person of a liberal turn of mind, and I was, therefore, taken by complete surprise to read in the print media that he ” had contacted the Bernama TV producer and the programme host of the ‘live’ show (January to say that he will also take legal action against them.” And all this in an obvious attempt to muzzle the forthright social activist and anti-corruption advocate,Tan Sri Robert Phang, from exercising his citizen’s right to fair and responsible comment on the PKFZ affair, a subject of great public interest. The live talk show was was stopped dead in its tracks
well before time and viewers were short changed.

Not content with using his position to direct and influence the government-linked Bernama TV channel, he again sought to silence
dissenting views by obtaining a court order to force the proceedings of a press conference called by Robert Phang to be halted in
mid-sentence. I have never in my life come across anyting quite like it in any open, democratic society. Wee Ka Siong has every right to sue, but surely he must first listen to what his critics have to say before threatening to go on a suing spree. His actions in these two instances have naturally invited questions about the cause of his behaviour, bordering on the obsessive. He has opened himself to imputaions of improper motives, and abuse of power.And he has only himself to blame in the circumstances.

The PKFZ scandal has rocked this nation, and as he himself has admitted, “his former consultantcy firm, Hijau Sekitar Sdn. Bhd. was engaged by Wijaya Baru Sdn. Bhd. to produce a feasibility study of port expansion in Port Klang.” Robert Phang’s suggestion that given Wee Ka Siong’s familiarity with the project through his firm’s participation in the early stages puts him in a usefu position to come forward as an important witness in the current inquiry into the affair. We should wecome this helpful suggestion because we all have a positive role to play in the fight against corruption.

As a responsible leader, Wee Ka Siong must realise that his behaviour in this case smacks of abuse of influence peddling, and that is being charitable. We live in a society aspiring to democratic principles and behaviour in public life. Let us lead by example.

Tunku Abdul Aziz
Kuala Lumpur.